Intelligent design

[TRoutMac]

You fell free to reject macro-evolution; yet, if someone rejects Intelligent Design you call that person biased and not objective. Even if you are doing the same thing.

 

But do I reject it on the merits of the evidence, or do I reject it based soley on a personal, subjective opinion? Answer: Merits of the evidence. That's the big difference, Edge. I am being objective, because I'm looking at the evidence. People are not rejecting Intelligent Design on the merits of evidence.

 

Everyone admits that Intelligent Design is an excellent explanation for things like crop circles, Stonehenge, Nasca Lines and the Rosetta Stone… all things which exhibit complex specified information. And yet, when they see complex specified information in living systems, they reject it. That's embarassingly inconsistent and illogical. Either Intelligent Design is a good explanation for everything that exhibits complex specified information, or it's not a good explanation for anything that exhibits complex specified information. Why do they draw the line where they draw it? Because, as I said before, they don't want any evidence to lend even a shred of support to the Biblical, Christian account of origins. And that is their own personal subjective motivation.

 

Are you sure about this? It may seem impossible; however, it still can be possible.

 

Well, I sure wish someone would answer my question then. I keep asking this, and yet no one can give me an answer, which pretty much tells me that I've backed them into a corner. How do you get from a sundew to a venus flytrap through small, successive changes? How does the intermediate "species" capture insects when it has neither fully functional insect-trapping system? If this is so eminently possible and plausible, why can't anyone explain how this happens? Why won't anyone face the difficulty of this question with specifics? If the sundew gained the features of the venus flytrap, but waited to lose the features of a sundew until after its fly trap features were fully functional, how did the organism survive all those years with those superfluous, useless features that would later become a fly trap? And where are all the fossils showing us these intermediates?

 

No, I contend it is entirely ]impossible.

 

Okay, your conclusion, respected. Now, why do scientists still accept evolution? They are not convinced that macro-evolution is utter nonsense like you say. Many of them think it's possible and yet, they may have good hypothesis on how is this possible.

 

Not all scientists accept evolution. At least not on the macro-scale. Why do many scientists accept macro-evolution? I can't answer that with certainty. My suspicion is that many accept it simply because it's what they're taught, and since they were never taught the weaknesses of evolution, they never saw reason to question it. Still, others probably accept it because they simply refuse, due to personal biases, to accept the alternative.

 

Do you expect scientists to abandon macroevolution just like that? They still need better understanding of the Intelligent Design proposal and check if there aren't false or fallacious claims in the theory. And finally to see of macro-evolution is indeed impossible or almost impossible.

 

No, I expect it to take some time for science as a whole to "come around". And I believe it will. Give it another ten years or so.

 

Is true that there is order in the universe. Yet, the only thing I know and believe to be constant is the speed of light. Not even the "solar constant" is really constant.

 

Hmmm. You mean we had a guy 4.5 billion years ago who was equipped to measure the speed of light back then, and his instrumentation agrees with present-day instrumention? Wow. I had no idea. (sorry for the sarcasm) You see the problem? Look… I dunno whether the speed of light in constant or not. But I can be certain of this… even if we had 100 years of data which shows a virtually constant speed of light, you cannot extrapolate that over 4.5 billion years and say that the speed of light is constant over such a period. Instrumention can be incredibly accurate, yes… but there is always some error, and 100 years -- or even 1000 years -- is nothing compared to 4.5 billion years. A tiny, immeasurable error over 100 years will translate to an enormous error over 4.5 billion years. As precise as our instrumentation may be, it ain't precise enough to make the claims they make.

 

 

 

I don't see why if we were designed then Evolution can't happen. Is something that I still wonder. Intelligent Design = We were designated. Evolution = Development of life through Earth.

 

I agree, in an abstract, hypothetical sense. Unfortunately, when the evidence is examined objectively, it appears that macro-evolution is impossible.

 

Natural selection is part of the Evolution theory, why would a theory go against itself?

 

Natural selection is part of micro-evolution, and in that context it makes sense. I don't reject it. But natural selection prevents macro-evolution because, if you refer again to my sundew/fly trap example, the functionless intermediate forms are selected for extinction because they have no way to capture food, or at the very least, can't capture food as efficiently as the original sundew form. Natural selection prevents the fly trap from ever appearing because its predecessors weren't fit to survive. That natural selection works against a portion of their theory is their problem, not mine.

 

Many people that reject evolution (I'm not saying that you, but there are many people that do this) do it because it does not match with the Bible. At least according to them. This is not objective either.

 

You're right. It's not. Just understand that while I believe the Bible, that's not my justification for having accepted Intelligent Design. You'll just have to take my word for that.

 

Not exactly. They are afraid that this movement will be a step in order to introduce religion in science classes.

 

Oh, sure, that's what they claim their objection is, but it's unfounded. Intelligent Design isn't religion and again I must make the audacious claim that Intelligent Design is more religiously neutral than evolution. So if that's their concern, they can relax. But it's not. They just don't want to allow anything that might lend support (even if only implicitly) to the Biblical account.

[Erasmus00]

But do I reject it on the merits of the evidence, or do I reject it based soley on a personal, subjective opinion? Answer: Merits of the evidence. That's the big difference, Edge. I am being objective, because I'm looking at the evidence. People are not rejecting Intelligent Design on the merits of evidence.

 

You are a Christian, and seemingly quite a conservative interpreter of the bible. You already believed in intelligent design when you went to examine the evidence. You are as biased as anyone in this conversation. Believe what you want to believe, but remember that you are as biased as everyone else.

 

Not all scientists accept evolution. At least not on the macro-scale. Why do many scientists accept macro-evolution? I can't answer that with certainty. My suspicio n is that many accept it simply because it's what they're taught, and since they were never taught the weaknesses of evolution, they never saw reason to question it. Still, others probably accept it because they simply refuse, due to personal biases, to accept the alternative.

 

First of all, its not just "many" scientists, its the overwhelming majority of scientists. Now, I know science isn't decided by vote, but you should be aware just how much of a minority your position is. Consider project steve.

 

Now, I would point out that scientists are among the most sceptical people on the planet. You are trained, as a scientists, to probe, and to question. Any scientists who simply accepts something "because its what they're taught" and doesn't take the time to internalize the material and make it their own is not a good scientist.

-Will

[TRoutMac]

You are a Christian, and seemingly quite a conservative interpreter of the bible. You already believed in intelligent design when you went to examine the evidence. You are as biased as anyone in this conversation.

 

It's true that I accepted on the basis of faith that God existed and created the universe long before I heard the term "Intelligent Design". I would point out that I was recognizing the apparent design (in those terms) when I was as young as, oh, twelve. Having become interested in fly fishing and fly tying at an early age, I handled bird's wings frequently and was always intrigued by the obvious appearance of design, just as an airplane wing was obviously designed. It was obvious to me apart from my faith that these birds were amazing examples of very, very advanced engineering. So, the question is, can I set aside my personal bias and evaluate the evidence objectively? Answer: Yes.

 

First of all, its not just "many" scientists, its the overwhelming majority of scientists. Now, I know science isn't decided by vote, but you should be aware just how much of a minority your position is.

 

I am aware that scientists in the realm of origin-of-life studies who support Intelligent Design are in the minority. I'm also aware that doesn't make them wrong, nor does it mean Intelligent Design is not science. It may merely mean that the other scientists haven't gotten a clue yet.

 

Now, I would point out that scientists are among the most sceptical people on the planet. You are trained, as a scientist, to probe, and to question. Any scientists who simply accepts something "because its what they're taught" and doesn't take the time to internalize the material and make it their own is not a good scientist.

 

And yet, Michael Behe says he was taught evolution, accepted it initially, and subsequently began to question it. As a consequence he's now in a position of being ostracized by the rest of the faculty at Lehigh University where he is a tenured biochemistry professor. Ostracized for doing just what you claim a good scientist should do. What does that tell you?

[Erasmus00]

So, the question is, can I set aside my personal bias and evaluate the evidence objectively? Answer: Yes.

 

But you "recognized" they were designed because you already believed they were. Everyone believes they can put aside their personal bias and evaluate things objectively. I firmly believe that the "objective" evidence points away from your intelligent design. Your problem is that you assume that ID is so "obvious" that the rest of us must be idiots and you discount any arguments against it.

-Will

[Edge]

But do I reject it on the merits of the evidence, or do I reject it based soley on a personal, subjective opinion? Answer: Merits of the evidence. That's the big difference, Edge. I am being objective, because I'm looking at the evidence. People are not rejecting Intelligent Design on the merits of evidence.

It's good that you reject macro-evolution because you checked it and it didn't make sense to you, or you decided it was totally impossible. However, people also reject Intelligent Design because of that "junk" DNA. And because well, they see macro-evolution possible.

 

Everyone admits that Intelligent Design is an excellent explanation for things like crop circles, Stonehenge, Nasca Lines and the Rosetta Stone… all things which exhibit complex specified information. And yet, when they see complex specified information in living systems, they reject it. That's embarassingly inconsistent and illogical.

People have given you example of complex things that happens in nature. Like diamonds and whatnot. Those were the consequence of undirected processes. DNA is a natural thing... besides, I have heard of an experiment where DNA was created by simulating a natural scenario... dunno about it.

 

Either Intelligent Design is a good explanation for everything that exhibits complex specified information, or it's not a good explanation for anything that exhibits complex specified information. Why do they draw the line where they draw it? Because, as I said before, they don't want any evidence to lend even a shred of support to the Biblical, Christian account of origins. And that is their own personal subjective motivation.

Same goes with Intelligent Design people. They don't want any evidence to lend a little of support to macro-evolution. It's just a matter of perception, don't you think?

 

 

Well, I sure wish someone would answer my question then. I keep asking this, and yet no one can give me an answer, which pretty much tells me that I've backed them into a corner. How do you get from a sundew to a venus flytrap through small, successive changes? How does the intermediate "species" capture insects when it has neither fully functional insect-trapping system? If this is so eminently possible and plausible, why can't anyone explain how this happens? Why won't anyone face the difficulty of this question with specifics? If the sundew gained the features of the venus flytrap, but waited to lose the features of a sundew until after its fly trap features were fully functional, how did the organism survive all those years with those superfluous, useless features that would later become a fly trap? And where are all the fossils showing us these intermediates?

So, one unexplained example makes a hypothesis invalid?

 

That would be like rejecting Intelligent Design because "junk" DNA has not been explained.

No, I contend it is entirely ]impossible.

... OK then.

 

No, I expect it to take some time for science as a whole to "come around". And I believe it will. Give it another ten years or so.

Exactly. :evil:

 

Hmmm. You mean we had a guy 4.5 billion years ago who was equipped to measure the speed of light back then, and his instrumentation agrees with present-day instrumention? Wow. I had no idea. (sorry for the sarcasm) You see the problem? Look… I dunno whether the speed of light in constant or not. But I can be certain of this… even if we had 100 years of data which shows a virtually constant speed of light, you cannot extrapolate that over 4.5 billion years and say that the speed of light is constant over such a period. Instrumention can be incredibly accurate, yes… but there is always some error, and 100 years -- or even 1000 years -- is nothing compared to 4.5 billion years. A tiny, immeasurable error over 100 years will translate to an enormous error over 4.5 billion years. As precise as our instrumentation may be, it ain't precise enough to make the claims they make.

Good statement. Never thought of that way. Still let me back up what I said:

 

Light (on empty space) only goes in a straight direction. Light does not need anything in order to travel through space.

 

On order hand, planets are subject to the Sun's gravity and other factors that happen in the universe. I'm not saying that this does not affect light, it does. Yet, even if gravity and other things didn't exist, light could easily travel through space. Something like that...

 

Natural selection is part of micro-evolution, and in that context it makes sense. I don't reject it. But natural selection prevents macro-evolution because, if you refer again to my sundew/fly trap example, the functionless intermediate forms are selected for extinction because they have no way to capture food, or at the very least, can't capture food as efficiently as the original sundew form. Natural selection prevents the fly trap from ever appearing because its predecessors weren't fit to survive. That natural selection works against a portion of their theory is their problem, not mine.

It's a good statement you make there. I don't have the answer to back up the evolutionary claim. Yet, I insist: Science does not claim to have all the answers, and Evolution still has doubts. Yes, there are missing fossils, but there have been found many to support it. I think it's a little hasty to debunk macro-evolution so fast, due to some missing evidence...

 

Oh, sure, that's what they claim their objection is, but it's unfounded. Intelligent Design isn't religion and again I must make the audacious claim that Intelligent Design is more religiously neutral than evolution. So if that's their concern, they can relax. But it's not. They just don't want to allow anything that might lend support (even if only implicitly) to the Biblical account.

Maybe it's true. However, I have read claims from the evolution side that say that some of the doubts around evolution that are going to be taught are misleading doubts. Questions that are confusing the evolutionary position and theory. Again, that what I have read and I think I agree at some extent, people from both theories misrepresent that position of each other.

[Southtown]

I don't have the answer to back up the evolutionary claim. Yet, I insist: Science does not claim to have all the answers, and Evolution still has doubts. Yes, there are missing fossils, but there have been found many to support it. I think it's a little hasty to debunk macro-evolution so fast, due to some missing evidence...

Like Neanderthal man? I heard just today that his skull was inaccurately portrayed as being two centimeters longer than it was, the jaw was purposefully dislocated toward the teeth, the perfect hole in the bone over his ear was 'deleted', and the photo was inverted, making the bone black instead of white. Is this typical of modern science? Since then, his posture was corrected, his excess hair removed, and his apelike expression replaced with a more neutral one since skeletal features cannot possibly testify to such. (Refer to Erasmus' comment about bias.)

 

Neanderthal man's face would be the normal outcome of homo-sapiens that live to be 300 years old with respect to 1) lengthening and lowering of the nose and teeth, and 2) enlarging and protruding of the eyebrow accompanying low foreheads, which are not uncommon. Modern orthodontics has known for a while that the upward pressure of chewing is absorbed by the forehead, or if the forehead has a low angle, the eyebrows, making them enlarge and protrude.

 

It appears that fossils, when evolutionary bias is removed, can easily fit in the biblical view.

 

Also pure, parallel sedimentary layers cannot be caused by weathering or tectonics. These processes mix sediments and erode parallelism, and so strata can only be explained by a global flood. Google: snowball earth (Glaciers are said to explain global dropstones, but they don't explain the strata.)

 

Reading fossil records by strata is errant, radiometric dating carries unitarian assumption accross billions of years, and dating by phylogenic assumption is circular reasoning.

[TRoutMac]

People have given you example of complex things that happens in nature. Like diamonds and whatnot. Those were the consequence of undirected processes. DNA is a natural thing...

 

First of all, nobody has given me an example of complex, specified information being produced via natural, undirected processes. I suppose you could say that they claim DNA is an example, but they can't prove it was produced by natural processes, and they can't point to anything else in nature where complex specified information is known to have been produced via natural, undirected processes. Diamonds, tree rings, ice core samples and snowflakes do not contain complex specified information, so they cannot be compared to DNA.

 

besides, I have heard of an experiment where DNA was created by simulating a natural scenario... dunno about it.

 

Are you referring to the Stanley Miller experiment in 1953 where Miller sent an electrical charge through a mixture of gasses which he thought may have approximated the early Earth's atmosphere, and he ended up creating some amino acids? There are three problems with this…

 

First, we cannot possibly know with certainty what the early Earth's atmosphere consisted of. Again, we don't have a guy back there with any instrumentation. To reinforce this, many scientists now think that Miller wasn't even close, that the early Earth's atmosphere contained much oxygen (due to oxidation found in rocks that supposedly date back to 3.5 million years. Eyes rolling) So, that Miller created some amino acids in this solution is interesting, but it's not very useful when we can't even verify that Miller's assumptions as to makeup of the early Earth's atmosphere was correct. Strike one.

 

Second, as I understand it, there are 20 amino acids necessary to build the full suite of functional proteins, and Miller's experiment only yielded 3 of them. If that's not bad enough, amino acids come in left-handed and right-handed forms. For some reason, you only get functional life-forming proteins from left-handed amino acids. Guess which form Miller's experiment yielded. Right-handed only. Strike two.

 

Thidly, Miller himself admitted that, while interesting, his experiment didn't really accomplish all that much. In fact, it accomplished very little. Strike three.

 

To sum up, 3 right-handed amino acids do not a complete protein make, much less a DNA molecule. Evolutionists love to cite the Miller-Urey experiment as some sort of "proof" that life can happen by chance, but they're just a wee bit short of that claim. (massive understatement) Google "Miller-Urey" and you'll find lots of information about it from both sides.

 

So, one unexplained example makes a hypothesis invalid?

 

Edge, the sundew-fly trap example is merely symbolic of the basic challenges that macro-evolution needs to overcome. I used those examples because I once read a very anemic "rebuttal" of Michael Behe's "irreducible complexity" argument on the TalkOrigins web site, written by a biologist named Pete Dunkelberg. In it, Dunkelberg speculates that the sundew evolved into the fly trap. To his credit, he does freely admit that no fossils have ever been found to back up that speculation. The point is, you have essentially the same problem regardless of which species you're talking about. The transitional form between any two species would fall victim to natural selection because that transitional form would lack the fully functional, complete set of features of either the ancestral species or the descendant species, therefore that transitional form would find it very difficult to compete for survival, and would quickly become extinct. So, understand that it's not just one unexplained hypothesis which renders macro-evolution invalid. There are thousands upon thousands of such unexplained hypotheses.

 

Good statement. Never thought of that way. Still let me back up what I said…

 

Understand, I'm not claiming to know that the speed of light is not constant. There is some conjecture to that effect, however… that the speed of light is actually slowing down. I don't necessarily accept that view, and again, I'm not trying to convince you of it. The only thing I'd like to convince you of is this: Absent a time machine, there is no way to objectively and empirically measure the speed of light 4.5 billion years in the past. Therefore, we simply cannot know that it has remained constant over that entire period.

 

I don't have the answer to back up the evolutionary claim. Yet, I insist: Science does not claim to have all the answers, and Evolution still has doubts. Yes, there are missing fossils, but there have been found many to support it.

 

Call me nit-picky here if you like, but this is important… "missing fossils" implies that we know certain fossils exist but have not been found. You may not intend it this way, but if you think about it, that's actually a little misleading, isn't it? Evolutionists don't know that certain "transitional" fossils exist, they simply believe they exist. So, I would say those fossils aren't "missing" at all. I'd say that while it's possible we might someday discover such fossils, we shouldn't count our chickens before they hatch. In other words, fossils that haven't been found yet may as well not exist. Isn't that the most objective approach?

 

I think it's a little hasty to debunk macro-evolution so fast, due to some missing evidence...

 

So fast? The theory of evolution's been hanging around for nearly 150 years!! Intelligent Design theory is only about twenty-something years old. Don't you think it's maybe even more hasty for folks to debunk Intelligent Design so quickly?

[Erasmus00]

First of all, nobody has given me an example of complex, specified information being produced via natural, undirected processes.

 

Thats only because, much like Dembski, you haven't given a precise or mathematical deffinition of complex or specified information.

-Will

[TRoutMac]

But you "recognized" they were designed because you already believed they were.

 

And you know this how, Erasmus? No, I recognized it because I also knew quite a bit about how (and why) an airplane's wing works, and about how the physics involved required a specific shape to create the most efficient airfoil in certain conditions. I also knew that airplanes designed for specific purposes had different wing shapes (both in plan view and in section view) that were each suited to their respective purposes, and that this all had to be engineered. So, seeing the same kind of purposeful variation in birds' wings, I reached the only rational conclusion: birds' wings were designed. A pheasant's wings were designed for this purpose, a duck's wings for that purpose, and an eagle's wing for yet another purpose.

 

Now, if you want to say that my belief in God "permitted" me to consider design as an option, I'd agree. But that just underscores what I've said a number of times: The naturalist/evolutionist worldview prohibits the consideration of design because it presupposes that organisms are not designed, or that there's nothing "out there" that could have designed them. That's not objectivity. It's presuming you know something before you actually do, and then moving forward based on that presumption. I had no such burden, no such presupposition, and was free to consider design as an option. It just so happened, design fit the evidence better than anything other explanation.

 

You seem to think that my belief in God prevents me from considering "natural" causes where appropriate. Sorry, but that's simply not the case. Belief in God makes no such prohibition. I have no reason to avoid any explanation, where appropriate, that might invoke nature.

 

Now, flip that around: Isn't it true that disbelief in God gives a person reason to avoid any explanation, where appropriate, that might invoke God? Of course it is.

 

Your problem is that you assume that ID is so "obvious" that the rest of us must be idiots and you discount any arguments against it.

 

Again, no. I don't "assume" that ID is "so obvious". I conclude that ID is obvious by virtue of the evidence and reason which supports it. That's not an assumption. I don't honestly think the lot of you are "idiots". I just think your presuppositions prevent you from applying logic correctly. That's not stupidity. I think it's unreasonable an irrational, but it's certainly not the result of stupidity.

 

Regarding complex specified information, the term has been defined in a number of ways on this forum. That you and others wish to ignore it does not reflect poorly on myself nor does it reflect poorly on William Dembski.

[ldsoftwaresteve]

I am not religious but perhaps I have beliefs that are similar to 'religious' people. So, am I truly NOT religious? Aren't you?

It seems that the discussion is talking more about the methodology being used to understand the nature of life and not about anything external that we can observe or measure. We're talking about our methodology.

For those of you who pretend to be 'scientific', take stock of your own beliefs and how they have changed over the years. Can you honestly say you have never changed your mind? If you haven't, what does that make you? Incredibly intelligent, stubborn, or out of touch.

And do you honestly believe that what you now think you know will not be smashed to hell if, say, the nature of a black hole is not what you've come to believe? And if there isn't any such thing as an 'event horizon', isn't that tantamount to saying that all people who believe in 'event horizons' hold a belief that isn't true and couldn't we then refer to them as religious?

It's natural to hold on to a belief and even natural to hold on to a belief past the point where there is solid evidence to the contrary. Nobody likes to tear down their tower of babel. Some of them are very, very beautiful and it would be such a waste. It all depends on what it is you want to achieve and how much you like building towers.

[ldsoftwaresteve]

TroutMac:

Now, if you want to say that my belief in God "permitted" me to consider design as an option, I'd agree. But that just underscores what I've said a number of times: The naturalist/evolutionist worldview prohibits the consideration of design because it presupposes that organisms are not designed, or that there's nothing "out there" that could have designed them. That's not objectivity. It's presuming you know something before you actually do, and then moving forward based on that presumption. I had no such burden, no such presupposition, and was free to consider design as an option. It just so happened, design fit the evidence better than anything other explanation.

Very excellent point and very nicely put.

[TRoutMac]

I am not religious but perhaps I have beliefs that are similar to 'religious' people. So, am I truly NOT religious? Aren't you?

 

I'm not sure who you're addressing here… maybe all of us. I am a Christian, and in the popular sense of the word "religious" that pretty much makes me "religious". However, my understanding of Christianity in particular actually excludes it from the category of "religion." Let me explain… "religion" really tends to be man's efforts to gain favor in the eyes of a God or gods by virtue of his good works and morality, and through man's efforts he may "earn" some form of "salvation". However, Christianity doesn't teach that. Christianity teaches that salvation is gained through one non-meritorious act, that of believing that Jesus Christ is who He said He was, did what He said He did, will do what He said He will do. Christianity teaches that this, and this alone provides "salvation" and that works and morality do no even enter into it. And on that basis, I say I am NOT religious. That doesn't mean I don't generally behave myself or do "good deeds", it just means that as a Christian, my "salvation" is not a result of those things.

 

You're right about the methodology… that really is what it comes down to. (and thank you for the nice compliment, too, by the way) Methodological Naturalism presupposes we know something that we don't. And that starts us off down the wrong path from the very start.

[Edge]

First of all, nobody has given me an example of complex, specified information being produced via natural, undirected processes. I suppose you could say that they claim DNA is an example, but they can't prove it was produced by natural processes, and they can't point to anything else in nature where complex specified information is known to have been produced via natural, undirected processes. Diamonds, tree rings, ice core samples and snowflakes do not contain complex specified information, so they cannot be compared to DNA.

I try to understand what you are saying, but what does constitute complex specified information? If we are going to complexity I think that we got a point. However, specified information?

 

From your posts you seem to think that you want information that predicts something, like DNA does. Am I right?

 

Are you referring to the Stanley Miller experiment in 1953 where Miller sent an electrical charge through a mixture of gasses which he thought may have approximated the early Earth's atmosphere, and he ended up creating some amino acids? There are three problems with this…

 

First, we cannot possibly know with certainty what the early Earth's atmosphere consisted of. Again, we don't have a guy back there with any instrumentation. To reinforce this, many scientists now think that Miller wasn't even close, that the early Earth's atmosphere contained much oxygen (due to oxidation found in rocks that supposedly date back to 3.5 million years. Eyes rolling) So, that Miller created some amino acids in this solution is interesting, but it's not very useful when we can't even verify that Miller's assumptions as to makeup of the early Earth's atmosphere was correct. Strike one.

 

Second, as I understand it, there are 20 amino acids necessary to build the full suite of functional proteins, and Miller's experiment only yielded 3 of them. If that's not bad enough, amino acids come in left-handed and right-handed forms. For some reason, you only get functional life-forming proteins from left-handed amino acids. Guess which form Miller's experiment yielded. Right-handed only. Strike two.

 

Thidly, Miller himself admitted that, while interesting, his experiment didn't really accomplish all that much. In fact, it accomplished very little. Strike three.

 

To sum up, 3 right-handed amino acids do not a complete protein make, much less a DNA molecule. Evolutionists love to cite the Miller-Urey experiment as some sort of "proof" that life can happen by chance, but they're just a wee bit short of that claim. (massive understatement) Google "Miller-Urey" and you'll find lots of information about it from both sides.

Ya, I knew the experiment wasn't hard evidence. I was just mentioning it to emphatize that there may be an explanation for this. However, thanks for giving more precise details about this.

 

Also, remember that just because it has not been done does not mean that it can't be done. Yeah, I know this seems like "me grasping for straws", but it's the truth. At least in the scientific world.

 

Edge, the sundew-fly trap example is merely symbolic of the basic challenges that macro-evolution needs to overcome. I used those examples because I once read a very anemic "rebuttal" of Michael Behe's "irreducible complexity" argument on the TalkOrigins web site, written by a biologist named Pete Dunkelberg. In it, Dunkelberg speculates that the sundew evolved into the fly trap. To his credit, he does freely admit that no fossils have ever been found to back up that speculation. The point is, you have essentially the same problem regardless of which species you're talking about. The transitional form between any two species would fall victim to natural selection because that transitional form would lack the fully functional, complete set of features of either the ancestral species or the descendant species, therefore that transitional form would find it very difficult to compete for survival, and would quickly become extinct. So, understand that it's not just one unexplained hypothesis which renders macro-evolution invalid. There are thousands upon thousands of such unexplained hypotheses.

I understand what you are saying. However, remember that macroevolution can be the result of many microevolution processes. I mean, think about it, thousands of microevolutionary processes may yield a new species. That does not seem bad or ludicrous to me. It sounds logical, just like pgrmdave's analogy: add .01 to 1 many times and you have the number 2.

 

For some reason it seems that Intelligent Design folks imply that microevolution stop ocurring somewhere.

 

Understand, I'm not claiming to know that the speed of light is not constant. There is some conjecture to that effect, however… that the speed of light is actually slowing down. I don't necessarily accept that view, and again, I'm not trying to convince you of it. The only thing I'd like to convince you of is this: Absent a time machine, there is no way to objectively and empirically measure the speed of light 4.5 billion years in the past. Therefore, we simply cannot know that it has remained constant over that entire period.

Granted. To be totally sure is impossible, unless we build a time machine. Or something of the sort.

 

Call me nit-picky here if you like, but this is important… "missing fossils" implies that we know certain fossils exist but have not been found. You may not intend it this way, but if you think about it, that's actually a little misleading, isn't it? Evolutionists don't know that certain "transitional" fossils exist, they simply believe they exist. So, I would say those fossils aren't "missing" at all. I'd say that while it's possible we might someday discover such fossils, we shouldn't count our chickens before they hatch. In other words, fossils that haven't been found yet may as well not exist. Isn't that the most objective approach?

Very true. Yet, on a evolutionary point of view, they must exist. Yeah, I know this include bias. However, if you are working on a theory you must specify which is the missing evidence to support that theory, the missing fossils, or missing links.

 

However, they haven't been found yet, that does not mean they don't exist, but that does not mean that they exist either.

 

So fast? The theory of evolution's been hanging around for nearly 150 years!! Intelligent Design theory is only about twenty-something years old. Don't you think it's maybe even more hasty for folks to debunk Intelligent Design so quickly?

And whenever I said that we should debunk or trash Intelligent Design?

 

And Southtown, that post is interesting. However, got a link for that claim. I just want to see more of it...

 

I googled Snowball Earth as well, interesting theory... I have seen the two sides of the debate. I guess it can be object to discussion in here, but on another thread.

[paultrr]

 

I googled Snowball Earth as well, interesting theory... I have seen the two sides of the debate. I guess it can be object to discussion in here, but on another thread.

 

There is the snowball earth approach, the hot warm earth approach, the much hotter earth approach, and the very wet earth approach where everything started out water covered. Add to this the speculation(based upon lunar samples) where the moon seems to be composed of the same material as earth which has led some to speculate the earth/moon system is a by-product of a collosion with another planet leaving this earth as earth mark 2 and you have lots of different ideas about the early conditions on earth. Now add to that the fact that when it comes to the earliest period when life first appeared that we have little fossle evidence from that period(the single celled organisms left little evidence behind outside of certain early earth atmospheric traces, etc.) and you end up with a lot of room for discussion and debate here.

 

But most of all the real central argument being introduced by the ID camp isn't so much the mechanism of evolution that is argued it is weither there was an intelligent designer behind the whole process or not. Across the board, even on this forum there are those who think there was but he used tranditional evolution as the process, those who think macro-evolution is wrong, those who think there is no designer, etc. If the ID camp wants to be that "open" and "fair" as they put it then in essence even their position is not accepted as provable which rather opens the door in a fair situation to almost all the creation accounts(myths, stories, etc) being valid to teach as science. The point is well taken that evolution as we commonly teach it has areas it does not have a wholelot of direct evidence on.

 

But what I have yet to see anyone supporting the ID position admit is their model has assumptions in it like the whole Designer issue that not everyone out here would agree is that sound to begin with. They see it as sound because they start with the assumption that nothing of order can se;f generate itself while we start with the evvidence that shows complexity coming about by natural means and simply attempt to fill in the gaps in our model by assuming that process should hold all the way back. Science requires hard evidence which is one thing the whole ID camp, which like it or not started out within the Christian scientific community, has totally failed to provide outside of always making the statement about order requiring order which is simply an assumption and nothing more. That makes the present ID position no better than most of the creation myths of every religion out there. If you want to teach you're idea, at least unitll you have stronger evidence, teach it at home to you're kids which is where religion belongs taught. Any smart child out there can make up their own minds or are christian's too worried their kids will decide their ideas are wrong just because they are exposed to something different? I am not a christian, but out of six children I have only one has chosen to be an athiest while the rest claim to be christians. As for evolution they all have varying thoughts on that subject.

[TRoutMac]

Edge, here's a link which has some information about the question of the stability of the speed of light as a "constant." I don't offer this as proof, but merely as support for the idea that there are reasons to question whether the speed of light is constant.

 

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=39733

[Edge]

Edge, here's a link which has some information about the question of the stability of the speed of light as a "constant." I don't offer this as proof, but merely as support for the idea that there are reasons to question whether the speed of light is constant.

 

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=39733

Interesting. Thanks, TRoutMac. I'll check it out.

 

And no, I'm no bashing Intelligent Design, I think that as a theory it has good potential and very good points. I was just saying that Evolution, well, it still holds strong (at least I see it that way, I'm not saying you should believe it) and yes, Evolution is a very complicated theory. I just hope that when Evolution is taught and when some doubts or gaps around it are discussed, they are talking about the real doubts around it.

 

As well, if ID might be discussed, I hope it does not get treated as "creationism in disguise", which is not.

[Erasmus00]

Edge, here's a link which has some information about the question of the stability of the speed of light as a "constant." I don't offer this as proof, but merely as support for the idea that there are reasons to question whether the speed of light is constant.

 

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=39733

 

If the speed of light weren't constant, then conservation of energy would go right out the window. I don't think anyone is ready to suggest that energy isn't conserved, since we have so much supporting the idea.

-Will