Intelligent Design

[rawad_m]

If there going to put out logical arguments for it, like Maxfly was doing, then I'd be all for it being discussed, but it has to be substantive arguments not just this is not explainable presently therefore god exists..

The traditional arguments for the existence of God/creator figure is more based on "first cause" and other logic arguments, while scientific theory's based mainly on empirical measures the non-falsifiable hypothesis, i.e. somethings only scientific if it can be disproven..some scientists believe that intelligent cause is "non-falsifiable" and therefore unscientific, yet the intellgent design proponents are arguing otherwise, that it is testible and falsifiable..who do you believe?

Personally I think that the life is too complex argument being put forward is scientific and skeptics would be able to prove otherwise if they are correct. I read recently that for life to have come about somehow the right chemicals would have had to come together in the right quantities, under the right pressure and other controlling factors, and all this would have had to be maintained for the exact length of time, and repeated thousands of times for life to have come about, which is mathematically impossible-thats what the theory states

In my opinion scientists and others who dismiss intelligent design as a theory should not be scared of it and say it's non scientific but attempt to show that this is not the case, that such complexity can be attributed to evolution and other means..:stickpoke: :rofl:

[Cozmo D]

I'm not saying intelligent design is religious.. I'm saying its not scientific.. its an answer to a question that cannot be answered.. its filling in the gaps to make the person feel comfortable in the world.. It helps explain the unexplainable.. I'd like to think the creation of life and existence can't be explained.. it's too easy for me :whew: are we seeing the intelligence behind creation or are we just seeing the intelligince of creation.. its a bit of reaching for me..

Do you think that the search for extraterrestrial life is not scientific as well? We currently have more "evidence" of intelligent design than we do of extraterrestrial life.

[Hero1]

hang on i thought you were from outer space :stickpoke:

I'd apply the same principles to extraterrestial life as intelligent design.. its like "the worlds so big their must be other life out there.."

"the world is so complex..a higher power must have created it"

hey both arguments may be correct but there is no factual evidence.. its like trying to complete a whole world when you can only see half of it .. you just don't know..

In my opinion scientists and others who dismiss intelligent design as a theory should not be scared of it and say it's non scientific but attempt to show that this is not the case, that such complexity can be attributed to evolution and other means..:stickpoke: :rofl:

well I think both cases should have to be proved ..not disproved.. :pony:

[Cozmo D]

hang on i thought you were from outer space :stickpoke:

I'd apply the same principles to extraterrestial life as intelligent design.. its like "the worlds so big their must be other life out there.."

"the world is so complex..a higher power must have created it"

hey both arguments may be correct but there is no factual evidence.. its like trying to complete a whole world when you can only see half of it .. you just don't know..

In my opinion scientists and others who dismiss intelligent design as a theory should not be scared of it and say it's non scientific but attempt to show that this is not the case, that such complexity can be attributed to evolution and other means..:stickpoke: :rofl:

well I think both cases should have to be proved ..not disproved.. :pony:

Evolution hasn't been proven either.

[rawad_m]

In my opinion scientists and others who dismiss intelligent design as a theory should not be scared of it and say it's non scientific but attempt to show that this is not the case, that such complexity can be attributed to evolution and other means..:stickpoke: :rofl:

well I think both cases should have to be proved ..not disproved.. :pony:

hmm :lolsign: okaay :rofl: well, I think the evidence both sides are presented is out there and people can make up their minds, the complexity thing is a main argument of the intelligent designers if not the key one and they argue it's proof..

i've got a good book that addresses the subject and it says about chance events producing life, such as protein molecules, the bulilding blocks of life, just randomly being formed:

"evolutionists admit the probability of atoms and molecules falling into place to form just one simple protein molecule is 1 in 10^113 (1 followed by 113 zeros), more then the estimated number of atoms in the universe..it says that "mathematicians dismiss anything taking place that has a probobality of occurring of less then 1 in 10^50. But a lot more then one simple protein molecule is needed for life. Some 2000 different proteins are needed just for a cell to maintain it's activity, and the chance that all of them will occur at random is 1 in 10^40000"

Quote from the Astronomer Fred Hoyle on this: "If one is not prejudiced either by social beliefs or by social training into the conviction that life originated (spontaneously) on the Earth, this simple calculation wipes the idea entirely out of court"

I assume this is the type of thing the intelligent design proponents would be presenting..do you think this could be considerd evidence from a scientific perspective?

Edited October 21, 2005 by rawad_m

[MaxFly]

i've got a good book that addresses the subject and it says about chance events producing life on earth:

"evolutionists admit the probability of atoms and molecules falling into place to form just one simple protein molecule is 1 in 10^113 (1 followed by 113 zeros), more then the estimated number of atoms in the universe..it says that "mathematicians dismiss anything taking place that has a probobality of occurring of less then 1 in 10^50. But a lot more then one simple protein molecule is needed for life. Some 2000 different proteins are needed just for a cell to maintain it's activity, and the chance that all of them will occur at random is 1 in 10^40000"

Haha, someone actually did the math. As rawad_m has shown, there is actually a level of scientific logic behind intelligent design. A lot of people want to make it out as "Oh well, life is too hard to explain so we'll just attribute it to an Intelligent Designer for the time being..." That's not the case at all.

What rawad_m has presented, though already compelling, is just the beginning of the argument. Let's say by a pure miracle all the proteins necessary for a cell to function are made. The probability that they would be properly configured in a cell to create the necessary organelles, all working to sustain the cell... it's hard to imagine... the numbers are that big... And then you have to incorporate DNA that actually has viable code... This is why some scientists are saying that scientifically, it is a viable theory that there was intelligence ordering and manipulating the creation of life.

At the very least, if scientists want to be honest concerning the teaching of evolution, they should cover the probabilities and the evidence that contradicts evolution as well as the things they believe point to it. Even if people do not want to acknowledge intelligent design, they should acknowledge the pitfalls and shotcomings of the evolutionary theory.

[Schnazz]

In his experiment, he recreated the atmosphere of the primitive earth and shot electricity through it to simulate the effects of lightning. In the course of the experiment, he was able to make amino acids, a basic building block of life.

What you will likely never hear in school is that the experiment was invalidated. Miller used ammonia, methane and hydrogen in his experiment to recreate the atmosphere of a primitive earth, however the deck was stacked. He wanted to get a chemical reaction that was favorable, so he proposed that the earth's atmosphere was rich in these gasses.

In 1980, NASA scientists showed that the primitive earth never had methane, ammonia or hydrogen that would amount to anything. They showed that the earth was composed of water, carbon dioxide, and nitrogen. It is impossible to get the same experimental results as Stanley got with that mixture. There have been recent experiments to confirm this.

As far as I can tell, it wasn't a single experiment in 1980, but experiments from 1980 on. And they did not say that there was none of those gases at all on the Earth or in the atmosphere, but that there weren't significant amounts. For that experiment to work, the entire atmosphere does not needs to be composed of those gases, but the merely need to exist in a localized area, perhaps in the ocean. I haven't researched possible sources for all of those molecules, however methane could have come from methane hydrate, which could have been formed on the primitive earth and has been found on other planets.

However, an even more recent experiment, a simulation done in 2005 by University of Waterloo and University of Colorado, suggest that the NASA experiments where flawed. Which ever the case, currently there is no "accepted" atmosphere combination for primitive earth.

Additionally, the methane-methane-hydrogen combination is not the only combination that can reproduce these effects. In 1961, Juan Oro created amino acids and adenine from hydrogen cyanide and ammonia. There is also the iron-sulfur-hypothesis, which roughly states that life could have developed in hydrothermal vents on the ocean floor.

Macro evolution is supposed to take place very slowly over millions of years but scientists have found that there was an explosion in the fossil record during the precambrian period. This means that there was an explosion of diverse life at that period on earth.

In ID terms, there are separations between micro-evolution and macro-evolution. In science, it's not a clear break. With most current theories on evolution, it doesn't need to take millions of years. Some examples of evolution can take millions of years, many do not. Logically, it makes sense. Considering the diversity of life spans, time until maturity, rate of reproduction, etc, you would expect that different species would change at different rates. Moreover, in many circumstances, it is believed that evolution is triggered by an outside force. If that outside force doesn't occur for millions of years, then yes, it could take millions of years. However, if that outside force occurs quickly, then the evolution will occur quicker.

Additionally, this "explosion of diverse life" that occurred is not as wild as you or others make it sound. Since the late 80's and early 90's, many more fossils from that era have been found. These new fossils showed that the original understanding of that era was inaccurate. Some of the fossils that where thought to be "new" where actually partial fossils of older creatures. Some where improperly catorized. Etc...

Here are a few scientists who support the theory of some level of intelligent design. All are respected in their fields as all have carried out exemplary research or have contributed to their respective fields. Many have had their work published in peer review journals and in other forms.

"biochemist Michael Behe at Lehigh University"

Here's what he had to say about his work: " My ideas about irreducible complexity and intelligent design are entirely my own. They certainly are not in any sense endorsed by either Lehigh University in general or the Department of Biological Sciences in particular. In fact, most of my colleagues in the Department strongly disagree with them."

Note the fact that most of his colleagues strongly disagree with him. His reason for believing in ID is based on what he calls "irreducible complexity" which is basically a rehash of the watchmaker concept. This concept has been refuted many times over the years using many different arguments. For example, there's the theory that individual parts can be hijacked and used for new purposes.

"microbiologist Scott Minnich at the University of Idaho "

This "scientist" seems to spend more time in courts and on tv than doing research, I can't find any actual experiments he carried out. However, in addition to his "work" on ID, he also has done "work" on Shroud of Turin. I would suspect that he is a religously motivated scientist.

Walter Bradley, PH.D at Texas A&M University

He's a material scientist! That has NO bearing on evolution.

chemist Charles B. Thaxton

His field of work is on crystal structures, yet another prime example of a scientist talking about evolution who doesn't have the authority to do so.

biologist Paul Chien at the University of San Francisco

University of San Francisco is a religous school, another exellent example of religously motivated "scientists."

emeritus biologist Dean Kenyon at San Francisco State University

Other then the fact that his colleagues strongly dissagree with him and he hasn't made a significant contribution in 30+ years, and it's been 20 years since he's come out as a pro ID person (there has been significant advancement in evolutionary theory in the past 20 years), he was once strongly in support of evolution. His rational for changing his stance was that researchers haven't been able to reproduce the creation in a lab. So, by his thinking, if someone hasn't done something yet, it must not be doable. There is a serious problem with that logic.

mathematician William Dembski at Baylor University

A mathematician? Please. That has no bearing on this discussion. I'd add though that he's currently a professor of science and theology at a seminary.

quantum chemist Henry Schaefer at the University of Georgia

This is a brilliant man, however his brilliance is in the field of quantum chemistry. While it does apply to a very narrow field of evolution, it is not enough to overturn all of evolution. Additionally, this man is not only a devout Christian, he also has written at length about it.

Also, there are a number of fields that may seem incompatible with the life sciences, but surprisingly have a great deal to do with them. Most fields of scientific study have some relation to the life sciences. While organic chemistry seems to play a more important role than mathematics in the life sciences, mathematics is important in studying the bonds and structures of DNA and RNA, or the bonds and structures of amino acids in forming proteins for example. Until you fully understand what a scientist is studying or how he or she is approaching something, it would be premature to call their field inappropriate in the study of living things. Your statement concerning physicists is an example. Physics in its most simple definition is the basic study matter and energy. If a physicist is studying how primitive earth radiation would affect evolution or mutation, it's an appropriate field. It depends on what they are studying moreso their field is.

No, not at all correct. Evolution does touch many fields, but there are two things hampering this. Number one is that evolution is a very large subject, just because you find inconsistancies in one small area of it, that does not qualify you to overturn the entire concept. Secondly, just because there's a place for chemistry in evolution, that does not qualify every chemist to make intelligent remarks about evolution.

"any scientist" "will admit that there is a great deal of evidence refuting" ? No, not at all correct. There are still mysteries, such as there are still mysteries on how light works. But a great deal of evidence flat refuting it? No. "not nearly enough evidence to support its viability." ?

Everything that you said is not correct is actually true.

There is no possible way that you can argue that "any scientist" will adming to a "great deal" of "evidence refuting". Many, many, many scientists subscribe to evolution. However, I would only need to find one to back up my claim, you would have to find them all to back up yours. Good luck with that.

Incidentally, just because the earth may be between 4.1 - 4.8 billion year old doesn't prove or even provide evidence that macro evolution took place. In fact, the scientific version of intelligent design doesn't rule out an older earth. You are referring to religious and biblical accounts of the earth.

I was not referring to religious or biblical accounts of the earth, nor was I arguing that since the earth was old that evolution must occur. You implied that you subscribed to the young earth theory, so I asked if you where stating that the young earth theory was proven.

Also, there have been proven issues with radioactive dating. I'm not saying this to refute the process, but radioactive dating isn't as accurate and definitive as one might think. It dating is carried out in general by relating ratios of radioactive and non radioactive elements in a material, and determining by the half life of that radioactive element the age of a given material. The problem is that scientists are dating materials with current known ratios in our present world as they are unable to determine the ratios that would have existed millions of years ago. We would have to believe that the ratios that exist in our present world are exactly the same as those that existed millions of years ago.

What you are referring to is carbon dating, however there are more methods of radioactive dating. Carbon dating does depend on the makeup of the atmosphere, but more importantly, it's limited to roughly 50,000 years in the past. Hardly useful for a detailed study of evolution. Another radioactive dating method, potassium-argon dating, can date significantly longer periods and does not rely on the make up of the atmosphere at any given time.

Also, selective breeding is not macro evolution. Many make that mistake. Breeding is micro evolution. No widescale changes are taking place. Remember, macro evolution is supposed to take place over milions of years, not hundreds.

Many ID people make the mistake to differentiate macro evolution from micro evlution, scientist, however, do not.

Churches in general are non profit organizations. Non profits aren't generally taxed because there is no profit revenue. Taxation is a concept that applies to entities that produce wealth. Because churches consume wealth rather than produce it, taxation is not applied to them. If you were to tax churches, you would also have to tax educational, medical, charitable, and welfare organizations. Now taxing educational and medical organizations would instantly raise your taxes, but as it is now, would you also say that you pay for charities?

Concerning the govenment needing to collect the same amount of taxes... it's a little more complicated than that. One can easily argue that the money churches collect and use for charitable purposes (after school programs, counseling, soup kitchens) offsets the money they don't pay in taxes, which in turn leaves your tax burden as is.

What? So that means that if I don't have a job, but I buy something, I don't have to pay taxes? Right...

Here's an example of a church causing less taxes to be collected. My friend recently got married in a new, extravagent church. For arguments sake, lets say that church cost about 1,000,000 to build. Now lets say that Bob donated 10,000 to the church to help pay for that. (I know, random numbers, they're here to illustrate the point, not to be exact) Bob makes 100,000 a year, paying 25% tax, would have payed $25,000 in taxes that year. However, since he made that donation, which is tax deductable, he only had to pay taxes on 90,000 of that, which would be $22,500. That donation, which did not affect any charity the government would have taken care of, caused $2,500 to not be collected, which means my tax bill must be a few thousandths of a cent higher to cover it.

While arguement you make about the charity work of churches is true, you're adding complexity that isn't needed. The charity work of churches does cause offsets, however building churches, paying ministers salaries, and sponsering trips to "spread the word" cost money and would not and could not be payed for by the US government. Just because one aspect of churches financing offsets government spending, it doesn't follow that all aspects would do the same.

The concept of intelligent design is to basically say "Hey, some of this stuff is too complicated for our current understanding, so all of our ideas must all be wrong and a superior being set it all up." That's not any different then when people would look at the stars and say "I can't imagine any way that those lights would be there, it must be a superior being that put them there." That's not science. Science is looking at the theory of evolution, seeing pieces of it that need refining, and refining them. There are still things that aren't understood about gravity, should we throw out Newtons ideas on gravity? No, we should try to figure out the stuff we haven't figured out yet.

Edited October 21, 2005 by Schnazz

[Schnazz]

i've got a good book that addresses the subject and it says about chance events producing life on earth:

"evolutionists admit the probability of atoms and molecules falling into place to form just one simple protein molecule is 1 in 10^113 (1 followed by 113 zeros), more then the estimated number of atoms in the universe..it says that "mathematicians dismiss anything taking place that has a probobality of occurring of less then 1 in 10^50. But a lot more then one simple protein molecule is needed for life. Some 2000 different proteins are needed just for a cell to maintain it's activity, and the chance that all of them will occur at random is 1 in 10^40000"

Haha, someone actually did the math. As rawad_m has shown, there is actually a level of scientific logic behind intelligent design. A lot of people want to make it out as "Oh well, life is too hard to explain so we'll just attribute it to an Intelligent Designer for the time being..." That's not the case at all.

What rawad_m has presented, though already compelling, is just the beginning of the argument. Let's say by a pure miracle all the proteins necessary for a cell to function are made. The probability that they would be properly configured in a cell to create the necessary organelles, all working to sustain the cell... it's hard to imagine... the numbers are that big... And then you have to incorporate DNA that actually has viable code... This is why some scientists are saying that scientifically, it is a viable theory that there was intelligence ordering and manipulating the creation of life.

At the very least, if scientists want to be honest concerning the teaching of evolution, they should cover the probabilities and the evidence that contradicts evolution as well as the things they believe point to it. Even if people do not want to acknowledge intelligent design, they should acknowledge the pitfalls and shotcomings of the evolutionary theory.

It sounds as if the equation is Sir Fred Hoyle's as well (who is not a chemist, biologist, or mathmatician). While that's some impressive looking numbers and even more impressive looking equations, it's flawed. Those equations look at things happinging sequentially. That is, at any given moment on the planet, there is only one combination taking place. That's not the case though, think of all of the molucules in the ocean, all intermixing all of the time. There's a vast, vast, vast number of chemical reactions taking place at any given second. Also, those equations base off of creating a modern protein. There's no reason why there couldn't be other precurors which have a greater likelyhood of occuring. And finally, they discount that there can be self replication occuring prior to the advance stages of simple life.

[Schnazz]

hang on i thought you were from outer space :stickpoke:

I'd apply the same principles to extraterrestial life as intelligent design.. its like "the worlds so big their must be other life out there.."

"the world is so complex..a higher power must have created it"

hey both arguments may be correct but there is no factual evidence.. its like trying to complete a whole world when you can only see half of it .. you just don't know..

In my opinion scientists and others who dismiss intelligent design as a theory should not be scared of it and say it's non scientific but attempt to show that this is not the case, that such complexity can be attributed to evolution and other means..:stickpoke: :rofl:

well I think both cases should have to be proved ..not disproved.. :pony:

Evolution hasn't been proven either.

Theories don't need to be proven to useful. There's a key difference between evolution and ID, evolution is an actual theory, ID is not. ID is simply a hypothesis at this point, with out much hope of moving on the the theory state. A hypothesis must be used to make predictions and those predictions must come true. Once the predictions made by a hypothesis and the results in the world are the same, then it can be considered a theory. Since ID can't be used to make meaningful predictions, let alone test the accuracy of those predictions, it is not a theory, it is a hypothesis. There's not a whole lot of difference between an idea and a hypothesis.

Edited October 21, 2005 by Schnazz

[Schnazz]

Perhaps the mistake that many here are making is ascribing ID to a traditional religious idea of God. You all seem to be hung up on some old white bearded dude hopping from cloud to cloud. I think that most of us can agree that this idea is based on many parts myth and man's own imagination. IMHO, the best way to look at ID is to not make assumptions, but instead examine the myriad amounts of scientific evidence that seems to point to some sort of intelligent manipulation involved in the creation and existence of life. This is indeed science.

What is the "myriad amounts of scientific evidence" that point to intelligent manipulation? The support for ID that I've seen is that things are too complex to be ascribed to chance. Be it the complexity of the first life forms or the complex structures of higher life forms. That there's no way for minor changes to lead to a certain complex system. This isn't evidence to support an intelligent design, all this is is showing that our current understanding of things is limited.

And as much as folks say that ID isn't religously oriented, I'm not buying it. ID means that some some "thing" that is beyond this universe set things up for us. This "thing" would be the one who created everything. How is that not God? How is that not super natural? That's a religion or possibly philosophy, but not science.

[Cozmo D]

Perhaps the mistake that many here are making is ascribing ID to a traditional religious idea of God. You all seem to be hung up on some old white bearded dude hopping from cloud to cloud. I think that most of us can agree that this idea is based on many parts myth and man's own imagination. IMHO, the best way to look at ID is to not make assumptions, but instead examine the myriad amounts of scientific evidence that seems to point to some sort of intelligent manipulation involved in the creation and existence of life. This is indeed science.

What is the "myriad amounts of scientific evidence" that point to intelligent manipulation? The support for ID that I've seen is that things are too complex to be ascribed to chance. Be it the complexity of the first life forms or the complex structures of higher life forms. That there's no way for minor changes to lead to a certain complex system. This isn't evidence to support an intelligent design, all this is is showing that our current understanding of things is limited.

And as much as folks say that ID isn't religously oriented, I'm not buying it. ID means that some some "thing" that is beyond this universe set things up for us. This "thing" would be the one who created everything. How is that not God? How is that not super natural? That's a religion or possibly philosophy, but not science.

Man, I don't even have a smidgen of the amount of knowledge on this subject that you cats do, So I'll just pack up my opinions and step to the rear as quietly as possible. :heavy: :paperbag: :redface: :ohdear:

Let me ask a few stupid questions before I go though, just to make myself look a little more foolish. Say, if 100 or 1000 years from now, some scientists pick a planet to experiment on that is in exactly the state that early earth was in, just so they can prove the theory of evolution. They do what they have to to manipulate that planets atmosphere, just like the scientists you guys mentioned earlier, to bring about the ideal environment to develop life. Say they are successful and they do indeed get life to develop.

Is that proof of Evolution or Intelligent Design?

4 billion years later, if intelligent life on a par with our own develops, what conclusions do you think they will draw?

And the stupidest question of all, why is it so absurd to ponder whether this same question or one of a similar nature may have been asked 4 or 5 billion years ago?

There, I'm done. You can all commence to laughing now, I've got rhymes to write.

:leaving:

[Schnazz]

Let me ask a few stupid questions before I go though, just to make myself look a little more foolish. Say, if 100 or 1000 years from now, some scientists pick a planet to experiment on that is in exactly the state that early earth was in, just so they can prove the theory of evolution. They do what they have to to manipulate that planets atmosphere, just like the scientists you guys mentioned earlier, to bring about the ideal environment to develop life. Say they are successful and they do indeed get life to develop.

Is that proof of Evolution or Intelligent Design?

4 billion years later, if intelligent life on a par with our own develops, what conclusions do you think they will draw?

And the stupidest question of all, why is it so absurd to ponder whether this same question or one of a similar nature may have been asked 4 or 5 billion years ago?

There, I'm done. You can all commence to laughing now, I've got rhymes to write.

:leaving:

Yea, those are all good questions. However, those questions belong in the realm of philosophy and religion, not science (at least not at our current knowledge level). I'm more of a science person then a philosophy person, however this is my take on that stuff:

If we did take a planet and set it in motion just like earth, with the same characteristics that earth had at it's very beginning (prior life, prior oceans, prior everything), got everything just right, set it off, and came back 4.5 billion years later and found us, that'd be a pretty good evidence of evolution. (there's the question of how quantum physics would play into it all, but I'm pretty sure I can't really fathom quantum physics on a planetary scale...) However, if we took a planet, set it up like earth was just at the creation of life and seeded it with life, that would be intelligent design on our part. However, that would neither prove nor reject the concept of intelligent design in the universe. If some alien designed us, then who designed them, etc... All it would prove is that we're capable of design. (sorry if I'm making obvious points :) Beyond the strong support for evolution, there's a more fundamental question. Where did life in the universe come from? Is the universe a closed system, did something spring it into motion at the big bang and let it run, or did that something spring it into motion, then billions of years later plant life? Or did that something just create the entire universe in some state and let it loose? If that something set it up in some state and let it loose, or something threw out the big bang and then planted life, how would we know? There's a lot of indicators that the history of the universe goes all the way back, but perhaps the creator just placed those indicators there for us to find. Well, if the creator did that, then how do we know the creator didn't just put us all here yesterday and gave us a bunch of memories? How do we know this experiment isn't just a day long, and tomorrow we're all gone? If that's the case, then both evolution and ID are pointless, there's no way to verify them at that level.

It's kinda like this forum. Sure, Hero claims he's a guy, has a guys name, put up a picture of a guy claiming it's him, shoot, he even seems like a guy most of the time, but he really could be a girl. :lolsign: At some point, the evidence, though doesn't prove it, is good enough.

I got a bit side tracked. Anyway, I would suspect that, in either "test earth" situation you put out, the inhabitents would likely be pondering the same stuff that we are. If it was the first situation, and they came to the conclusion of evolution, they'd be right. If it was the second situation, and they came to ID, they'd be right, but it wouldn't answer where we came from (or our designers, or their designers, or the first inhabitants of the universe).

It isn't absurd to ponder these questions, they're good questions and should be taught at least in phylosophy classes, if not church, but they're not science questions. At least at this stage, science isn't capable of answering those questions. But science has a pretty good track record, so I'm optimistic on what it can do in the future. :)

Speaking of pondering if earlier creatures have pondered, I have a particular favorite thing I like to ponder along those lines. Let's say the big bang theory is correct, let's also say that the universe will collapse back on itself (I don't think that's the current notion, but I'm gonna use it for my pondering, since it's not firmly established :), so if it collapses on itself, crunches down, super heats (or however you'd describe it) and then explodes into another big bang, and if it was in the same layout, wouldn't that create the same universe all over again? Wouldn't that then create the same earth, and the same JJFP forum, and the same schnazz, and this same topic. That idea just blows my mind :) *

*I make no claim of being the first to consider that notion, I just like it is all :)

Edited October 22, 2005 by Schnazz

[MaxFly]

As far as I can tell, it wasn't a single experiment in 1980, but experiments from 1980 on. And they did not say that there was none of those gases at all on the Earth or in the atmosphere, but that there weren't significant amounts.

Yeah, I agree... In fact, thats what I said.

In 1980, NASA scientists showed that the primitive earth never had methane, ammonia or hydrogen that would amount to anything. They showed that the earth was composed of water, carbon dioxide, and nitrogen. It is impossible to get the same experimental results as Stanley got with that mixture. There have been recent experiments to confirm this.

For that experiment to work, the entire atmosphere does not needs to be composed of those gases, but the merely need to exist in a localized area, perhaps in the ocean. I haven't researched possible sources for all of those molecules, however methane could have come from methane hydrate, which could have been formed on the primitive earth and has been found on other planets.

No, this is false. Methane Hydrate couldn't have been formed on a primitive earth in any area where the chemical reactions necessary to create life would take place. Methane Hydrate is methane locked in ice. For ice to exist, an area must be cold, but we know that for the necessary chemical reactions to take place in the creation of life, there must be ambient heat to act as a catalyst. Also, for ice to exist, we would have to shift the location in which initial evolution took place a lot further north or south. That would invalidate so many other theories of evolution, it would set the movement behind a number of years; the theory would break down. It is impossible for life to sucessfully originate in an area where ice exists, and in an area where methane is trapped in ice. It's too cold.

However, an even more recent experiment, a simulation done in 2005 by University of Waterloo and University of Colorado, suggest that the NASA experiments where flawed. Which ever the case, currently there is no "accepted" atmosphere combination for primitive earth.

Additionally, the methane-methane-hydrogen combination is not the only combination that can reproduce these effects. In 1961, Juan Oro created amino acids and adenine from hydrogen cyanide and ammonia. There is also the iron-sulfur-hypothesis, which roughly states that life could have developed in hydrothermal vents on the ocean floor.

It is important to note that even with the most ideal of conditions, Stanley Miller was only able to yeild a result of 2% amino acid (and no chains) in his experiment out of all the other molecules that were formed in the reaction... that's with an abundance of the necessary gasses and surrounding conditions. Other experiments since have had similar yields (with no amino acid chains).

The University Colorado's experiment was predicated on the theory that there was a great deal of hydrogen in primitive earth's atmosphere. The problem with their experiment is that hydrogen is a very light gas, and earth's gravity would not be able to hold it. Hydrogen would escape into space. Because hydrogen is a light gas, it would not be abundant in the troposphere of earth and on the surface, where origin would have to take place. It's ironic that they would point out that NASA's experiments were flawed only to have their flaws pointed out and NASA's results bouyed.

Also, hydrogen cyanide was one of the organic molecules that Miller produced, but it is not belived that there were any significant amounts of hydrogen cyanide or ammonia on a primitive earth.

Hydrothermal vents under water... This is what scientists have turned to as of late. The problem here is that too much heat destroys organic compounds, and too much cold will stymie chemical reactions, so there is only a narrow area between the warm and cold water where it would be suitable for chemical reactions to take place... The second problem is that chemical reactions tend not to like water... Water is the universal solvent and tends to disolve, or rather, disassociate molecules from eachother because of it's polar properies. Water is a huge, huge hinderance..

The question is, if the Miller experiment was completely invalidated, why is it still taught in schools as one of the many ways that life could have commenced. It shouldn't me mentioned, it was shown to be wrong...

In ID terms, there are separations between micro-evolution and macro-evolution. In science, it's not a clear break. With most current theories on evolution, it doesn't need to take millions of years. Some examples of evolution can take millions of years, many do not. Logically, it makes sense. Considering the diversity of life spans, time until maturity, rate of reproduction, etc, you would expect that different species would change at different rates. Moreover, in many circumstances, it is believed that evolution is triggered by an outside force. If that outside force doesn't occur for millions of years, then yes, it could take millions of years. However, if that outside force occurs quickly, then the evolution will occur quicker.

Additionally, this "explosion of diverse life" that occurred is not as wild as you or others make it sound. Since the late 80's and early 90's, many more fossils from that era have been found. These new fossils showed that the original understanding of that era was inaccurate. Some of the fossils that where thought to be "new" where actually partial fossils of older creatures. Some where improperly catorized. Etc...

Actually, it is as wild and significant as I and others make it sound, and there are scientists that try to downplay it as an anomaly because it contradicts the theory of evolution... Notwithstanding your argument, it is undeniable that there was an unnatuaral explosion of life during the precambrian period, and no impetus for this explosion to occur.

Also, macro and micro evolution are terms used by scientists in general, not just people who believe in intelligent design. The breeding of dogs for example would be classifies as micro evolution by almost any scientist. A very large number of successive micro evolutions would lead to a macro evolution. However, you would need to question the need for divergent evolution for living things that undergo or endure similar conditions.

"biochemist Michael Behe at Lehigh University"

Here's what he had to say about his work: " My ideas about irreducible complexity and intelligent design are entirely my own. They certainly are not in any sense endorsed by either Lehigh University in general or the Department of Biological Sciences in particular. In fact, most of my colleagues in the Department strongly disagree with them."

Note the fact that most of his colleagues strongly disagree with him. His reason for believing in ID is based on what he calls "irreducible complexity" which is basically a rehash of the watchmaker concept. This concept has been refuted many times over the years using many different arguments. For example, there's the theory that individual parts can be hijacked and used for new purposes.

Actually, his theory hasn't been refuted and whichever website you got that from needs to update that.

Here is a viable example of "irreducible complexity."

The avian lung is different from other lungs, such as the reptilian lung (which evolutionists believe it evolved from). Proponents of irreducible complexity argue that the transition from a reptilian lung to a bird lung (avian lung) is unlikely since intermediate stages would be a detriment to the organism.

Recently, conventional wisdom has held that birds are direct descendants of theropod dinosaurs. However, the apparently steadfast maintenance of hepatic-piston diaphragmatic lung ventilation in theropods throughout the Mesozoic poses a fundamental problem for such a relationship. The earliest stages in the derivation of the avian abdominal airsac system from a diaphragmatic-ventilating ancestor would have necessitated selection for a diaphragmatic hernia [i.e. hole] in taxa transitional between theropods and birds. Such a debilitating condition would have immediately compromised the entire pulmonary ventilatory apparatus and seems unlikely to have been of any selective advantage. (Michael Denton)

"microbiologist Scott Minnich at the University of Idaho "

This "scientist" seems to spend more time in courts and on tv than doing research, I can't find any actual experiments he carried out. However, in addition to his "work" on ID, he also has done "work" on Shroud of Turin. I would suspect that he is a religously motivated scientist.

Walter Bradley, PH.D at Texas A&M University

He's a material scientist! That has NO bearing on evolution.

chemist Charles B. Thaxton

His field of work is on crystal structures, yet another prime example of a scientist talking about evolution who doesn't have the authority to do so.

biologist Paul Chien at the University of San Francisco

University of San Francisco is a religous school, another exellent example of religously motivated "scientists."

emeritus biologist Dean Kenyon at San Francisco State University

Other then the fact that his colleagues strongly dissagree with him and he hasn't made a significant contribution in 30+ years, and it's been 20 years since he's come out as a pro ID person (there has been significant advancement in evolutionary theory in the past 20 years), he was once strongly in support of evolution. His rational for changing his stance was that researchers haven't been able to reproduce the creation in a lab. So, by his thinking, if someone hasn't done something yet, it must not be doable. There is a serious problem with that logic.

mathematician William Dembski at Baylor University

A mathematician? Please. That has no bearing on this discussion. I'd add though that he's currently a professor of science and theology at a seminary.

quantum chemist Henry Schaefer at the University of Georgia

This is a brilliant man, however his brilliance is in the field of quantum chemistry. While it does apply to a very narrow field of evolution, it is not enough to overturn all of evolution. Additionally, this man is not only a devout Christian, he also has written at length about it.

I read the other critiques of the scientists. The probelms you cite with almost everyone of them is that they either have religious motives or they have irrelevant fields of study...

I urge you to actually go back and dig deeper. It is apparent that you carried out a cursory internet search of each. Try finding excerpts of their publications before you are quick to discredit them. For example, you discounted the mathematician without knowing how he has applied math to his support of intelligent design. Others who's fields were obviously relevant, you pegged them as having religious motivation without taking a look at how their research led to their support of Intelligent Design.

No, not at all correct. Evolution does touch many fields, but there are two things hampering this. Number one is that evolution is a very large subject, just because you find inconsistancies in one small area of it, that does not qualify you to overturn the entire concept. Secondly, just because there's a place for chemistry in evolution, that does not qualify every chemist to make intelligent remarks about evolution.

You entirely missed what I said. I'll clarify. If a field can be applied to life studies, it is important. Do not underestimate how much a seemingly irrelevant field is crucial to the study of life and life processes. Again, you dismissal of the mathematician is telling. I've spent hours in the lab mathematically analyzing the structure of DNA. It's astounding how something like math or chemistry applies to the life sciences. The same is evident with the chemist. Do some research on how crystal structures may be related to life sciences... you'll be surprised.

There is no possible way that you can argue that "any scientist" will adming to a "great deal" of "evidence refuting". Many, many, many scientists subscribe to evolution. However, I would only need to find one to back up my claim, you would have to find them all to back up yours. Good luck with that.

I should revise that. Any scientist that is honest. If you know the questions to ask and the points to make, they'll either stop talking to you, or simply admit that not only are there may holes in the theory, but direct contradictions that can't be worked around.

What you are referring to is carbon dating, however there are more methods of radioactive dating. Carbon dating does depend on the makeup of the atmosphere, but more importantly, it's limited to roughly 50,000 years in the past. Hardly useful for a detailed study of evolution. Another radioactive dating method, potassium-argon dating, can date significantly longer periods and does not rely on the make up of the atmosphere at any given time.

No. Potassium-Argon dating which is used to date mineral deposits has issues as well...

When Mount St. Helens erupted in 1980 it transformed the surrounding terrain dramatically in a short period of time. The lava that was spewed from this volcanic event was dated twenty years after the fact, using Potassium-Argon dating. Mount St. Helens should have tested out to 20 years plus or minus a year or two for a margin of error. Instead, sample results came back ranging from 1/3 to 3 million years...

Many ID people make the mistake to differentiate macro evolution from micro evlution, scientist, however, do not.

This is absolutely false. Let me explain why.

Without the qualifications of macro and micro, the breeding of a dog or horses would be equivalent to the supposed evolution of birds from reptiles. I'm not sure any scientist would actually agree that those two processes would be the same. This is why micro or macro has to be added. You make "micro" and "macro" out to be a terms used soley by those who put forward the theory of intelligent design. This is absolutely false. In general, scientists agree with the use of these qualifiers. Micro-evolution is the adaptations and changes within a species while macro-evolution is the addition of new traits or a transition to a new species.

Churches in general are non profit organizations. Non profits aren't generally taxed because there is no profit revenue. Taxation is a concept that applies to entities that produce wealth. Because churches consume wealth rather than produce it, taxation is not applied to them. If you were to tax churches, you would also have to tax educational, medical, charitable, and welfare organizations. Now taxing educational and medical organizations would instantly raise your taxes, but as it is now, would you also say that you pay for charities?

What? So that means that if I don't have a job, but I buy something, I don't have to pay taxes? Right...

Churches and other nonprofit organizations pay taxes when they buy goods. They may pay reduced taxes, but they do pay taxes. Also, if you don't have a job, please explain why you would need to pay an income tax or how you would pay an estate tax. I can't go further with this analogy until you clarify it.

Here's an example of a church causing less taxes to be collected. My friend recently got married in a new, extravagent church. For arguments sake, lets say that church cost about 1,000,000 to build. Now lets say that Bob donated 10,000 to the church to help pay for that. (I know, random numbers, they're here to illustrate the point, not to be exact) Bob makes 100,000 a year, paying 25% tax, would have payed $25,000 in taxes that year. However, since he made that donation, which is tax deductable, he only had to pay taxes on 90,000 of that, which would be $22,500. That donation, which did not affect any charity the government would have taken care of, caused $2,500 to not be collected, which means my tax bill must be a few thousandths of a cent higher to cover it.

While arguement you make about the charity work of churches is true, you're adding complexity that isn't needed. The charity work of churches does cause offsets, however building churches, paying ministers salaries, and sponsering trips to "spread the word" cost money and would not and could not be payed for by the US government. Just because one aspect of churches financing offsets government spending, it doesn't follow that all aspects would do the same.

Well here's the problem with your assesment. If Bob gave you a gift of 10,000 dollars, he can claim it as a deduction if it is charitable in nature. The catch is that you don't have to report it and it won't be taxed when you do your taxes because it was a gift, and gifts of 10,000 or less aren't taxed. Bob giving you 10,000 dollars would have the same effect as Bob giving the church 10,000. In fact, if this is the argument you want to go with, everyone that gives money to charity and claims it as a tax deduction raises your taxes. In essence, you're covering everyone that gives to charity. If no one gave to charity, your taxes would be a lot lower... You're forced to pay for charities...

Also, the complexity I added is needed. Lets say that by implementing an estate tax, you discourage more and more churches from building because it becomes too expensive. Churches after all survive off of "donations"... Fewer after school programs, soup kitchens, post prison programs, pregnancy counseling, marriage counseling, drug counseling, etc... Guess who would fully take on those responsibilities... Guess who's taxes are going to pay for them. In fact, your taxes may be even more expensive because we know how the govenment likes to do things big... Like I said, it's complex...

The concept of intelligent design is to basically say "Hey, some of this stuff is too complicated for our current understanding, so all of our ideas must all be wrong and a superior being set it all up." That's not any different then when people would look at the stars and say "I can't imagine any way that those lights would be there, it must be a superior being that put them there." That's not science. Science is looking at the theory of evolution, seeing pieces of it that need refining, and refining them. There are still things that aren't understood about gravity, should we throw out Newtons ideas on gravity? No, we should try to figure out the stuff we haven't figured out yet.

Well I'm not sure if you're being satirical, but you've missed the premise on which intelligent design is based... again.

Intelligent design doesn't say "Hey, some of this stuff is too complicated for our current understanding, so all of our ideas must all be wrong and a superior being set it all up."

That's what people say who want to ridicule the theory or aren't bothered to give it thought... Intelligent design is this... The processes to create life and to sustain it are so complex and specified, and so much information is needed, and has to be applied correctly that some level of intelligence needed to be applied.

For example... Lets say my screen name at some point during my time on JJFP.com posts the preamble for the Constitution of the United States. What would you think? What would you say if I told you that I didn't do it... that it must have been my cat at home, he jumps on my keyboard all the time. What would your argument be what it couldn't possibly be my cat?

[MaxFly]

It sounds as if the equation is Sir Fred Hoyle's as well (who is not a chemist, biologist, or mathmatician). While that's some impressive looking numbers and even more impressive looking equations, it's flawed. Those equations look at things happinging sequentially. That is, at any given moment on the planet, there is only one combination taking place. That's not the case though, think of all of the molucules in the ocean, all intermixing all of the time. There's a vast, vast, vast number of chemical reactions taking place at any given second. Also, those equations base off of creating a modern protein. There's no reason why there couldn't be other precurors which have a greater likelyhood of occuring. And finally, they discount that there can be self replication occuring prior to the advance stages of simple life.

There are various numbers, all of which have more than 50 zeros after it. You make a good point in that the equations must regard things as happening sequentially. However, when you add the probability of the destruction of nucleic acids, amino acids, and proteins, you get even higher numbers than some have put forth. Also, the manufacturing of proteins is sequential, and most amino acids readily bond. The problem is will the 20 that are only found in living things manage to bond and at the same time, leave out the other 100 amino acids that would destroy the entire process...

[Hero1]

wow interesting stuff.. I think about those kinda things a lot schnazz someone needs to start a philosophy post :gettinjiggywitit: