[Victus Mortuum]

Hello. I figured I would give my four cents (adjusted for inflation ) to this discussion.

As for the topic at hand, firstly, a quick explanation of the scientific method is necessary.

1) Experience – Something is observed in nature that we have no explanation for.
2) Hypothesis – We make an educated guess as an explanation of our experience.
3) Experiment – We test our hypothesis by testing predictions made by our explanations.
4) Theory – When a hypothesis is validated multiple times, it becomes a scientific theory.

So, now you can see what a hypothesis is, as opposed to a theory. The theory of evolution worked like this:

1) Experience – There were different species of organisms on earth, and we didn’t know how.
2) Hypothesis – Darwin hypothesized that species slowly changed over time.
3) Experiment – For two hundred years we have experimented and tested and explored and found more evidence that he was right.
4) Theory – Thus is the theory of evolution, validated and adjusted through continual experimentation.

On the other hand, intelligent design works like this:

1) Truth – God created the universe and creatures etc.
2) Experiment – Small experiments with little support are performed and the results are skeptical at best.
3) Stubbornness – Any evidence refuting previous experiments is not accepted, and experiments in favor of alternate theories are not accepted.
4) Proof – Therefore God must have created the universe and creatures etc.

This is why it is a theory of evolution, as opposed to the ‘religion’ of creationism. It isn’t even a hypothesis, because it isn’t based on experience, it is based on a presupposed truth.


As for the ‘causation’ argument

You basically argue that because everything that comes into existence has a cause, and because you presuppose that the universe came into existence at a specific point in time, that the universe must have a cause outside of itself, which you attribute to God. I do not agree with your second premise ‘the universe came into existence at a specific point in time’. We have no evidence to suggest such.

Watch Unlocking the Mystery of Life. I'm content to let the real scientists explain it.

Ya, because that is really convincing. I could give you hundreds of other reference that would dispute every claim made in that video if I watched it. The fact is that referencing a video for evidence is not very good argument, because there are plenty of other videos on the other side of the coin. If you really want to understand evolution, I advise you read the entire articles below to start:

The modern theory of evolution
Adaption
Genetic Drift
Gene Flow
Mutation
Natural Selection
Speciation
Proof for evolution

As for the existence of God,

I have never experienced any part of God. I have never seen, heard, felt, tasted, or smelled what God is like. God has no existence in my mind outside of a physical, human perspective, and everything I ‘know’ about Him is from that point of view. Let’s assume I believe in God. Everything I know about God and about what he does are from the experience I may have had with my family/church/forums, that is, my knowledge of God is a product of my experience, as is the rest of my being. I attribute everything good that I do to God, and everything bad to myself. I think to myself in an attempt to communicate with this being (i.e. prayer), which is really me communicating with myself. This thing (‘God’) that does the good is just as much a product of my experience as every other part of my mind. It turns out that this thing is really part of my mind, not something apart from it. My ‘God’ is a part of myself that does the ‘good’ things in my life, which I attribute to something other than myself, giving me no option but to look evil. Here is a piece of a work in progress I am writing that has to do with this:

[wip]

Early humanity entered into nature, not understanding the many mysterious operations that it performed. Because they could not conceive of nature operating as it was of its own power (circling sun, changing seasons, weather, etc.), they attributed to it attributions that they understood within themselves. They took a part of nature that was really operating on its own, and separated it from reality by giving it humanlike qualities.

Religion was born, and it changed over time and acquired its more modern appearance. But, modern religion differs from old religion in this: where old religion separated the reality of nature from itself, modern religion separates the reality of humanity from itself. Religion takes everything that is good within humanity and rips it from them. It attributes it to an infinite God. Humanity sees within itself only the corrupt, the evil. Humanity, the real being, amounts to nothing beneath God, the created being. God is the ruthless master of his creators, his human slaves.

Humanity searches religion for a fantastic reality, and finds there only a reflection of itself. Humanity creates religion, religion does not create humanity. But humanity is not an individual being sitting outside of nature; it is the world of humanity – society. This society produces religion, and that religion is the inverted consciousness of the world, because the world of religion is a reflected image of the real world, the world of humanity.

[/wip]

[slap_j]

Originally Posted by Victus Mortuum

As for the existence of God...

I suppose it's true that many proponents of ID are Christian. Though ID doesn't necessitate a presuppsition of any sort of deity.

[doulos14]

Ok hopefully i didn't miss this because I read most of the thread.

So my problem with the theory of evolution is how did this life that is now evolving come from? You see that regardless of whether we evolved from a simple life form to what we are today, I ask what is your answer to the creation of life. Because something had to create this life, and we would agree that even a basic cell has a enormous complexity, so something such as the Big Bang is not possible. Now the argument could be given that we were always here or we were created by something that no longer exists and for which there is no evidence. Science has a law call the Second Law of Thermodynamics that say basically that everything is deteriorating at its given pace. Now based on the definitions of a scientific law vs. a scientific theory, the law is guaranteed to happen, while a theory is a chance. Please tell me how your theory of evolution lines up with this law. Now i do make some mention to evolution, this mainly being Natural Selection. We see adaptations in animals that allow for the survival in various climates. Now our creator might have programmed these tools into our systems, but we do see some examples of this trait. That should be enough for now and I look forward to a response to any of these arguments to which I can respond, but please don't bring religion into this any more than is necessary, because if we are talking about science and not theology then I ask for evidence.

Caleb

[slap_j]

Originally Posted by doulos14

Science has a law call the Second Law of Thermodynamics that say basically that everything is deteriorating at its given pace.

So far as I understand it the second law of thermodynamics doesn't prevent order from disorder so long as the net effect in the universe is an increase in entropy. Otherwise, for example, once melted water couldn't refreeze.

Or maybe I'm misunderstanding you.

[Victus Mortuum]

Originally Posted by doulos14

So my problem with the theory of evolution is how did this life that is now evolving come from?

Where did life come from? You might want to read this article for a background of how noncreationists see the coming into being of life. If you ever take a chemistry class, try to push into organic chemistry. You'll begin to see how life may have come from nonlife.

Basically, the current hypotheses about abiogenesis are varied and several of them seem to be viable explanations. Perhaps several of them happened...? The truth is that we have no definite theory of abiogenesis yet. Science is working on finding one, though. After reading the article, you will see how much it does make sense that life could come from nonlife.

You see that regardless of whether we evolved from a simple life form to what we are today, I ask what is your answer to the creation of life. Because something had to create this life,

Notice your word choice. You presuppose that something had to create this life, as opposed to being generated in the correct conditions.

and we would agree that even a basic cell has a enormous complexity, so something such as the Big Bang is not possible.

??? What does the Big Bang (which I think is a silly theory when added together with General Relativity) have to do with abiogenesis?

Now the argument could be given that we were always here or we were created by something that no longer exists and for which there is no evidence.

I never made any of those arguments.

Science has a law call the Second Law of Thermodynamics that say basically that everything is deteriorating at its given pace.

Actually no it doesn't. The second law of thermodymamics says something like this:

In an isolated system, a process can only occur if it increases the total entropy of the system.

Now, what does that mean? Entropy is a measure of the 'equilibrium' of energy. The more evenly distributed energy is, the more difficult it is to use that energy. As entropy increases, so too does the 'equilibrium' of the energy. There are several problems with your arguement. Entropy has nothing to do with 'disorder' or 'deterioration'. Entropy can decrease in an open system, so long as the entropy increases more in the surroundings. Earth is an open system, with the energy of the sun becoming more and more 'equilized' at a greater rate than the energy on Earth is becoming more and more unbalanced and usable.

Now based on the definitions of a scientific law vs. a scientific theory, the law is guaranteed to happen, while a theory is a chance.

Laws are not guaranteed to happen. Laws are firmly established mathematical accounts of phenomona. We have no guarantee that the next time we do something, it will do it as it did in the past. (We have no reason to believe that it is a law of nature that the laws of nature don't change.) Also, a theory is not a 'chance', it is an inductively consistent explanation for an experiencable phenomona.

Please tell me how your theory of evolution lines up with this law.

...the above suffices to respond to this statement...

That should be enough for now and I look forward to a response to any of these arguments to which I can respond, but please don't bring religion into this any more than is necessary, because if we are talking about science and not theology then I ask for evidence.

Religion was a big part of the discussion, actually. (someone had tried to argue for the existence of God, so I countered with an argument against the existence of God)

[+SEAL+]

Originally Posted by Victus Mortuum

The theory of evolution worked like this:

1) Experience – There were different species of organisms on earth, and we didn’t know how.
2) Hypothesis – Darwin hypothesized that species slowly changed over time.
3) Experiment – For two hundred years we have experimented and tested and explored and found more evidence that he was right.
4) Theory – Thus is the theory of evolution, validated and adjusted through continual experimentation.

#3 is where the evolutionary-origins hypothesis is lacking. We so far have not been able to isolate a single species, isolated reproductively, that has evolved, only variations on current species. To raise a hypothesis to a theory, you have to back it up with observed evidence. Evolution is a theory. Evolutionary origins is not.

By the way, what exactly is this evidence that we have found pointing to evolutionary origins? The only evidence I'm aware of is the infamous moths, the fruit flies, the finches, and various other examples of evolution. All the rest is just stories being written around puzzle pieces, with no proof that that's how they fit together.

[danlong]

I love paging through diatribes posted by many who have been brought up in the tax-payer based religious system AKA public schools.

In your discussion of science (granted I'm an old fart and engineer) you keep referencing the new abridged scientific methodology. I'm sorry boys and girls but you keep neglecting two key elements of scientific protocol (and it's these two that make research supporting liberal agendas fall apart) and that would be reproducibility and a control. Without these two, the rest, no matter how much empirical "evidence", becomes faith. And as such, has no place being taught in a public school.

Below I post a letter to the editor I'd written once. They edited out other theory parts so that they could keep the flames burning against Christian faith based "idiots", but before you teach to answer the religious question of where we come from, you need to cover all the bases.

"Just the facts, Madam, just the facts.

Well we're back at it again. Creationism against evolution. The religious left against the religious right. Why does this keep coming up? Probably because state mandated skull duggery has made the "public" school the primary religious institution for those unable to afford private schools. Intelligent design (ID) inclusion is an attempt to give parents at least some form of state funded option of defering away from the state funded religious opinion of evolution.

It was pointed out that ID can't be tested. Well, if you put aside contemporary modified science taught currently and go back to the rigors of scientific tesing I grew up with you find that the principles and fact of evolution can't be tested either, it becomes a faith doctrine. Testing in evolution, as spoken of by Mr's Sober and Numbers, is based on a plethora of hopeful assumptions that cannot be tested. A basic rule in science and research is being able to replicate the process, not "we think we observed this and that therefore we believe it must be true" A "fact" I was taught in High School, was that the smallest particle was the Neutron, evolution must have changed that fact because now they keep looking for muons (sp). How much faith can we put in the "scientific community"? For example, I've lost count of the back and forth studies on the merits of butter or margarine.

The fact is, that evolution is faith based, as ID is faith based. You can throw around all sort of scientific sounding facts and figures, produce tons of gadgets, date as many bones as you want, but it will not prove the evolution of man. It's pundits excavate religiously searching for that truth that can't be found, just as Judeo-Christians bring up archeological finds proving the Bible and living lives to find the ultimate truth. The fact is there are many other theories, one group feels there is more than enough empirical proof to indicate that possibly this planet has been colonized by extraterrestrials time and again, and it's religious proponents will want to see that taught in school.

The question is not whether we should include ID alongside evolution. The question is should the public schools be teaching a religious premise in the first place. Should the question of "where do we come from?" be approached in the public schools? Can't evolution be taught privately on a Saturday or Sunday on one's private time instead of tax dollars as other religious doctrines are handled? Should this topic be required of children whose parents object to it? Those are the questions that should be asked. The whole topic needs to be removed from the curriculum, it can't be proven and continues to change over time. It, in itself, seems to be evolving.

Who knows, we all may really be a big computer program stuck in "the Matrix" thinking what we see is reality. I don't see anyone proving otherwise."

Just my 2cents

Dan

[JerryLove]

So my problem with the theory of evolution is how did this life that is now evolving come from?

That question is not addressed in evolution (nor is it addressed in bouyancy, lightwave theory, nor gravity). Also, Evolution being true or false does not make ID science.

Because something had to create this life, and we would agree that even a basic cell has a enormous complexity, so something such as the Big Bang is not possible.

Because dolphins live in igloos, therefore the planet Mars must have assassinated JFK?

There are numerous flaws in your statement. False statements with no causal relationship to you conclusions. I just erased the part of my post detailing these erros (someone else has done so anyway). I'll point out that none relate to evolution, and though one relates to ID (something created life), it at best restates ID. It does nothing to support it nor make a case that it's science.

Science has a law call the Second Law of Thermodynamics that say basically that everything is deteriorating at its given pace. Now based on the definitions of a scientific law vs. a scientific theory, the law is guaranteed to happen, while a theory is a chance

It's very hard to resist at this point a "you're an ignoramus" retort. You don't know what "law" means for one. You ceratinly arent familiar with the second law of thermodynamics (which is part of the theory of thermodynamics.

Oh: and there's no basis to believe that "chance" actually exists.

So far as I understand it the second law of thermodynamics doesn't prevent order from disorder so long as the net effect in the universe is an increase in entropy. Otherwise, for example, once melted water couldn't refreeze.

Neither frozen water nor unfrozen water has any more or less entropy.

Entropy in thermodynamics discusses the uneveness of the dispersion of heat. That's all.

[JerryLove]

#3 is where the evolutionary-origins hypothesis is lacking. We so far have not been able to isolate a single species, isolated reproductively, that has evolved only variations on current species. To raise a hypothesis to a theory, you have to back it up with observed evidence. Evolution is a theory. Evolutionary origins is not.

Really? What about NW Salmon, American Goatsbeard, Drosophila paulistorum , Farrow Island mice, and Rhagoletis pomonella?

By the way, what exactly is this evidence that we have found pointing to evolutionary origins? The only evidence I'm aware of is the infamous moths, the fruit flies, the finches, and various other examples of evolution. All the rest is just stories being written around puzzle pieces, with no proof that that's how they fit together.

Did you look? Obviously not if your most up-to-date understanding is from the 1800s (did you even read that book).

Tell you what: Google around to find out what Midocondria are and how they relate to evoluationary study.

Originally Posted by danlong

I love paging through diatribes posted by many who have been brought up in the tax-payer based religious system AKA public schools.

You open with basically an ad hominim on yourself... interesting.

In your discussion of science (granted I'm an old fart and engineer)

...and follow with a veiled appeal to authority (don't argue: I'm old and have a degree). My EE degree, and my GF (if she can play, shes ESL) has her PhD as an EE. (checst thumping *is* fun.

Testing in evolution, as spoken of by Mr's Sober and Numbers, is based on a plethora of hopeful assumptions that cannot be tested. A basic rule in science and research is being able to replicate the process, not "we think we observed this and that therefore we believe it must be true"

Of course there are pleanty of falsifiable tests for pretty much all of Evolutionary theory. For example: when we discoverd protien creation, we started comparing protiens (and later DNA, and later Midocondrial DNA) from various animals. A lack of relationships, or relationships which bore no resembelance to the evolutionary tree, would have falsified evolution.

That was a test. You can repeat them yourself (though some would require a DNA sequencer, but your lack of resources is not my problem). Biology is, of course, far less like engineering and more like, say, geology. We can't "test for volcanos" any more than for speciation. Can't put the Earth in a lab. We can study and imitate individual parts, and we've watched new volcanos and new species form.

Hrm... maybe we should remove volcanism from the sciences?!?

A "fact" I was taught in High School, was that the smallest particle was the Neutron, evolution must have changed that fact because now they keep looking for muons (sp). How much faith can we put in the "scientific community"? For example, I've lost count of the back and forth studies on the merits of butter or margarine.

So you have an engineering degree and you are appealing to high-school?

A "fact" I learned in kindergarden was that you always subtract the little number from the big one.

When I was in HS, the science class taught that the mass of a falling object was irrellevent to the time-to-impact in a vacuum. Of course I knew this was not true, and so did the teacher, and so did the guy who wrote the book... but for a 13-year-old at 40min a day in a big cirriculum we simplify. When I went into calc-based physics my fresman year in college, the teacing was qruite different.

Your claim is certainly false (you don't predate the discovery of the electron), but even if I assume that your HS taught you that X was "the smallest particle" instead of "the smallest known particle", it's irrellevent. It speaks more to *how* HS teaches than the vailidity of evolution (or partical physics). The scientific community obviously had not assumed that true, or they would not have gone looking for ever smaller particles.

Can't evolution be taught privately on a Saturday or Sunday on one's private time instead of tax dollars as other religious doctrines are handled?

Of course. We could teach math the same way, and reading comprehension... certainly creative writing isn't fact-based.

But your dishonest pairing of subjectivism with religion and accustion that simplification equates to a falsehood of the underlying theory is ... to break a rule of writing and repeat a word... dishonest.

[slap_j]

Originally Posted by JerryLove

Neither frozen water nor unfrozen water has any more or less entropy.

Perhaps I worded it poorly but isn't energy "spreading out" as ice melts?

[+SEAL+]

Originally Posted by JerryLove

Really? What about NW Salmon, American Goatsbeard, Drosophila paulistorum , Farrow Island mice, and Rhagoletis pomonella?

NW Salmon--Couldn't find anything big on this one...do you have a link to it?
American Goatsbeard--From what I can tell, it's just another variety of Salsify. Hardly any significant traits, only tiny modifications of existing traits.
Drosophila paulistorum--Probably the best example you have of reproductive isolation
Farrow Island Mice--Also couldn't find anything on this, save a CGR post. Do you have a link to something about this?
Rhagoletis pomonella--A maggot that changed its diet. Again, another variety.

So here's the deal. What's missing from the evolutionary-origins hypothesis is any evidence that small changes can stack up to big, major changes. Because we have not observed them, we cannot admit this hypothesis as a theory.

Tell you what: Google around to find out what Midocondria are and how they relate to evoluationary study.

I was well aware of mitochondrial DNA. And I'm aware that it documents the evolution of the human species. Yet it has nothing to do specifically with the origin of all the world's species.

[JerryLove]

Originally Posted by slap_j

Perhaps I worded it poorly but isn't energy "spreading out" as ice melts?

In order to melt, frozen water absorbs heat: so yes, the processof melting increases entropy.

It is, however, possible for a single block of ice, or pool of water, to have little entropy (well, there's a limit based on the temperature range of either state), or be at maximum entropy.

NW Salmon--Couldn't find anything big on this one...do you have a link to it?

If you check my FAQ (linked in my sig) I provide links and details. Some may be out-of-date.

I was well aware of mitochondrial DNA. And I'm aware that it documents the evolution of the human species. Yet it has nothing to do specifically with the origin of all the world's species.

Exact same thing it does fr humans. Mutation moves at a relatively constant rate. You can compare the relationship of two different creatures by looking at the divergence level of their midocondria.

To falsify, you would check against junk DNA outside of midocondria, protiens, and/or historical morphological cues. If these failed to coinside, then you'd have a disproof of historical evolution.

That would be scientific method.

[danlong]

Jerrylove,

You really are enamored with the phrase ad hominem, the least you could do is spell it correctly or is that request an ad hominem on you? To your error you stated I opened with an ad hominem on myself another sign of your clear and unappraised prejudice. I was parochial schooled through the 9th grade until taxation without representation forced us to have to lower the bar and attend the state religious institution.

The slam, if you will, would be against your type, not even the topic. We find clones of you in forums everywhere. You could be on the ESPN sports forums, where statistics are carefully kept and yet these same types of arguments you put forth continue. Facts are facts, unless you of course love to argue for the sake of argument, pumping your chest and giving others grief.

Your one point is well taken and I erred, the neutron is in fact of slightly greater mass than a proton but then it's been awhile since I've even visited that.

For your argument you skip over the main point of my discussion, that being, that a purely subjective religious and unprovable topic as this has no place on the tax role. You're college education, on the other hand, you paid for and had an option.

You don't need evolution to teach biology, or health sciences, they do fine on their own. Math and physics work for themselves. English composition and literature are great, until you insert your social beliefs into it (that's a parent's job, thank you). Stick to the 3 Rs not misapplied technology that's not needed for a well rounded education. But you do need evolution to push a social religious agenda. Is the human moral, or just an evolving mass. If an evolving mass then the teachings across the liberal agenda become acceptable. Wean children on faulty "science" methodology and a plethora of other faulty studies are acceptable.

For all your arguments I challenge you to prove to me then, that the Matrix is not out there, and that we are not seeing and living in a larger computer program.

And while you're churning away at that, as for me and my house, we will serve the Lord.

[Jeffrey]

I'm going to address Mr. Long's points, but as a brother in Christ I repudiate his harshness and arrogance.

Jerry, please know that at CGR we value your input and we do not dismiss you as a product of a liberal education, nor do we have the arrogance to think that on an out-of-the-way Christian music site will we laymen settle issues that have been a part of human culture for millenia.

p.s. in my high school secular biology class we only discussed evolution in a brief segment. It did not drive the class, it was not forced on us, it was presented as the leading theory but we were not indoctrinated. The vast majority of the class was just the nuts and bolts of various biological functions and organisms.

[bowstaff981]

Originally Posted by Jeffrey

p.s. in my high school secular biology class we only discussed evolution in a brief segment. It did not drive the class, it was not forced on us, it was presented as the leading theory but we were not indoctrinated. The vast majority of the class was just the nuts and bolts of various biological functions and organisms.

That's the point though isn't it? We can't scientifically prove how life was created, whether it be through evolution or another being. So why are the schools allowed to teach one form over the other? They either have to teach them all, and give the science that supports ID as well as the science that supports evolution, or none of them.