Intelligent design

[sawyerloggingon]

Thom Hartman interviewed a guy yesterday who blew some big holes in evolution theory.He pointed out the theory has flaws and just because you think it's wrong doesn't necessarily mean you believe in a God. Are you atheist OK with intelligent design theory as long as its a scientist or group of scientist that created us and not a "god"?

 

[marduc]

Thom Hartman interviewed a guy yesterday who blew some big holes in evolution theory.He pointed out the theory has flaws

Would you like to elaborate on what these big holes are so we have something to go by?

just because you think it's wrong doesn't necessarily mean you believe in a God.

Just because you accept that evolution is accurate does not necessarily mean you think there is no God

Are you atheist OK with intelligent design theory as long as its a scientist or group of scientist that created us and not a "god"?

If there was evidence to support it, sure (and appeals to ignorance is not evidence). With our current knowledge, the evidence does not even hint at this though. I would be OK if it were God if that is where the evidence took me too, but as it stands Occam's razor applies. It is not God that causes the ultimate problem for ID, it is the argument itself (this is especially in reference to the rebranded creationist concept of ID, and not some broadly applied definition)

 

[presluc]

Well, I can find no holes in evolution it is as the old saying goes "I think terefore I am", "we are here therefore we evolved "and in my opinion are still evolving.

The question that is constantly ask of this is what did we evolve from?

According to natural law you must have living organisms to evolve to a living being.

 

[JTyler]

I believe I know of one of these wholes:

According to evolution, if I'm correct, a living organism came from non-living materials. First of all, that sounds somewhat like a theory that's been disproven (though I can't remember the name of that theory). Second, it seems a bit hard to believe that out of the blue, a living orgamism can appear and be able to do everything it needs to do to survive and reproduce.

I'm not saying it's a bunch of mumbo jumbo, I'm just saying that that is a hole in the theory. I don't think there is a better candidate than evolution in the running, however.

Also, if a school teaches intelligent design, it must also teach about the Flying Spaghetti Monster.

 

[toddwv]

I believe I know of one of these wholes:

According to evolution, if I'm correct, a living organism came from non-living materials. First of all, that sounds somewhat like a theory that's been disproven (though I can't remember the name of that theory). Second, it seems a bit hard to believe that out of the blue, a living orgamism can appear and be able to do everything it needs to do to survive and reproduce.

I'm not saying it's a bunch of mumbo jumbo, I'm just saying that that is a hole in the theory. I don't think there is a better candidate than evolution in the running, however.

Also, if a school teaches intelligent design, it must also teach about the Flying Spaghetti Monster.

As opposed to the "hole" in intelligent design that some all-powerful sky fairy decided to create life? That's a hole you could drive a universe through...

Our base components are non-living materials.

 

[Verthaine]

Thom Hartman interviewed a guy yesterday who blew some big holes in evolution theory.He pointed out the theory has flaws and just because you think it's wrong doesn't necessarily mean you believe in a God. Are you atheist OK with intelligent design theory as long as its a scientist or group of scientist that created us and not a "god"?

Link or this become another "Entire thread based on an article written by a Woman Dressed In a Vulcan Outfit" that derailed ptif219 http://www.debatepolitics.com/relig...es-descended-humans-not-other-way-around.html thread and destroyed what little credibility he/she had left on this forum.

 

[Ikari]

According to evolution, if I'm correct, a living organism came from non-living materials.

That's abiogenesis, of which not much is known. Evolution starts with life existing and claims that the diversity of life we see now developed over long time periods of changes in a species population.

 

[Ikari]

Are you atheist OK with intelligent design theory as long as its a scientist or group of scientist that created us and not a "god"?

If there is evidence for the existence of this scientist or group of scientists, then sure.

 

[Verthaine]

Well, I can find no holes in evolution it is as the old saying goes "I think terefore I am", "we are here therefore we evolved "and in my opinion are still evolving.

The question that is constantly ask of this is what did we evolve from?

According to natural law you must have living organisms to evolve to a living being.

Exactly what do you mean by "according to natural law".

Because our species doesn't know all the rules of physics and biology so it way to premature to accurately(and honestly) make your above statement.
When you compare what our species knows in comparison what what we don't know,our species is still figuring out how to use the potty.

 

[Paschendale]

Thom Hartman interviewed a guy yesterday who blew some big holes in evolution theory.He pointed out the theory has flaws and just because you think it's wrong doesn't necessarily mean you believe in a God. Are you atheist OK with intelligent design theory as long as its a scientist or group of scientist that created us and not a "god"?

What holes? I'd love to know. But as others have asked, are you talking about abiogenesis, or evolution? As Ikari points out, they are not the same thing. Also, why is it so strange for abiogenesis to work? We're all just made up of building blocks. Stick those same building blocks together in enough variations, and it seems like a simple matter of odds that they would or would not combine to create a living creature. Organic compounds are not that dissimilar from inorganic ones. It's all still just protons, neutrons, and electrons.

 

[Verthaine]

I have two problems with "intelligent design"

1-There is absolutely no shred of evidence that this universe was "created ex nihilo.
The "oscillating universe" model and the "multiverse" model make just as much sense as ID and have the exact same amount of evidence.

2-As a taoist I personally have no problem with the concept of "God".

What I do have a problem with is a group of Wingnut Extremist Christians l hijacking ID and saying that it proves that how They[ view God (you know,giant white guy with a beard,toga,sandals,lives in the clouds with a bunch of winged people,always pissed off at humans, his son at his rightside and if you don't believe that you will burn in hell) is the correct way and the only way it should be.

 

[presluc]

Exactly what do you mean by "according to natural law".

Because our species doesn't know all the rules of physics and biology so it way to premature to accurately(and honestly) make your above statement.
When you compare what our species knows in comparison what what we don't know,our species is still figuring out how to use the potty.

Didn't say we as a species did have all the answers far from it the unknown factor is still ut there because it is not known.

However if mankind had not evolved where would mankind be.

Biology states you must have living organisms to create living organisms, are we to break that law?
That is unless you believe in Fankenstien

For if indeed the biology law stating you must have living organisms to create living organism is discarded what then ?
Are we to cherrypick the laws mankind as well as scientist has set down and break the ones we don't like?eace

 

[presluc]

I have two problems with "intelligent design"

1-There is absolutely no shred of evidence that this universe was "created ex nihilo.
The "oscillating universe" model and the "multiverse" model make just as much sense as ID and have the exact same amount of evidence.

2-As a taoist I personally have no problem with the concept of "God".

What I do have a problem with is a group of Wingnut Extremist Christians l hijacking ID and saying that it proves that how They[ view God (you know,giant white guy with a beard,toga,sandals,lives in the clouds with a bunch of winged people,always pissed off at humans, his son at his rightside and if you don't believe that you will burn in hell) is the correct way and the only way it should be.

I have a problem with any group that questions the right of an individual to believe or not believe as they choose.

As for wingnut Extremist Christians.check out a post called "THE DIFFERANCE BETWEEN FAITHBELIEVERS AND ORGANIZED RELIGION."on this forum.eace

 

[SlackMaster]

Didn't say we as a species did have all the answers far from it the unknown factor is still ut there because it is not known.

However if mankind had not evolved where would mankind be.

Biology states you must have living organisms to create living organisms, are we to break that law?
That is unless you believe in Fankenstien

For if indeed the biology law stating you must have living organisms to create living organism is discarded what then ?
Are we to cherrypick the laws mankind as well as scientist has set down and break the ones we don't like?eace

I could be wrong about this, but I don't think there's a law that says life can only come from other life. I think as of right now, that's all we've observed.

Suggesting that living things just popped into existence is just as ridiculous as saying that God made things pop into existence. This is why you'll never hear any credible scientist suggesting such things.

The study of abiogenesis is in it's infancy. We have tons of evidence for evolution though.

Also, atheists concern with ID is not "who" created us, but that we see no evidence for a "who" at all. We see no evidence for an intelligent designer at all, be it scientist, god, FSM, or anything else.

Essentially ID is another "god of the gaps" theory. "I can't think of any way this could have evolved therefore it must be designed". Just because they can't think of a way it could have evolved, doesn't mean that it didn't.

 

[JTyler]

Just to clear things up for me, does evolution propose where humans came from (as in the evolution part), or where all life came from (as in evolution plus original life)?

Also, it's possible for organisms to be created from unliving things, but the chances of it are so low. Then, the chances of this life succeeding is even lower.

 

[SlackMaster]

Just to clear things up for me, does evolution propose where humans came from (as in the evolution part), or where all life came from (as in evolution plus original life)?

Also, it's possible for organisms to be created from unliving things, but the chances of it are so low. Then, the chances of this life succeeding is even lower.

Evolution is a theory the describes the mechanism used to get the diversity of life. How we evolved from a single celled organism to what we are today and everything in between.

Abiogenesis is the study of the beginning of life. How non-living materials became self replicating organisms.

 

[Ikari]

Just to clear things up for me, does evolution propose where humans came from (as in the evolution part), or where all life came from (as in evolution plus original life)?

It's a theory used to explain the diversity of life and the observations of changing species upon the planet. It is currently the best theory we have which explains the observables.

Also, it's possible for organisms to be created from unliving things, but the chances of it are so low. Then, the chances of this life succeeding is even lower.

It's hard to put a real number on the probability as the dynamics of abiogenesis are currently not well understood at all.

 

[Verthaine]

Didn't say we as a species did have all the answers far from it the unknown factor is still ut there because it is not known.

My point exactly.
Didn't I just say that?

However if mankind had not evolved where would mankind be.

How the hell should I know?
What you asked is pure speculation.
You might as well asked if mankind had 4 arms instead of two.
Now me personally,I have no problem with the theory of evolution.
But if you have something better,please,by all means present it for review.
You might even be able to change my mind.

Biology states you must have living organisms to create living organisms, are we to break that law?

First off,biology says that scientist have reviewed the evidence and believe to the best of their understanding that at this current moment,on this planet,you must have living organisms to create living organisms.

Second off, so what?
We don't know how inorganic matter first made the leap into organic matter.
Scientists are still trying to find out.

Third off,the laws of nature cannot be broken.
The best we humans can do is figure out the "exceptions" to the rule.
According to the laws of physics,mankind cannot fly,but yet we figured put how to to travel all over the globe and even into space.

And finally, if mankind does figure out the "exceptions to the rule" should we apply it becomes an "ethical question" rather than "scientific question" which at this moment I have no opinion on.

This is all high school science.

That is unless you believe in Fankenstien

Strawman.
But I will admit that Mary W. Shelly's "Frankenstein" is one of my all time favorite books .

For if indeed the biology law stating you must have living organisms to create living organism is discarded what then ?

Again speculative and now redundant because I laid forth four answers above.

First off,biology says that scientist have reviewed the evidence and believe to the best of their understanding that at this current moment,on this planet,you must have living organisms to create living organisms.

Second off, so what?
We don't know how inorganic matter first made the leap into organic matter.
Scientists are still trying to find out.

Third off,the laws of nature cannot be broken.
The best we humans can do is figure out the "exceptions" to the rule.

According to the laws of physics,mankind cannot fly,but yet we figured put how to to travel all over the globe and even into space.

And finally, if mankind does figure out the "exceptions to the rule" should we apply it becomes an "ethical question" rather than "scientific question" which at this moment I have no opinion on.

Are we to cherrypick the laws mankind as well as scientist has set down and break the ones we don't like?eace

And now triple redundant.

First off,biology says that scientist have reviewed the evidence and believe to the best of their understanding that at this current moment,on this planet,you must have living organisms to create living organisms.

Second off, so what?
We don't know how inorganic matter first made the leap into organic matter.
Scientists are still trying to find out.

Third off,the laws of nature cannot be broken.
The best we humans can do is figure out the "exceptions" to the rule.
According to the laws of physics,mankind cannot fly,but yet we figured put how to to travel all over the globe and even into space.

And finally, if mankind does figure out the "exceptions to the rule" should we apply it becomes an "ethical question" rather than "scientific question" which at this moment I have no opinion on.

I sincerely hope you are not going to start deliberately misquoting me and taking things out of context like the last time we had a debate.

 

[Verthaine]

I have a problem with any group that questions the right of an individual to believe or not believe as they choose.

Good for you.
What do you want a cookie?
Let's not start this again,shall we.

If anyone here is kicking down your door,putting a gun to your head,and telling you what you should believe in,maybe some one should call your local police department and file a report.

As for wingnut Extremist Christians.check out a post called "THE DIFFERANCE BETWEEN FAITHBELIEVERS AND ORGANIZED RELIGION."on this forum.

Oops,my bad.
I neglected to put down the words "in my opinion" in front of the sentence "a group of Wingnut Extremist Christians l hijacking ID and saying that it proves that how They[ view God (you know,giant white guy with a beard,toga,sandals,lives in the clouds with a bunch of winged people,always pissed off at humans, his son at his rightside and if you don't believe that you will burn in hell) is the correct way and the only way it should be."


For that I sincerely apologize to everyone on this thread.

I still stand by my statement though.

 

[Verthaine]

And yes presluc I did read your post "THE DIFFERANCE BETWEEN FAITHBELIEVERS AND ORGANIZED RELIGION."
I respect your right to have an opinion.

I believe you made quite a number of good points on that thread which i agree with.

And they have nothing to do with this thread.

 

[presluc]

I could be wrong about this, but I don't think there's a law that says life can only come from other life. I think as of right now, that's all we've observed.

Suggesting that living things just popped into existence is just as ridiculous as saying that God made things pop into existence. This is why you'll never hear any credible scientist suggesting such things.

The study of abiogenesis is in it's infancy. We have tons of evidence for evolution though.

Also, atheists concern with ID is not "who" created us, but that we see no evidence for a "who" at all. We see no evidence for an intelligent designer at all, be it scientist, god, FSM, or anything else.

Essentially ID is another "god of the gaps" theory. "I can't think of any way this could have evolved therefore it must be designed". Just because they can't think of a way it could have evolved, doesn't mean that it didn't.

So basicly you are saying that to evolve into a living being you could start out as what?
Rocks
You speak of scientist but scientificly you can not have ling beings without starting with living organisms
You as well as I know that even plants are livung and growing organisms. they evolve they change
Rocks do not evolve they eventualy diseolve.eace

 

[presluc]

Evolution is a theory the describes the mechanism used to get the diversity of life. How we evolved from a single celled organism to what we are today and everything in between.

Abiogenesis is the study of the beginning of life. How non-living materials became self replicating organisms.

So are you saying the human race as not evolved?
Yet animals have?

 

[presluc]

My point exactly.
Didn't I just say that?


How the hell should I know?
What you asked is pure speculation.
You might as well asked if mankind had 4 arms instead of two.
Now me personally,I have no problem with the theory of evolution.
But if you have something better,please,by all means present it for review.
You might even be able to change my mind.


First off,biology says that scientist have reviewed the evidence and believe to the best of their understanding that at this current moment,on this planet,you must have living organisms to create living organisms.

Second off, so what?
We don't know how inorganic matter first made the leap into organic matter.
Scientists are still trying to find out.

Third off,the laws of nature cannot be broken.
The best we humans can do is figure out the "exceptions" to the rule.
According to the laws of physics,mankind cannot fly,but yet we figured put how to to travel all over the globe and even into space.

And finally, if mankind does figure out the "exceptions to the rule" should we apply it becomes an "ethical question" rather than "scientific question" which at this moment I have no opinion on.

This is all high school science.


Strawman.
But I will admit that Mary W. Shelly's "Frankenstein" is one of my all time favorite books .



Again speculative and now redundant because I laid forth four answers above.

First off,biology says that scientist have reviewed the evidence and believe to the best of their understanding that at this current moment,on this planet,you must have living organisms to create living organisms.

Second off, so what?
We don't know how inorganic matter first made the leap into organic matter.
Scientists are still trying to find out.

Third off,the laws of nature cannot be broken.
The best we humans can do is figure out the "exceptions" to the rule.

According to the laws of physics,mankind cannot fly,but yet we figured put how to to travel all over the globe and even into space.

And finally, if mankind does figure out the "exceptions to the rule" should we apply it becomes an "ethical question" rather than "scientific question" which at this moment I have no opinion on.




And now triple redundant.

First off,biology says that scientist have reviewed the evidence and believe to the best of their understanding that at this current moment,on this planet,you must have living organisms to create living organisms.

Second off, so what?
We don't know how inorganic matter first made the leap into organic matter.
Scientists are still trying to find out.

Third off,the laws of nature cannot be broken.
The best we humans can do is figure out the "exceptions" to the rule.
According to the laws of physics,mankind cannot fly,but yet we figured put how to to travel all over the globe and even into space.

And finally, if mankind does figure out the "exceptions to the rule" should we apply it becomes an "ethical question" rather than "scientific question" which at this moment I have no opinion on.

I sincerely hope you are not going to start deliberately misquoting me and taking things out of context like the last time we had a debate.

So the exception to the rule as it stands is to prove the nonexistance of God is it not?

Example physics 101 you can not have an explosion without matter and energy. scientist physics rule
Eception to the rule. THE BIG BANG that started the universe

Biology 101 living organisms evolve into living organisms
Itellectual Biologist rule
Eception to the rule, abiogenesesis.
You speak to me of strawman?

How many more exceptions are there?

The faith in God or intelligent design but one exception after that just faith.eace

 

[Verthaine]

So the exception to the rule as it stands is to prove the nonexistance of God is it not?

Your words,not mine.
Please don't try to attribute statements to me which I have never made.
See my second point.

Example physics 101 you can not have an explosion without matter and energy. scientist physics rule
Eception to the rule. THE BIG BANG that started the universe

The big Bang is not the exception to the rule.
Scientist do not know what was before the Big Bang or why it happened.
Only that apparently according to their ability to interpret all the evidence they have been able to review that's what how it appears to have happened .
Like I've asked you a number of times before,if you have anything better then the Big bang theory please by all means present it here for review.

Biology 101 living organisms evolve into living organisms
Itellectual Biologist rule
Eception to the rule, abiogenesis.

Your kidding me right?
Abiogenesis is the study of how biological life arises from inorganic matter through natural processes, and the methodby which life on Earth arose.

It is not "the exception to the rule".
No one knows how life arose from inorganic matter.
I've already stated that.
We already know that life comes from life.
We just don't know the how and why it happened in the first place.

You speak to me of strawman?

Just calling it like I see it.

How many more exceptions are there?

Unless proven otherwise,as many as we are capable to discover.

The faith in God or intelligent design but one exception after that just faith.eace

Whatever that is supposed to mean?
You don't make yourself very clear at times.

 

[sawyerloggingon]

I guess the first big hole in the theory of evolution is the missing link, it's still missing. I am not trying to prove existence of God here, you guys are acting just like Thom did, trying to make this into a God issue. I am really asking if you think some form of intelligence could have created us and the reality we know. Please try not to be so myopic and reactionary,this isn't believers vs atheism it's merely about if you think it's possible some being we can't fathom created what we all perceive as reality. Not long ago people looked into space and thought earth was flat and the sun revolved around the earth which was carried on a turtles back or something. It is entirely possible that in 200 years people will look back at us and wonder how we could have been so stupid.