• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Evolution Versus Intelligent Design

T'ai Chi said:
Most that Ive actually talked to believe because of the complexity that they observe in the real world that has not been explained by referring to time and chance, as well as the lack of a complete detailed evolutionary pathway from object A to object B.
Click to expand...

Actually, the ones I have talked to believe because they have a complete lack of knowledge about evolution. If you had an understanding of it, you would know that all the things you have mentioned are false. There is a complete detailed pathway on many of ID proponent's favourite lies. things like the eyeball and whale/dolphine ears.

ID was destroyed in the recent trials but the people who are still flogging it are too stupid to realize it. They do not even understand why the outcome was the way it was. They believe that it was a conspiracy and the judge was in on it.

Of course, ID itself is design detection, used in SETI, archeology, forensics, for example, to literally detect if real design is present. Who is the designer, for what reasons did the desginer design, etc., is all irrelevant to the question of "Is there design?", but they are interesting philosophically, muchlike Dawkins saying Darwin made it possible to be an intellectually fulfilled atheist.
Click to expand...

No it isn't! ID does no research, publishes no papers in peer reviewed journals, etc., etc. ID is a lie. It is not science and has no place in a science classroom. Nor does it deserve to be treated as science. It is a religious lie passed off as science. Fortunately, it has been laid to rest by the real thing.

I don't think many of them claim they were designed as they exist today. They also don't deny mere change over time.
Click to expand...

ID makes the claim that things were designed as they are today. Behe's claim about irreducable complexity relies on this. Something like the eye cannot work if even one of its pieces are missing so it must have been designed exactly the way it is today. That's his claim.

What's really sad here is that you not only don't have a freakin' clue about evolution, you don't even know what your own pet theory is.
 
YouBelieveWHAT? said:
An excellent piece of work, sir :)

Welcome!

I'd be intrigued to see what sort of arguments your brother can put forward to counteract this tour de force.

Perhaps you can invite him to join as well?

YBW
Click to expand...

Thank you for the kind words! My brother's position is that our culture is steeped in "evolutionary and Darwinian thought." He sees this as a virus of lies. From law to education, we've all been spoon-fed a lie that is ripping our culture apart. I have asked him repeatedly for studies or evidence supporting these claims. This request has been answered by mailing me books and DVD's supporting his position. He accepts micro evolution but sticks to the argument that there are little or no proofs of macro evolution. His main thrust is that evolutionists are simply story tellers twisting "evidence" to fit their needs.

He has attempted to illuminate problems within evolution by illustrating the Peppered Moth controversy and other fossil arguments. He also subscribes to the concept that "Evolutionists currently hold the microphone" and that's why ID's word isn't getting out to the public. However, I think his main goal in all of this is to save my soul.
 
T'ia Chi: "Well you're the one being unscientific here. You're speculating on motives, the intelligence of a supposed designer, comparing that designer to you, etc. Buildings designed don't last forever. Why do you believe that it is good design for things to live forever? You don't see any problems with that?"

I respectfully disagree with T'ai Chi's characterization of my (99% failed design) concept as "unscientific." I believe T'ai Chi picked up on the fact that I mixed a concept in there that was not completely based on science. However I was really going for the fact that ID's claims of design point to things that actually aren't intelligent and in many cases these claims contradict their own claims.

They make this same error when they point to a sandcastle on a beach. The sandcastle "looks" designed however their own hypothesis has the beach being designed as well... so which is it? And why would the designed beach look undesigned next to the sandcastle?

I admit that this is more a philosophical argument than scientific, but I feel it's strong enough to stand next to the scientific arguments because it points out the fallacies in ID.
 
Last edited:
alltruenews said:
I admit that this is more a philosophical argument than scientific, but I feel it's strong enough to stand next to the scientific arguments because it points out the fallacies in ID.
Click to expand...

The Collapse of Intelligent Design: Will the Next Monkey Trial Be In Ohio?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JVRsWAjvQSg

A great explanation of the fallacies of Intelligent Design.

I think it is hilarious that a lutheran minister offers a prayer at the beginning in which he asks his designer to guide the people there in deciding the designer's role in the universe! :i:
 
alltruenews said:
Thank you for the kind words! My brother's position is that our culture is steeped in "evolutionary and Darwinian thought." He sees this as a virus of lies. From law to education, we've all been spoon-fed a lie that is ripping our culture apart. I have asked him repeatedly for studies or evidence supporting these claims. This request has been answered by mailing me books and DVD's supporting his position. He accepts micro evolution but sticks to the argument that there are little or no proofs of macro evolution. His main thrust is that evolutionists are simply story tellers twisting "evidence" to fit their needs.

He has attempted to illuminate problems within evolution by illustrating the Peppered Moth controversy and other fossil arguments. He also subscribes to the concept that "Evolutionists currently hold the microphone" and that's why ID's word isn't getting out to the public. However, I think his main goal in all of this is to save my soul.
Click to expand...

It reads like he's not interested in finding out what evolution really is.

Maybe he's afraid that this sort of thinking may lead him to doubt his faith, and then, of course, he'll be as damned as you :)

I've met people like this - trying to reason with them is somewhat akin to trying to demolish a wall with a feather - they're armoured with unreasoning belief.

I wish you luck and hope you'll be able to bring him over to the dark side one day :)

YBW
 
T'ai Chi said:
Of course, ID itself is design detection, used in SETI, archeology, forensics, for example, to literally detect if real design is present.
Click to expand...
For example, if you show an archaeologist a clay pot, and he'll tell you it was designed. Show him the skull of an antelope, and he'll tell you it wasn't.

Show the guys at SETI a meaningful signal, and he'll tell you it had a designed source. Show him the radio noise from stars, and he'll tell you it didn't.

Show a forensic scientist a man who's been shot, and he'll detect intelligence behind it. Show him a man who died of pneumonia, and he won't.

That's "design detection" for you.

Whereas ID is the art, and I use the term loosely, of pretending that things that aren't designed are. Such as antelopes, stars, and pneumonia.
 
Last edited:
qayak said:
The Collapse of Intelligent Design: Will the Next Monkey Trial Be In Ohio?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JVRsWAjvQSg

A great explanation of the fallacies of Intelligent Design.

I think it is hilarious that a lutheran minister offers a prayer at the beginning in which he asks his designer to guide the people there in deciding the designer's role in the universe! :i:
Click to expand...

This is a super link - thank you. I watched the entire recording in my lunch 'hour'! I too found it amusing listening to the minister at the beginning, and when he presided over question time after Miller had so convincingly blown ID completely out of the water (as if it hadn't been already!), but then again Miller himself is a self-confessed theist (I think he said), and admitted to enjoying joining the minister in prayer (it wasn't just blatant sarcasm, was it?!). Incidentally, the minister doesn't actually make any reference or allusion to god being a designer or asks god to guide the attendees in deciding the designer's role. I'm guessing that both he and Miller hold similar religious views generally, but that the minister remains to be fully convinced regarding evolution, probably for the reason that Miller suggests during question time, namely because of the implication that evolution could be argued to cause in severing the mental link between morality and ID.
 
I don't even like the whole idea of this 'vs' thing. You can't dispute a scientific theory without evidence or reason. ID presents neither. And the opposite is true in that Evolution presents both evidence and reason against ID. Of course non of this is surprising. Evolution is based on scientific process developing a theory that fit the available evidence. ID is based on nothing but people wanting to make things match the bible.
 
dacium2007 said:
I don't even like the whole idea of this 'vs' thing. You can't dispute a scientific theory without evidence or reason. ID presents neither. And the opposite is true in that Evolution presents both evidence and reason against ID. Of course non of this is surprising. Evolution is based on scientific process developing a theory that fit the available evidence. ID is based on nothing but people wanting to make things match the bible.
Click to expand...

I think the words 'bible' and 'reasoning' (thats logical reasoning to the likes of us) are mutually exclusive to people who believe the bible. They simply have to be!
 
T'ai Chi said:
Not really I'd say. Couldn't one claim that some geological tossing and turning of the rocks moved the fossils closer. Or just claim oh they must have co-existed in that case (ie. the primitive ancestor didnt all die out as previosuly thought).
Click to expand...

Basically, no. I'm a geologist.

When rocks move about tectonically, they do sometimes run into one another and push together. The result of this is the Himalaya Mountains (and the Appalachian). The stratigraphy may be overturned, and it may be deformed, folded, melted, compacted, intruded by igneous rocks, and completely lost, but if any fossils are preserved, they will have the same stratigraphic order as they had before they were deformed.

There are cases where a fossil's lifespan is extended. Sometimes, a fossil is found that is younger than it should be, which is a Lazarus Taxa (rising from the dead). Sometimes, a very similar organism will evolve, making it appear to be the continuation of an extinct species. In this case, it is an Elvis Taxa (dead, but still making appearances).

What would shed doubt on evolution is if a major reversal were found. There are extensive debates about whether or not evolution is really progressive, but it is definitely one-directional. If we found bipedal land organisms in the Cambrian, it would be a problem for paleontologists and for evolution in general. If we found birds in the Carboniferous, that would change the way we see the evolution of birds. In that sense, the original statement is correct, if vague.
 
m_huber said:
The stratigraphy may be overturned, and it may be deformed, folded, melted, compacted, intruded by igneous rocks, and completely lost, but if any fossils are preserved, they will have the same stratigraphic order as they had before they were deformed.
Click to expand...

I'm not at all suggesting you're wrong here, but I'm struggling to think of anything else known to man that can be 'overturned, deformed, folded, melted, compacted, intruded and completely lost' such that any sensible meaning can be made of anything embedded within it with reference to its starting and finishing position/order (or are you saying that not all of these processes can happen to any particular sample?). Could be a candidate for 'Phenomenon', or even the MDC! I think you might need to be a little clearer as to what, exactly, happens (or doesn't, as the case may be) to the stratigraphic order of fossils during such tumultuous processes such that it is preserved.
 
Last edited:
Southwind17,
I was giving something of a list of possibilities. To some extent, all of these can happen to one rock, but if they do, then fossil evidence is usually lost. On the other hand, chemical evidence will be preserved, and can be analyzed, and sometimes correlated to the point that the original stratigraphy can be deduced. The basic idea of all of this is that the order doesn't twist or interweave amongst the rocks.

A good analogy is a set of bedsheets. If you push them together, you get folds, and if you push them hard enough together, you can have overturned folds. If you were doing this with 3 sheets, then an overturned fold would have a cross-section in the order of 1,2,3,3,2,1. If you were to have fossils in them, they would have the same pattern. So long as the same process is happening to all of the layers at once, the order will not change.

Fossils usually are analyzed in undeformed rocks, though. 95% of the surface of the earth is sedimentary, and many of those rocks contain fossils. The vast majority have not been folded or altered.
 
m_huber said:
A good analogy is a set of bedsheets. If you push them together, you get folds, and if you push them hard enough together, you can have overturned folds. If you were doing this with 3 sheets, then an overturned fold would have a cross-section in the order of 1,2,3,3,2,1.
Click to expand...

I wish I'd met your wife before you did! Sorry, couldn't resist. ;)
 
Southwind17 said:
Incidentally, the minister doesn't actually make any reference or allusion to god being a designer or asks god to guide the attendees in deciding the designer's role.
Click to expand...

I was looking at the fact that the minister said that they were considering some important questions including ". . . your [god's] role in the world." The issue was whether life on earth came about from a designer or through evolution. The only god in there is the designer.

In my view, he definitely alluded to god being the designer.

He alsop said, "We pray that we would be guided to have your wisdom and your insight so that we can consider these issues with humility but also with the knowledge that you want us to seek the truth."

And in my opinion, he definitely asks god to guide the attendees.
 
qayak said:
I was looking at the fact that the minister said that they were considering some important questions including ". . . your [god's] role in the world." The issue was whether life on earth came about from a designer or through evolution. The only god in there is the designer.

In my view, he definitely alluded to god being the designer.

He alsop said, "We pray that we would be guided to have your wisdom and your insight so that we can consider these issues with humility but also with the knowledge that you want us to seek the truth."

And in my opinion, he definitely asks god to guide the attendees.
Click to expand...

Fair enough. Similar to the bible, you can just about read anything you like into the verbiage that spills from ministers' mouths. I prefer to call a spade a spade though, then you know where you stand, but that just wouldn't cut it with religion would it!
 
YouBelieveWHAT? said:
It reads like he's not interested in finding out what evolution really is.

Maybe he's afraid that this sort of thinking may lead him to doubt his faith, and then, of course, he'll be as damned as you :)

I've met people like this - trying to reason with them is somewhat akin to trying to demolish a wall with a feather - they're armoured with unreasoning belief.
Click to expand...

Actually, I'd say the opposite is true. It's like attacking a wall of feathers with a sledge hammer. Every time you swing, you've got enough force to take the foundation out of any reasonably solid wall. But their wall isn't made of anything solid. Your swings go right through, but have no effect on the overall structure, because it isn't founded on reality or truth, it's based on fuzzy concepts and fluffy, feather-like emotions.

You just get tired from swinging, but you're not really making any progress through the perimeter ...

Besides, that wall isn't built to keep you out, it's built to keep them in. Their own comfortable mental prison.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom