Evolution Sucks! by dougp59

Please checkout my new website www.evolutionsucks.org

The war against evolution intensifies!

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, January 9, 2006 7:17 AM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Well, you've shown the true colors "inteligent designerists": it's a "war on evolution". Thanks for confirming that.

So, your questions...

Hmmm... you're looking for fossils of bacteria? Trust me, you won't find them. Being soft critters, they don't fossilize too well.

Many of your questions have to do with transitional fossils. I'll address them all at once. It's likely that new species developed in geographically isolated areas undergoing intense environmental change. The selection process was accelerated. It wasn't until these geographic areas became united with other areas and the new species became establised that fossils were created. But specifically about dinosuars and birds: You haven't heard of archaeopteryx? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Archeopteryx Also, some biologists are noew wondering whether dinosaurs weren't actually more bird-like that initally thought. Some recent finds that included details of dino skin show a "gooseflesh" -type pattern inidicating the possible presence of feathers.

What does the speed of light have to do with evolution? May as well ask about gravity, too while you're at it. Call it "intelligent falling". www.theonion.com/content/node/39512

I have some questions for YOU:

How do you explain the presence of fossils?

How do you explain genetic similarities between so many animals, including highly conserved sequences where chlorophyl looks a lot like hemoglobin?

---------------------------------
Please don't think they give a shit.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, January 9, 2006 9:11 AM

I do not doubt that fossils are real.

As to your post, you obviously are referring to punctuated equilibrium, an attempt to get around the fact that transitional fossils do not exist in the fossil record.

So for lack of physical evidence, you by faith, believe in something that can't be seen in the fossil record. That almost sounds religious. :)

Here's a question for you.

Evolution says simpler life evolved into more complex life via natural selection.

What biological evolutionary process has been shown to be able to INCREASE the information in the DNA molecule?

As to Archaeopteryx, well, allow me to quote
Dr. Alan Feduccia, a world authority on birds at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill and an evolutionist himself.

“Paleontologists have tried to turn Archaeopteryx into an earth-bound, feathered dinosaur. But it’s not. It is a bird, a perching bird. And no amount of ‘paleobabble’ is going to change that.”

Sorry, linking to a Wikipedia article is clearly trumped by Dr. Feduccia's quote. The link http://www.bio.unc.edu/faculty/feduccia/ clearly places him at the Univerisity and as an evolutionist to beat.

His quote is really quite damning.

As to the speed of light, well, isn't an old universe needed in a evolutionary cosmology?

Well, since you referenced Wikipedia, I will now...

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

If the speed of light has NOT been a constant since DAY ONE (irregardles of when that was), then the whole of evolutionary cosmology collapses!

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, January 9, 2006 9:34 AM

SPIKEANDJEZEBEL

Other than the title of your website (which I choose to take rather tongue-in-cheek), I like that your site attempts to rationally discuss the issue, rather than simply declaring that you are right and we are wrong. In that spirit, I will answer your questions from my point of view (that of an atheist who firmly believes in evolution):

Question #1 Can you show the transitional fossils that prove ANY of this? - I am not sure about the specific fossils in question (the Mesonychids to Whale), but there are loads of transitional fossils that show the transitions between fish and reptile, reptile and bird, apes to humans, etc. Just because we don't have a specific fossil for EVERY transition doesn't mean that the theory is invalid.

Question #2 If we are prepared to say that an inference of intelligence detected from far away originating radio waves must be proof of intelligent life (the designer of the radio signal), then why is an inference of intelligence in complex living systems here on earth not proof of an intelligent designer of that complex system? - A signal from an intelligent alien species would not be an inference of intelligence, it would be evidence of it. There is no evidence of an intelligent "designer" on Earth, or anywhere else in the universe as yet. I would define evidence of this as something which could not be explained through natural causes, which has not been found.

Does this sound like a double standard? - I would say no, because scientists are merely searching for signs of intelligence - they have not claimed to find it or know what it might be. Nobody is saying that ID proponents cannot search for evidence of their theory, either.

Question #3 Given the large numbers of species in the fossil record extant in Cambrian fossil beds, explain why fossil beds beneath them are devoid of transitional fossils? What mechanism was responsible for this vast array of species suddenly appearing in the fossil record? - a logical explanation would be that the primitive life had developed to a point where it became very efficient, through some leap in evolution. Having little or no predators and an abundance of natural resources, it is not difficult to assume that a life form could thrive exponentially.

Question #4 Can you show the transitional fossils for all THREE of these GIANT steps of evolution? As I mentioned before, there is a lot of evidence for these transitions, but possibly not every single organism between. (Another poster sited the archaeopterix above.) This is where thought and extrapolation comes in. A crime scene investigator does not need a videotape proving every crime he or she investigates, since they can make determinations based on DNA samples and carpet fibers. Same thing here. (Again, i would ask - can a proponent of ID show ANY evidence at all supporting their theory?)

Question #5 Can you prove empirically that the speed of light has remained constant since the beginning of time? - I am not sure if anyone can empirically prove this yet, although the majority of scientists agree on the general age of the universe. If scientific evidence is obtained that says the universe is the Biblical age of 5000 years, than this question may be relevent to the evolution debate. Currently, it is not.

Question #6 The theory of evolution says that less complex organisms evolved into more complex life forms. How could the Bacterial Flagellum have evolved from a lower life form? What is its' transitional fossil? - The scientific theory to explain this is that the flagellum may have evolved for a different purpose, and was merely co-opted into its current purpose. I'm sure you will admit that transitional fossils for small, squishy life forms like bacteria are difficult at best to obtain, so obviously it is difficult to find the exact fossil to prove every case. However, absence of a particular fossil by no means invalidates the theory, or lends any more weight to the Intelligent Design theory.It is just an area where speculation will have to do for now.

Question #7 Given the sheer size of T-Rex, there should be plenty of gradual transitional fossils clearly showing the development of T-Rex from a smaller ancestor. Where are these transitional fossils? Where are the 30, 20 and 10 foot long fossil specimens of its' predecessors? Why do they not exist? - As I have previously stated, the absence of a particular fossil animal doesn not prove that it did not exist. We know there were millions of T-Rexes that existed in the world, yet only have recovered fossilized remains for thousands of individual animals. Why is this? Because animals decompose after they die. It is extremely fortunate to find any fossilized remains, but incredibly naive to assume that fossils exist for EVERY animal that ever existed, or that we would necessarily have FOUND every fossil in the hundred or so years that we have been looking for them.

I agree with your concluding statement that people should have open minds and THINK about what they are told, and not just blindly accept something because it is in a book. However, I firmly believe in the aquisition of evidence for any particular theory, and as yet I have never seen any evidence to suggest an Intelligent Creator was involved in designing the human race. If that evidence is ever found, I will be most interested in learning about it.

"I have never understood why it should be necessary to become irrational in order to prove that you care. Or indeed, why it should be necessary to prove it at all." -Kerr Avon

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, January 9, 2006 9:36 AM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Quote:
I do not doubt that fossils are real.

Then they must be God's practical joke on us, eh?

Quote:
As to your post, you obviously are referring to punctuated equilibrium, an attempt to get around the fact that transitional fossils do not exist in the fossil record. So for lack of physical evidence, you by faith, believe in something that can't be seen in the fossil record. That almost sounds religious. :)

There are several lines of evidence pointing to evolution. One is the fossil record itself. The other is the conservation of critical portions of DNA. In fact, I have thought about the evolution of humans specifically which illustrates the process of punctuated equilibrium. Some day, if you decide to open your mind, I'll take the trouble to type it up.

Quote:
Evolution says simpler life evolved into more complex life via natural selection. What biological evolutionary process has been shown to be able to INCREASE the information in the DNA molecule?

There are all kinds of ways that DNA can be expanded and modified. Some gets accidentally repeated. Viruses and stuff leave bits of their own DNA in ours. And then there are mutations. Bacteria actually exchange DNA. The process is most notable in drug resistance. But it has been re-created in computer simulations.

Quote:
“Paleontologists have tried to turn Archaeopteryx into an earth-bound, feathered dinosaur. But it’s not. It is a bird, a perching bird. And no amount of ‘paleobabble’ is going to change that.”

Here is the latest:
www.sciencenews.org/articles/20051015/fob1.asp
www.sciencenews.org/pages/sn_arc98/6_27_98/fob1.htm
www.sciencenews.org/pages/search_results.asp
Just google up archaeopteryx.

Quote:
His quote is really quite damning.

Not really.

Quote:
As to the speed of light, well, isn't an old universe needed in a evolutionary cosmology?

There is probably something wrong in the theory of cosmology and the "big bang" theory. Not being a "big bangist" myself, I'm not troubled by inconsistancies but am really curious to see what new paradigm will emerge. Still, no matter how you look at the universe, if you take all of the evidence and put it together (you know, decay rates of radioactive elements, birth and death of stars, galaxy formation, evidence of billions of years of sedimentation on the earth) its really really old. Older than you can conceive. And since your mind seems to be rather limited, you would rather junk all of the data and simplify the universe to an easily-understood mantra: "God done it". Well, that's enough arguing for today. I have a busy real life.

---------------------------------
Please don't think they give a shit.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, January 9, 2006 9:45 AM

NEVERED

I'm really curious as to how anyone can justify believing an argument that sounds so stupid.

"The Invisible Space Wizard Did It!"

Of course!

That must be it!

How could we be so blind?

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, January 9, 2006 10:15 AM

Erm, Natural Selection is a pretty firm theory. Evolution as a whole, not so much. But then it's still a hell of a lot firmer than intelligent design, as is VSL, yet most physicists discount that too. Mainly because it’s not as firm either in theory or experimental evidence as Relativity, I imagine.

Just one thing, you say evolution sucks because it has flaws, which it does, well done. But you seem to be suggesting we replace it with intelligent design, which is one big flaw with not even a scientific theory, let alone evidence to back it up.

It's a belief system, not a science.

Quote:
Originally posted by dougp59:
What biological evolutionary process has been shown to be able to INCREASE the information in the DNA molecule?

Firstly your making a big mistake there, more complex organisms don't necessarily have more DNA. An Onion has 12 times more DNA than you do, and amoebas have 200 times the Genome of a Human. So in order to get more complex forms of life you DO NOT need more DNA.

Secondly to answer your question bacteria increase their DNA all the time. When a cell dies it's cell wall becomes ruptured, and the cells contents is released into the environment. Nearby bacteria can absorb this DNA, thus gaining DNA.

Viruses that attack cells can also transfer DNA between cells. There's plenty of biological ways that extra genetic information can be incorporated into a cell.

Quote:
As to the speed of light, well, isn't an old universe needed in a evolutionary cosmology?

Yeees... Now prove the universe isn't that old.

Quote:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Variable_speed_of_light

Nothing there that has anything to do with either the age of the universe or evolution.

Quote:
If the speed of light has NOT been a constant since DAY ONE (irregardles of when that was), then the whole of evolutionary cosmology collapses!

We can all make nonsensical post hoc comments.
If I had a penny god doesn't exist.
Oh look, a penny.

If blue is a colour then Turnips are triangles.

See?

More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
The statistics on sanity are that one out of every four persons is suffering from some sort of mental illness. Think of your three best friends -- if they're okay, then it's you.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, January 9, 2006 12:01 PM

ID a belief system and not a Science?!

What do you do for a living? Are you a scientist?

If not, than how can you refute what all the scientists involved in ID research are doing?!?!

Talk about a closed mind!

Yikes!!!

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, January 9, 2006 12:20 PM

A variable speed of light (VSL) is the concept that the speed of light may not be constant over time. This has several implications for physics. [1] This concept is used by VSL cosmologies to explain observations usually explained by the inflationary models, but they can also explain other cosmological problems. [2] A changing speed of light and our current view of relativity are not compatible.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, January 9, 2006 12:22 PM

STORYMARK

Quote:
Originally posted by dougp59:
ID a belief system and not a Science?!

What do you do for a living? Are you a scientist?

If not, than how can you refute what all the scientists involved in ID research are doing?!?!

Talk about a closed mind!

Yikes!!!

You say this, but do not respond to any of the points raised above, and do not offer any evidence to support your claims.

I agree. Yikes!

"Well, my days of not taking you seriously are certainly coming to a middle."

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, January 9, 2006 12:26 PM

Nice response. Though I disagree with your answers. Your post was the first that did not contain an insult of some kind.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, January 9, 2006 12:43 PM

Not at all.

Intelligent Design is a reworking of creationism pre-supposing the existence of a deity or creator for which there is no proof, for which there CAN be no proof. Intelligent Design is based on something that can not be proved, scientific theories are based on something that may be proved or disproved.

To say Intelligent Design is a science is indicative of someone who doesn't really understand 'science', nor really understands the underlying theories of evolution.

Oh, and I've never actually seen anyone with real scientific credentials advocate ID.

ID has no supporting evidence, and for all your attacks on evolution it is far better supported by demonstrate able evidence. I've certainly seen nothing in the way of a workable real world theory for ID.

Unless modern scientific theory is along the lines of "yeah, we can't explain that bit, so god did it.".

I basically answered your question about how genetic material can be added, how a DNA strand can grow as you put it and you ignore it. Maybe that passage didn't register because it ran contrary to the doctrine you've had ingrained on you since birth.

You pick one tiny part of my post and rubbish the rest on the flimsy proposition that scientist are involved in ID, ergo it is science, ergo my entire post is wrong.

Nice reasoning there, would you like me to explain the meaning of Post Hoc analysis?

Quote:
A variable speed of light (VSL) is the concept that the speed of light may not be constant over time.

Thank you I know what the VSL theory is, and if I didn't I can read, quite well actually, and I did read the link you provided.

Quote:
This has several implications for physics. [1] This concept is used by VSL cosmologies to explain observations usually explained by the inflationary models, but they can also explain other cosmological problems.

So? What does that have to do with evolution or ID? How does this prove that VSL is correct?

Quote:
[2] A changing speed of light and our current view of relativity are not compatible.

No, really? I probably know that better than you, since I actually understand Relativity. The difference is that Relativity is supported by experimental and observable evidence. VSL isn't. Oh but we aren't supposed to go with evidence, right? We want to go with the theory that most closely fits our preconceived notions. That's what’s being 'open minded' is all about, huh.

Quote:
Talk about a closed mind!

Yikes!!!

Let me get this straight. I'm close minded because I think a theory with a fair degree of evidence is more reasonable than one with none? So you are open minded because you ignore the facts and jump on the bandwagon of an unsupported baseless theory because it fits the bible better?

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, January 9, 2006 12:48 PM

Quote:
Nice response. Though I disagree with your answers. Your post was the first that did not contain an insult of some kind.

I can only assume your refering to SPIKEANDJEZEBEL here.

Just remember you've not been polite to anyone here who dares to have a different point of view to you're ideas. Take a look at your responce to Signym after his reasonable post.

If you're getting insults maybe you want to look to your own responces.

But you carry on playing the victim card, there's a good brave little Christian soldier.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, January 9, 2006 3:07 PM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Well, I'll take some of the blame for degenerating this conversation. I'e been through this more than once, and it gets old fast. The purpose of science is to be able to explain observed phenomena. But 'intelligent explains' nothing. Not only that, it requires that a great deal of obervation be chucked out the window. I haven't heard Doug's explanation for how fossils came to exist, or how light travels through the universe. All I hear is a lot of whinging about gaps. And you know what? Science will ALWAYS be incomplete. Until we know everything about everything (doubtful) science will always have gaps, unexplained facets, inconsistancies. It merely tells us our knowledge is incomplete and that we need to look further or imagine more brilliantly. That is its strength not its weakness.

---------------------------------
Please don't think they give a shit.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, January 9, 2006 3:16 PM

SPINLAND

And for more enlightenment:

http://www.venganza.org/

'Nuff said.

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
"That's what governments are for, [to] get in a man's way." -- Malcolm Reynolds

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, January 9, 2006 3:25 PM

JAYTEE

Arguing with a Fundamentalist is like wrestling in the mud with a pig. You can never pin down the slippery little feller. All you get is dirty and the pig enjoys it.

Jaytee

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, January 9, 2006 4:22 PM

I will never understand Intelligent Design because when I try to think of what an intelligent designer would do, if making a world with life on it, I come up with the following:

The designer would make a world in such a way that life would arise on it (why make a world and life when you can just make the world and have it make life?) and have that life exist in such a way that it adapted to changes in its surroundings and bettered itself with each passing generation. What's more this process, let's call it "evolution," would be seamless in that it would never show the hand of the designer because doing so would mean shoddy workmanship and the need for last minute repairs.

The problem is that this goes contrary to everything the Intelligent Design advocates say, they think that their Intelligent Designer made the world, and made life, but did such a bad job that he, she or it had to go back and fix things thus leaving empirically detectible evidence. Why not just make a good world on the first try? Why not make it so that the life you want will be created on its own within the rules you already set up? Why make things twenty steps more complex than they need to be?

I have no problem with people believing in god, I have no problem with people not believing in god, and I have no problem with people being undecided. But why believe in a god who can't work within his own rules? If god made the laws of physics why break them? And if the type of god these people believe in does not break the laws of physics there can be no evidence for god's existence because everything would be in accordance with nature. No evidence means no place in science be it real or not.

I get that there is a place for faith, the truth is you need faith for everything, even science requires faith. But after you take that leap of faith, in this case, "There is a god," I think you should use logic to evaluate what to believe about it.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, January 9, 2006 4:23 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by JayTee:
Arguing with a Fundamentalist is like wrestling in the mud with a pig. You can never pin down the slippery little feller. All you get is dirty and the pig enjoys it.

Jaytee

Yeah, but if you keep your sense of humor arguing with a fundamentalist can be a reminder of what a hoopy frood you are.

[Edited to add:] I should point that this is purely hypothetical for me, I am neither hoopy nor a frood.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, January 9, 2006 4:30 PM

UNREGISTEREDCOMPANION

""The Invisible Space Wizard Did It!"

Blasphemy! We all KNOW it was the flying spaghetti monster!!!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flying_Spaghetti_Monster
www.vengaza.org

~~~~~
"Funny and sexy. You have no idea. And you never will."

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, January 9, 2006 5:10 PM

I am of course assuming this is a joke, and Doug is intentionally cruising for a bruising. So I won't bother, but this I thought was interesting.

Quote:
What biological evolutionary process has been shown to be able to INCREASE the information in the DNA molecule?

I know the answer to this one, and I'll get back to it in a second.

This, on the otherhand, is patently false:

Quote:
If the speed of light has NOT been a constant since DAY ONE (irregardles of when that was), then the whole of evolutionary cosmology collapses!

The speed of light is only marginally variable, the larger flucuation is in the energy of light, but neither one impact the idea of scalar evolution at all. They cause big bang theory to collapse, but so what, big bang theory is flawed. The degree to which scientists want to see big bang as impacting our universe is at least quasi-religious if not totally deist. In reality, bangs can occur, but the all of existance does not owe itself to a big bang.

But back to the question, to which I know the answer. Random amino acids bond to form random strings, which started the first self-repicating strands. Lifeforms evolve, strands grow, and get clipped, and in time have become stored in large databanks, microorganisms which themselves contain absurd quantities of DNA.

The specific mechanism by which new genes are added to an extant strand of DNA is reverse transcription, which is carried out by an enzyme called reverse transcriptase. Signym and Citizen already alluded to this. Half of the rest of you out there already knew this, and are kicking yourselves for not having said it first :)

But here's something you may not know: Micro-organisms and some simple parasites and insects can inject vectors for reverse transcription of gene sequences, and in so doing, alter the genetic code of other organisms. This is more than likely a far more powerful influence on the development of species than random mutation.

It DOES NOT, however, in any way alter the fact of natural selection. Those coded sequences, whether pre-written, stolen from other organisms or randomly assembled from spare parts - must compete through natural selection for dominance.

An interesting side note. This closely resembles the way a true free-market capitalist system would work, therefore it is an immitation of nature. By contrast, socialism is the top down introduction of a set of utopian solutions dreamt up by groups of intellectuals latey called 'think tanks.' Ergo, socialism is Intelligent Design economics.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, January 9, 2006 5:15 PM

JOSSIZBOSS

Quote:
Originally posted by dougp59:

Evolution says simpler life evolved into more complex life via natural selection.

Just thought I'd throw this little tidbit into the fray:

The theory of evolution does not state that a simple lifeform will evolve to become more complex via natural selection. Natural selection results in selective pressure that will favor the survival of one trait over another. This trait could however be something we might consider simpler or more primitive. Evolution is a pretty random process that sometimes -appears- to be fairly directed due to natural selection (e.g. becoming more complex often is advantageous).

- JIB

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, January 9, 2006 5:20 PM

I have to point out that the flying spaghetti monster page contains a drastic innaccuracy:

Good old fashion piracy on the high seas is actually at an all time historical high. Furthermore, it's highest where the water is warmest.

Think about it, far more wealth is being shipped over seas by boat than ever has been before, this should hardly be a surprise, but the logical conclusion.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, January 9, 2006 5:25 PM

My question is this. If the argument is that nothing as complex as the universe could exist without a designer, who designed the designer, since he must be at least as complex as his creation and nothing that complex can "just happen?"

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, January 9, 2006 5:32 PM

JAYTEE

Sorry, but I guess I don't get out much anymore and I live under a rock. Could you possibly enlighten me as to what the heck a "hoopy frood" is?

Jaytee

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, January 9, 2006 5:35 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
Quote:
I do not doubt that fossils are real.
Then they must be God's practical joke on us, eh?

Most of the science here discussed is somewhat over my head (or, at the least, yawn-inducing). But I would like to point out that creationist is not necessarily young-earth creationist. They are two different camps of the creation theory split largely on philosophical/hermeneutical lines (vs scientific ones). Being that I find the case for old-earth creationism much more compelling, I just wanted to make sure that the difference is respected.

________________________________________________________________________
I wish I had a magical wish-granting plank.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, January 9, 2006 5:36 PM

NEVERED

Quote:
Originally posted by UnregisteredCompanion:
""The Invisible Space Wizard Did It!"

Blasphemy! We all KNOW it was the flying spaghetti monster!!!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flying_Spaghetti_Monster
www.vengaza.org

~~~~~
"Funny and sexy. You have no idea. And you never will."

the sad part is that the spahetti monster guys are kidding.

the space wizard guys aren't

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, January 9, 2006 5:49 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Fletch2:
My question is this. If the argument is that nothing as complex as the universe could exist without a designer, who designed the designer, since he must be at least as complex as his creation and nothing that complex can "just happen?"

Ahh, the old "infinite regress" theory.

The mistake here is to take as axiomatic that everything in the universe is contigent (that is, causally explained). If that's the case, than we can go on forever. Who designed the designer? Oh yeah? Well who designed the designer of the designer? And who designed the designer of the designer of the designer? Ad infinitum. And therein lies the problem. To posit an infinite regress forces one to posit the existence of an actual infinite. But an actual infinite is impossible, rationally speaking, for any number of reasons. Chief among these is the notion that we reckon time sequentially. So if there's an actually infinite number of total days leading up to this day, it stands to reason that there is a day positioned an actual infinite number of days before today. Confusing? It should be. Because it's irrational. There's no way to cross the actual infinite, since time is only ever reckoned sequentially. Interestingly, Hubble's discovery of red-shifted galaxies proved that time did indeed have a beginning at the Big Bang. So it is not the case that there is an actually infinite past. If that's the case, then the only rational explanation left to explain the existence of--well, everything--is to posit the existence of some necessary thing, something that exists not in the chain of causal events, but that stands either outside the chain or acts as the impetus for the inauguration of the chain. The necessary event posited by astronomers is the necessary-but-un-created Big Bang. Old-earth creationists take a step back from that and posit the existence of a necessary being who caused even that. Basically, the answer to the question is that God didn't "happen". That makes the mistake of putting God in the chain of causal events. He is not a contingent being, who depends on something for his existence. He is, rather, a necessary being, on whom all else depends for its existence.

Basically your whole question "begs the question" in that you presuppose a philosophy of causality which doesn't admit the existence of any necessary thing, only contigent things. This takes as axiomatic some kind of extreme Newtonian mechanism by which no appeal can be made to the essence of the thing or the purpose of the thing, because such things don't exist in a strictly material-monist worldview. The only avenue of inquiry left is causality.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
Edited to add: I'm really not all that interested in the science of the thing, so please don't attack me with scientific examples, as they will only make my head hurt. My chief interest in this type of debate is philosophical, and since Fletch went there, I went, too.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Edited to add: I am neither Fundamentalist nor young-earth creationist, though I am a theist, and am attract to I.D. from a philosophical perspective. Please, oh, please, do not lump me in with the "man-and-dinosaurs-lived-at-the-same-time" crowd.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Edited to add:
Just one more, I swear! My apologies to anyone who knows the Kalam and Thomist arguments better than I. I'm drastically foreshortening those arguments, I know, but golly--I gotta sleep some time tonight.

________________________________________________________________________
I wish I had a magical wish-granting plank.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, January 9, 2006 5:59 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by JayTee:
Sorry, but I guess I don't get out much anymore and I live under a rock. Could you possibly enlighten me as to what the heck a "hoopy frood" is?

Jaytee

I can, but it would be better if you listened to the radio series Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy, I think it's mentioned in episode 10, but I'm not sure. It's in the books too.

Someone who is hoopy is a really together guy, and a frood is a really amazingly together guy. "Guy" is gender inspesific in this case.

But when I actually say the definitions they sound so bland.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, January 9, 2006 6:02 PM

Yes I believe that covers it. If you presuppose that I was at all interested in the answer

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, January 9, 2006 6:05 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Fletch2:
Yes I believe that covers it. If you presuppose that I was at all interested in the answer

Well, in that case, why ask the question? I mean, if your mind is made up, why not just state your beliefs and have done with it? Because the way it comes across is something like, "I'm asking a rhetorical question because anyone who disagrees with me is dumb." Hardly the stuff of civil discussions. I realize I'm getting into this conversation late, but hell's bells, I wish for once we could all talk about these things calmly and rationally.

________________________________________________________________________
I wish I had a magical wish-granting plank.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, January 9, 2006 6:08 PM

A hoopy frood is one who knows where his towel is

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, January 9, 2006 6:12 PM

I don't think there is an answer to the question, because no answer you can give is provable in the slightest. There can be no "answer" it's contemplating the implications of the question that is interesting.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, January 9, 2006 6:20 PM

Technically we were all designed by worms, but not intelligently, we were patched together in a psuedo random fashion by parasites, but it is the competition of natural selection which was the guiding force that led to evolution.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, January 9, 2006 6:56 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Fletch2:
I don't think there is an answer to the question, because no answer you can give is provable in the slightest. There can be no "answer" it's contemplating the implications of the question that is interesting.

But what's interesting is that people say "It's unprovable!" all day long when it comes to some things (e.g. ID or the existence of God) but swear up and down that it is in fact provable when it comes to other things (e.g. evolution as origin of man). I think that if someone actually embraced the notion that nothing is provable, that there is no answer, then he would commit himself to a kind of radical skepticism and would, as a professor at my university once did, conclude that he himself did not exist. After all, if nothing is provable, how do you know you exist?

If on the other hand, you're positing that no statements about God are provable, then the statement "There is no God" must certainly fall into that category. If that's the case, why conclude, out of hand that He doesn't exist? Or that He didn't create the universe? In addition, restricting "it's not provable" to God betrays deeply seated ontological presuppositions (the above mentioned material-monism).

________________________________________________________________________
I wish I had a magical wish-granting plank.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, January 9, 2006 7:41 PM

GUNRUNNER

Quote:
Originally posted by dreamtrove:
Good old fashion piracy on the high seas is actually at an all time historical high. Furthermore, it's highest where the water is warmest.

Think about it, far more wealth is being shipped over seas by boat than ever has been before, this should hardly be a surprise, but the logical conclusion.

Indeed or should I say Yarrr!

Cheers to all those who fly the Jolly Roger

EV Nova Firefly mod Message Board:
http://s4.invisionfree.com/GunRunner/index.php?act=idx

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, January 9, 2006 8:02 PM

Actually if we follow through on that argument the only thing I can state with certainty is that *I* exist. I think, therefore I am. I cannot prove that you exist any more than I can prove that God exists. All I have is slightly more evidence that you exist, but even that could be self delusion.

In practice your answer rested on the contention that causality can be violated, that you can have an effect ie the existence of God without there being a cause -- a progenitor of some kind. Right there we hit a problem because causality is a foundation of our perception of the universe and of the scientific method. Effect follows cause, not the other way around, Newton was not struck by an apple before that apple fell. If the argument for God is that he exists outside of causality then that is an argument that you can’t address through science, because you immediately take God out of science’s frame of reference. Therefore I don’t see that you can apply science to the existence or otherwise of God at all. They operate in different spheres.

Evolution and science in general has never been a threat to the existence or otherwise of God, neither can it prove or disprove the existence of God. In fact the whole creationist argument doesn’t even involve God directly, it hinges on one question, the primacy of the Bible. If the Bible is the absolute word of God, and if God is infallible, then by definition the Bible must be absolutely and literally true. If on the other hand the Bible is an historic document, an oral tradition eventually committed to blocks of wood sometime in the iron age, and selectively edited, translated and modified since then, well then there is the possibility of human error.

Those fundamentalist types that want it to be literally true are the ones that have a problem with evolution. I have a problem with them not because I think evolution is anything more than a theory but because of the real reason these people are pushing so hard. If the Bible is literally true, then you can use it, or sections of it to provide divine justification for any prejudice, crime or outright evil that you want to inflict on your fellow man. You can use it in the same way that OBL uses the Koran to justify the killing of children, it allows you to claim an absolute unchallengeable authority over your fellow man in the name of a God you can’t appeal to. It is in short arbitrary authority of the worst kind.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, January 9, 2006 8:12 PM

SAMSA

Quote:
Originally posted by Causal:

I think that if someone actually embraced the notion that nothing is provable, that there is no answer, then he would commit himself to a kind of radical skepticism and would, as a professor at my university once did, conclude that he himself did not exist. After all, if nothing is provable, how do you know you exist?

General mathematics would disprove the unprovable theory (pardon the unintentional bad joke), owing to the simple fact that one plus one does equal two.

"Serenity is knowing your worst shot is still pretty good."

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, January 9, 2006 10:50 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by DreamTrove:
The specific mechanism by which new genes are added to an extant strand of DNA is reverse transcription, which is carried out by an enzyme called reverse transcriptase. Signym and Citizen already alluded to this. Half of the rest of you out there already knew this, and are kicking yourselves for not having said it first :)

Thanks DT, I'm better with the physics than the genetic biology

Quote:
An interesting side note. This closely resembles the way a true free-market capitalist system would work, therefore it is an immitation of nature. By contrast, socialism is the top down introduction of a set of utopian solutions dreamt up by groups of intellectuals latey called 'think tanks.' Ergo, socialism is Intelligent Design economics.

You just couldn't resist could you

Now when are people going to realise that I created the universe, if you've got a problem with that, prove me wrong.

I started the second big bang with the jump-leads from starbug.

Ironic really, the ultimate Atheist turns out in fact to be god.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, January 10, 2006 1:31 AM

HEB

Why can't the creation of the Universe (or multiverse or whatever) be 'the necessary thing'? Why can't the universe itself be necessary? Can't everything in the universe be contingent on the universe existing, rather than the universe and everything in it being contingent on God existing?

So what I'm asking, genuinely because I'm not too knowledgeable on philosophy, is:

Doesn't the idea of God just push the chain back one further?

...................
Well, my sister's a ship... we had a
complicated childhood
.................
I wear the cheese. It does not wear me.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, January 10, 2006 7:37 AM

Quote:

You just couldn't resist could you

Oh, that was a great open shot to attack socialism.

Quote:

Now when are people going to realise that I created the universe, if you've got a problem with that, prove me wrong.

Ah, deflecting with humor

Muahahahahahaha

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, January 10, 2006 7:40 AM

Heb,

Well put.

But God doesn't exist, which is why I'm ducking the whole conversation. The whole argument for the existance of God is a loaded one, because it exists simply to back up the equally absurd claim that "God said this" by which I mean the bible, or some similar text, thus making it the indisputable truth. I guess what I'm saying is the whole point is to back what is really a socio-political agenda, and to exhault said agenda to a monopolistic state of unchecked power. Contributing sincerely to the debate forwards that agenda, so I'll stop now.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, January 10, 2006 7:51 AM

Quote:
Oh, that was a great open shot to attack socialism.

There's plenty of avenues for attacking the free market, and ways I can make an argument out of the socialism thing, but that's not why were hear...

(I wasn't being particularly serious though

)

Quote:
Ah, deflecting with humor Muahahahahahaha

Well, reason wouldn't work with this clown...

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, January 10, 2006 8:43 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Causal:
After all, if nothing is provable, how do you know you exist?

In philosophy, science, and most other things, "I think therefore I am," remains one of the strongest arguments ever, but even it is not flawless. For example do you really think? If nothing is provable you can't exactly prove it. Also how do you define "am"?

I mean what if I was a character in a dream of a ten year old kid, but I was indeed thinking? Obviously I exist, but merely as temporary electrical and chemical signals in someone else's mind. Some people would say that allows me to say, "I am," others would say it does not.

-

I maintain that all things rely on faith, for example you can not prove that events have causes. It simply can not be done, nor can you prove that events do not have causes. The second is because finding an event with no cause, if such a thing exists, can be dismissed as simply finding an event with an as yet unknown cause, the first is because correlation (no matter how strong) does not mean causation.

But if we take on faith that events have causes than we can use it to do incredible things. For example the computer I am typing on was built using science that took as a basic tenet the unprovable idea that there is such a thing as cause and effect. (Of course if there is no cause and effect that is not true, it was just a random coincidence.)

What separates science from fundamentalist religion is that in science you take your leap(s) of faith and then base all other things on evidence. If you take the idea that there is a god on faith than I think you should then look at it logically, if the evidence points to evolution creating people, and you believe on faith that god created people the logical conclusion is that god created people by means of evolution.

The logical conclusion is not that the theory of evolution should be discarded because it disagrees with other things that you believe with no evidence that are not part of your initial leap of faith.

The belief that there is a god can not be proven, the belief that there is not one can not be proven, but other things can. I think people should choose their stance on god via faith, but not everything else surrounding god.

I mean if every person on earth had a vision of the exact same god saying, “I exist,” in their language of choice at the exact same time that would hardly prove the existence of god, it could just as easily be explained by a remarkable example of the statistical phenomena of grouping. Meeting god is hardly grounds to believe that he or she exists, a lot of people have called themselves god over the years and even if they display seemingly unnatural powers those would eventually be explained by science.

Similarly if you were to definitively prove that everything in the universe followed the laws of physics strictly and there was no place for god in the universe at all that would not disprove god, it would probably just further the belief in predestination oriented religions.

But like I said, you can prove other stuff, if you take certain things for granted, casualty being one of them. IDers take causality for granted, and as such they should at least strongly lean towards the idea that evolution is the force of god, it meshes with what they take on faith and it matches the evidence.

Yet they don’t. Why? Because they want to prove the existence of something that can’t be proved? Because their translation of their book says something that their interpretation believes is incompatible?

I lost track of where I was going with this a long time ago.

So, to sum up:
I believe that faith is needed for all things, science included, but I think once you take something on faith you should start looking at evidence and using logic, and rather than rule out evidence based on belief shape beliefs based on evidence.

Why I decided to say that is something I have forgotten.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, January 10, 2006 9:10 AM

NANASHI

DOUGP59:

Two things--

1) You can't prove one theory by disproving a competing theory... Give me a few reasons for believing yours..

2) Don't bring the speed of light into this. It's got nothing to do with it. The countless biologists, archaeologists, and the like, that study and prove evolution most probably don't have a clue about the speed of light. It's Physics, not Biology, and that's why they don't care. It has absolutely no basis on evolution. The prove they have for evolution has nothing to do with how fast light travels... It -does- have a basis about how old the Universe is, but that's about it, it doesn't even have any bearing on how old the Earth itself is.

/rant over

But, really, I have no problem with rejecting evolution theory, if I had a reason to do so. I'm not religious, but if I were.. I wouldn't see evolution theory as something that couldn't exist /with/ my religion.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, January 10, 2006 9:29 AM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Quote:
I believe that faith is needed for all things, science included, but I think once you take something on faith you should start looking at evidence and using logic, and rather than rule out evidence based on belief shape beliefs based on evidence.

By faith I think you mean a priori assumptions. I'm not a philosopher, but I think every philosophy has one. My guess is the a priori assumptions of science would be:

a) There is an objective universe and we are part of it. (That eliminates the I am but a part of someone else's-God's perhaps?-dream subjectivity.)
b) We come to know that universe through our senses.
c) Effect follows cause.

The problem that I have with fundamentalists is that they keep rejecting their own assumptions over and over again: "God did it (faith) and I can demonstrate it scientifically". Articles of faith, by definition, can't be thrown against evidence for validation. If they could, it would be science not faith. The only thing that anyone can say about their faith is "I believe that flying spaghetti monsters created the universe" and then just SHUT UP.

---------------------------------
Please don't think they give a shit.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, January 10, 2006 9:34 AM

ARAWAEN

Quote:
Originally posted by Samsa:

General mathematics would disprove the unprovable theory (pardon the unintentional bad joke), owing to the simple fact that one plus one does equal two.

I was under the impression that 1+1=2 has never been successfully proven.

Knowledge is sorrow; they who know the most
Must mourn the deepest o'er the fatal truth,
The Tree of Knowledge is not that of Life.
-- Byron

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, January 10, 2006 9:36 AM

SPINLAND

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
The only thing that anyone can say about their faith is "I believe that flying spaghetti monsters created the universe" and then just SHUT UP.

Alas, a major problem with fundamentalist beliefs is that, like a particularly insidious computer virus, they come with built-in imperatives to go forth and infect others with their superstitions. If we could selectively edit out that offensive trait, methinks the vast majority of the problems we have with these people would quietly evaporate.

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
"That's what governments are for, [to] get in a man's way." -- Malcolm Reynolds

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, January 10, 2006 9:47 AM