Evolution vs Intelligent Design

  • Thread starter onycho
  • Start date
  • #26
Evo
Mentor
23,544
3,215
Originally posted by Fliption
Hmm that doesn't make any sense.
The possiblity of creating something that would require that kind of precision would be next to impossible to do intentionally. Seeemingly impossible things happen all the time by accident.
 
  • #27
onycho
Originally posted by Evo

The possiblity of creating something that would require that kind of precision would be next to impossible to do intentionally. Seeemingly impossible things happen all the time by accident.

That possibility of precision would be next to impossible with humans but what about the possibility of panspermia (implantation of life from the unvierse) or from an unseen hand that cannot be described by anything the finite conscious mind can conceive.

What seemingly unexplainable things happen all the time? One example will be sufficient.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #28
Evo
Mentor
23,544
3,215
Originally posted by onycho
Evo you make a statement that I presume you are able to back up with logic or proof rather than simply making a blanket statement about random accident being so necessarily precise.
No, my point is that if it is an accident, it is random, it does not need to be precise. But in order for someone to *intentially* achieve this, they would have to have been *incredibly & unimaginably* precise. Doesn't seem very likely.

Reasonable is in your opinion but not in any evidence you have presented to counter this assertion.
I am a layman and the article you posted stated that the average American would be more likely to believe in ID. I'm pretty average & I don't believe it. I'm just using common sense.

On Copyright Law. I suggest that you go to the crosswalk website, Terms of Use, then scroll down to Copyright and read what it says there.
 
Last edited:
  • #29
Nereid
Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
Gold Member
3,392
3
onycho's post (the one with all the 0's in it) seems, in part, similar to some discussions on the anthropic principle. IMHO, this is a much better topic to discuss than evolution (as Fliption pointed out, the thread should more accurately be called 'abiogenesis vs ID').

So, suppose that if the elementary electric charge had been 1 part in 105 different, then carbon-based life would have been impossible (it's not important whether it's 5 or 3 or 130; nor whether it's carbon-based life, or the formation of Earth-like planets, or Sun-like stars, or ... just that there's some very fine line).

What does this mean? That there's some ID? Or that it's pretty banal - if the charge had been different, we wouldn't be here to notice?

[Edit: fixed typos]
 
Last edited:
  • #30
Zero
Originally posted by Fliption
I have to agree with Zero here. That article is laughable on credibility. Unfortunately, it's people like this who try to disguise there political and creationists ideas behind a term like "ID" that make it hard for any one else to be taken seriously when they honestly want to consider other alternatives.

I'm not talking about alternatives to evolution. That is obviously true. I'm referring more to abiogensis. Which is where the debate really is anyway. I can't figure out why the word "evolution" continues to be used. Do people actually doubt that natural selection works? As opposed to what? Creating it all in 7 days? I can't honestly take this story seriously even though I'm the first person to pause when asked if I think the universe is an accidental box full of rocks.

I'm not sure the science in this area is taught as it should be either but I don't believe the reason is a political and moral conspiracy. That's insane. True progress will never happen as long as we have uneducated people involved.
Well at least you've got the terms right. While I know we don't agree exactly, at least you aren't trying to frame the debate in incorrect terms. You can say "abiogenesis vs. ID" and debate that issue logically.
 
  • #31
onycho
Originally posted by Evo

No, my point is that if it is an accident, it is random, it does not need to be precise. But in order for someone to *intentially* achieve this, they would have to have been *incredibly & unimaginably* precise. Doesn't seem very likely.

Correct.... In order for someone to intentiionally achieve this level of unimaginable precision doesn't seem very likely. But are we talking about Jack Sprout or Ossama Bin Laden being so precise?

I am a layman and the article you posted stated that the average American would be more likely to believe in ID. I'm pretty average & I don't believe it. I'm just using common sense.

I didn't state that any average American or human being would be more or less likely to believe in ID. Most people don't even care to consider random choice or ID at any time in their lives.

On Copyright Law. I suggest that you go to the crosswalk website, Terms of Use, then scroll down to Copyright and read what it says there.

I have.... and have contacted Crosswalk.com about their policy and it's proper use on a chat line. I await their reply and will post it when received. Shoot that dead dog one more time....
 
  • #32
Evo
Mentor
23,544
3,215
Originally posted by onycho
One example will be sufficient.
I don't have the time right now to look things up for you when you know very well that there is plenty of evidence to back up my comment. If you don't, you should read more.

By the way, what proof do you have of someone or something doing this "by design", since you are asking *us* to believe *you* the burden of proof is on you and you alone.
 
  • #33
Zero
Originally posted by onycho
Originally posted by Fliption

I have to agree with Zero here.....

You are correct in your assumption that Albert Mohler is a Baptist preacher and as such is speaking from his religious perspective.

Professor Steven Weinberg was educated at Cornell University, the Niels Bohr Institute in Copenhagen and Princeton University and has received honorary doctoral degrees from a dozen other universities.

Professor Weinberg is an avowed skeptic, if I understand him correctly has his doubts. He wrote in "life as we know it' would be impossible if any one of several physical quantities had slight different values.... One constant does seem to require incredible fine tuning." (Scientific American, October 1994). This constant has to do with the energy of the big bang, Weinberg quantifies the tuning as one part in 10> (130). Scientific notation is an understatement and so I will expand that potential into decimal notation. If the energy of the big bang were different by one part out of 10000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 there would be no life in our universe. The universe is tuned for life from its inception, when life first appears.

Michael Turner, the widely quoted astrophysicist at the University of Chicago and Fermilab, described that tuning with a simile: "The precision,” he said, "is as if one could throw a dart across the entire universe and hit a bull’s-eye one millimeter in diameter on the other side."

Scientists discover astonishing facts every day. Whether it's physicists realizing how a tiny difference in temperature at the time of the big bang would have obviated the possibility of life as we know it, or biochemists discovering the miraculously complex, delicately balanced molecular machinery that makes blood clotting possible, scientists face the wonder of our existence very directly. Why, then, is it that a hard core of vocal scientists are avowed atheists, taking their discoveries of the wonders of nature as sufficiently edifying ends in themselves.

Slow random chance occurrences of gas bubbles in a flask cannot account for a broken tea cup, over time and by chance returning to its original state. One may ignore reality in order to continue believing the world is flat.

http://proxy.arts.uci.edu/~nideffer/Hawking/early_proto/weinberg.html
Signs that someone is lying or misinformed about evolution and/or creationism:

#4: When their attack on evolution fails, they switch topics. The origin of the universe has nothing to do with evolution, a fact that anti-evolutionists are unable to comprehend


Oh, and did you see how he gave me permission to post here?!? Wasn't that cute?
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #34
Evo
Mentor
23,544
3,215
Originally posted by Fliption
Hmm that doesn't make any sense.
Maybe not to you. Ok, then explain how something that impossible to achieve is more likely to be done on purpose than it being an accident.
 
  • #35
Zero
For those of you who have been following the copyright issue, and Kerrie whenever you look at this thread, here is Crosswalk.com's Copyright Statement:

Copyright
All content included on this site, such as text, graphics, logos, button icons, images, audio clips, and software is the property of Crosswalk.com or its content suppliers and protected by U.S. and international copyright laws. The compilation (meaning the collection, arrangement, and assembly) of all content on this site is the exclusive property of Crosswalk.com and protected by U.S. and international copyright laws. All software used on this site is the property of Crosswalk.com or its software suppliers and protected by U.S. and international copyright laws. Any use, including the reproduction, modification, distribution, transmission, republication, display, or performance, of the content on this site is strictly prohibited.
Now, if they give you permission after the fact, that's fine too...but at the time of the first post, no permission was given, and was therefore an illegal usage of Crosswalk.com's intellectual property. Fair use laws usually make small quotes from a larger essay non-actionable, but simply cutting and pasting an entire essay without permission is generally illegal.
 
  • #36
Zero
For instance, I believe it just got onycho banned from Physics Forums. Have a nice day, and thanks for your participation.

-Zero
 
  • #37
Evo
Mentor
23,544
3,215
Originally posted by onycho
I didn't state that any average American or human being would be more or less likely to believe in ID. Most people don't even care to consider random choice or ID at any time in their lives.
I said the article, you wrote the article? But I stand corrected, the article says that most Americans would be unable to accept a theory that everything just *happened*, without any design. I disagree.
 
  • #38
Evo
Mentor
23,544
3,215
and another one bites the dust...
 
  • #39
Nereid
Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
Gold Member
3,392
3
But why was this thread in General Philosophy in the first place? If it's about evolution, shouldn't it be in Biology?

Or, if we want to discuss a philosophy topic, why not the anthropic principle?
 
  • #40
Evo
Mentor
23,544
3,215
Good point Nereid, but you always have good points. :smile:
 
  • #41
Kerrie
Staff Emeritus
Gold Member
839
15
topic is locked due to copyright infringement...

congratulations onycho, you have successfully gained my attention at scrutinizing your posts more carefully, now my credibility in you to supply information in a positive and non-antagonzing way has been flushed down the PF toilet...

perhaps you would like to re-read our PF policies in the feedback forum and try again? or does this sort of attention feed your inner child adequately?
 

Related Threads on Evolution vs Intelligent Design

Replies
117
Views
14K
P
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • Last Post
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • Last Post
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • Last Post
2
Replies
28
Views
5K
  • Last Post
Replies
22
Views
4K
  • Last Post
2
Replies
27
Views
6K
  • Last Post
4
Replies
87
Views
8K
  • Last Post
Replies
19
Views
3K
Top