CREATION - Intelligent Design vs Evolution

[MisterJingo]

http://www.venganza.org/

I still think the Pastafasarians have a point....

ahah I was reading this just yesterday! It's a fantastic website

[MisterJingo]

Hi runlola,

I think the 'RNA protein chains in a primative soup forming more complex protein chains' theory is not too seriously considered as a start to life in recent times. In experiments I think the protein chains kept binding to the clay particles which would have been found in primative mud pools and so stopping them from binding with other chains.

[MisterJingo]

Just a quick addition, the walk in theory would still require a 'genesis' at some point. That is, there must still have been a moment where life began - so it doesn't answer that question. it just adds more time to the equation.

Ps regarding the fossil records, we are finding more key records which do link us to more primative ape like creatures on Earth. I think the talkorigins website covers evidence for this (i'd have to double check).

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/

more info on transitional records can be found here:

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-transitional.html

[ChineseRoom]

I think, before the debate even begins, that we get our terms straight. "Intelligent Design" and "Evolution" are not at all two contrary theories. Intelligent Design is the theory that we, and the universe in general, were made by a supernatural agent. The theory of evolution explains how we evolved from that first living cell to all the different species on the planet. Remember, it says nothing of HOW we got here, just how animals evolve AFTER that. It seems to be a common misconception among creationists. Abiogenesis, on the other hand, DOES try to show how that first living cell got here by naturalistic means. So, I think it would be more accurate if we say "Intelligent Design" verses "Abiogenesis"

[The AlphaOmega]

I know this is the fourth page, but I only read a few posts on the first page before I found something that I liked.  So sorry if what I say has already been said in the previous posts that I passed over.  I would like to go back to the whole evolution topic.  
 When it comes down to what we as humans being should believe it's hard for me to understand how people can't trust science more.  Granted, there are many things that science can't explain.  That's what philosophy is really for.  Once it can be proven then it no longer remains philosophy, but science.  Everyone is searching for so many answers in God and the great grand scheme of it all.  But even every member of the same church would have a slightly different opinion of what that really was anyways.     Scientific proof, in things like evolution, are right in front of all of our eyes.  
 Evolution has been proven almost to a ridiculous level.  We can clearly see it how it works, what shapes it, that it's always a work in progress.  To argue if evolution is real or not is simply not having all the facts.  
Now with that said, if science is real, then that would make certain parts of the Bible somewhat short of impossible.  Take Noah's arc for example.
 The Bible tells us how big Noah's arc was.  30 cubits x 300 cubits x 300 cubits.  A cubit in todays terms measures out to be a foot and a half.  That makes Noah's arc just a little smaller in measurements with the Titanic.  A pretty amazing feat at that time to say the least, and given the level of progression humanity was at during the time for someone in Noah's life, to build an arc that size would be possible.
 But now we're faced with the event of getting one sex of every animal on the planet, and Noah's two sons and their wives, safely into the arc so that when the 40 days and nights of rain stops, and the flood dissipates, they will all be able to repropogate the planet.  
 Now Biblical scholars date Noah's life to have been around 3,000 b.c. (before common era).  In evolutionary terms 5,000 is not even a blip in the timeline.  Remember, work in progress.  So here are the flaws in the Noah theory.
 1.  Either Noah managed to get one of each sex of African elephants, Indian elephants, Savannah elephants, forest elephants, black rhinos, African rhinos, tigers, lions, bears... the list goes on, onto his smaller than the Titanic arc, then we are missing something in the laws of physics.
 2.  That noah only got some species on the planet into his arc and in 5,000 years they have re-evolved into the same variation of species they were before the flood, and that includes Noah and his grandchildrens, grandchildren.  You see eventually they would have had to turn into blacks, whites, chinese, irish, all over again in a much shorter (also impossible) time span.  
 I guess it's also possible to have an option 3.  That is, you don't believe in right in front of your face, will work whether you believe in them or not, it's the laws of the natural universe (which a Perfect God created in Perfect Order), science.
 So... any other impossiblities (and there are many) of the Good Book that would like to be shared?
 And just so nobody gets offended by this article it might ease your mind to know that I am a faithful Christian.

[MisterJingo]

I think, before the debate even begins, that we get our terms straight. "Intelligent Design" and "Evolution" are not at all two contrary theories. Intelligent Design is the theory that we, and the universe in general, were made by a supernatural agent. The theory of evolution explains how we evolved from that first living cell to all the different species on the planet. Remember, it says nothing of HOW we got here, just how animals evolve AFTER that. It seems to be a common misconception among creationists. Abiogenesis, on the other hand, DOES try to show how that first living cell got here by naturalistic means. So, I think it would be more accurate if we say "Intelligent Design" verses "Abiogenesis"

The problem regarding this debate is that many creationists and ID'ers refute huge areas of scientific theory or are just plain oblivious to it. There is still an incredibly large number of people who believe the world is a few thousand years old, fossils were put there by God to test us, and the world was built in 7 days (there was a program on UK TV about this in the previous week, it regarded fundamental christians and their views).
It seems anything which deviates from a literal interpretation of the bible cases many people to dismiss it outright.

[MisterJingo]

snip

You might find the following link interesting AO:

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,13509-1811332,00.html

It seems some religious leaders accept the bible as moral guidence rather than a literal truth. So stories such as noah, in their eyes, are meant as a form of allegory rather than actual series of events. But the problem is, as mentioned above, there are equally as many who accept religious texts as literal truth.

[Rob]

MJ, I finally got round to reading that discussion you linked to. Sorry but I really dont see how it "debunks" Pye at all - basically, all they say is that evolutionary theory has extended beyond Darwinism and into contemplating new interesting models. As well as giving him credit on the genetic point Pye makes, at the start of their discussion. If the points Pye makes are facts, then they still stand strong. Like pointing out the cambrian explosion (why so much life appearing so suddenly?), the other explosions of life after major disasters, the extra chromosone pair in human DNA compared with other primates, the fact that the same extremophile organisms exist today (sure there are more and different ones, but that we have exactly the same one today as well which have not evolved?) etc etc. I dont think the article you posted addresses any of these or other points Pye made. Would you mind filling me in on what arguments have been placed against these facts, if thats what they are?
And, errr, do me a favour and dont use the word "debunked". I hate that word!!!  


Just another point u made:

There is a very big difference in moving a few hundred miles and then producing a machine which can travel trillions of trillions of miles through a hostile environment.
There is also the question of why they found Earth, the amount of estimated planets, and the amount of stars in our galaxy alone is simply staggering. The amount of galaxies is simply impossible to comprehend.
Unless space is literally overflowing with space faring races (which we would have seen evidence of now), how (in the fifteen billion years of this universes age – although we should take 5-10 billion years off to give stars time to form, nova and produce the materials needed for planets, then the time for intelligence to develop and then produce space faring vehicles) in such a short space of time, and a window of literally a hundred thousand years or so, did these aliens find our planet out of the countless others, in countless solar systems, in countless galaxies?
I just think the chances of such a thing, out of so many potential exploration targets, in such a minutely narrow window of time is too staggeringly remote to even contemplate. Add to this we see no evidence of terraforming machines, no radio waves from alien civilisations polluting space, no DNA evidence for them having tampered with us, no evidence in all the samples we've taken to gauge the atmosphere though earths history.
While there could be aliens out there, I just don't see anything which could remotely suggest they've been here, let alone tampered with us.

Ok lets see:
-The earth is estimated to be 4 billion years old, and the universe 15 billion (though I believe this figure is being pushed further back all the time). Now, life on earth appeared 2 billion years ago, and humans are supposed to have evolved primarily in the last 1 million years (generous). So, from primate to us, in 1/2000'th the time since life appeared. And we have come up with our major technological advances, again to be generous, in the last 1000 years, which is again 1/1000th the time of the evolutionary period. Thats TINY!! And 1000 years is only 1/2,000,000th of the evolutionary time scale since life first appeared. Give our civilisation another 1000 years (another irrelvantly small fraction) and I see no reason why we could not become an inter-galactic civilisation. Looking at these sort of numbers, there is no reason another intelligent civilisation could have appeared, been given a few tens of thousands of years to complete advanced technology, and be flying around the galaxy today. They only need the slightest edge, in evolutionary timescale terms, to get ahead of us. Infact, there is no reason to think that another planet could not have formed and evolved a couple of billions of years before us - our estimates for the universe forming at at best weak estimates, 2 billion in 15 billion IMO is a realistic error, even given our currently knowledge which is changing all the time (as you said "give 5-10 bilions years for the stars to form - but 5 billions years is quite a lot of error!!!!!!!! More than enough for out purposes). However, IMO its not really necessary to argue this point:
- From that point to the greater timescale of the universe, bing bang theory is increasingly getting into seriously hot water. Red shift, if you consider the evidence coming in (well, evidence which has in actuality been around years and years now, just mainstream doesnt like considering it, big bang is taught in schools, and the former ideas are not being allowed an easy death due to how much science has invested in them, but now we have better telescopes, which are showing some rather telling anomalies which are becoming increasingly hard to ignore), has been well shown to be caused by something other than relative velocities, and indeed all our models for how space works are coming under heavy heavy strain. Gravity is looker weirder and weirder by the day, for instance, and the electric theory of the universe is gaining more and more ground - either of which would, in themselves, necessitate some redical re-evaluations of current theories. Erm I am sure there are other direct reasons to take big bang theory from its current dogmatic-truth status, but cant remember them. So anyway our age of the universe is based on red shift, which many forward thinking scientists realise is plain dodgy (red shifts occuring in discrete jumps, rather than continuous scales, finding heavily red shifted stars in binary systems with non-red shifted stars, quasars being right next to stars and galaxies with no red shift in them, there's more I cant remember but thats a taster). Given that, our timescale for the universe is thus entirely fallacious. Again, there is therefore no reason why another civilisation could have got ahead of us by billions of years, not just thousands.
- Imagine, your civilisation has reached a technological peak. You have had aeons to perfect technology that allows you to completely master the physical universe. You have perfected your own physical form to give yourself effective immortality, and have thousand even millions of years to play with. What is there to do next? The only thing left, create!! You start creating myriads of new life forms, on new planets - life is, after all, the most complex mechanism in the known universe, and certainly one of the most interesting to study. And heck, sure there are a lot of planets in the sky, but you have an eternity to play with, and your civilisation is already vast, probably spread over many times many solar systems. You keep monitoring there planets you've seeded, probably leaving equipment behind to keep a watch over your creations, maybe returning every few thousands or millions of years to see whats going on and make tweaks here and there.
- The technological barriers. Every time a scientists says something is impossible, new inventions and experiments prove these silly statements wrong. If you'd have described to the average joe one or a few hundred years ago the state of technology today, they would have laughed at you. If you'd described it to the intelligencia of those times, they'd have declared you insane. This is just one reason I have no doubt that we will become an inter-stellar civilisation, if we survive long enough without killing ourselves first. I mean, look at what we have done in the last 100, or even last 50 years!! We've come so far. Antigravity is in the works, zero point is waiting in the wings, there is so much more for us to explore.
- UFO's - if you havent thoroughly researched this field, you really should!! Since you say you dont think there are aliens here now, my guess is you have not looked into this too deeply, you might even rely on societal opinions to come to your conclusions on this. But the evidence that there are advanced craft around is utterly mountainous! Society is in denial of this at the moment, for the most part, which is a real real shame. I have videos stored on my computer and have seen many more, police videos, military videos, civilian videos, nasa videos, photos, descriptions from credible witnesses, books by highly credible people, government documents by the truckload and we know there's much more they keep hidden. Aye, I am in no doubt about UFO's, which display very advanced technology, and even sometimes more life like characteristics.

So yeah, I dont think we should discount any theory yet, not even ID



Rob

[MisterJingo]

MJ, I finally got round to reading that discussion you linked to. Sorry but I really dont see how it "debunks" Pye at all - basically, all they say is that evolutionary theory has extended beyond Darwinism and into contemplating new interesting models. As well as giving him credit on the genetic point Pye makes, at the start of their discussion. If the points Pye makes are facts, then they still stand strong. Like pointing out the cambrian explosion (why so much life appearing so suddenly?), the other explosions of life after major disasters, the extra chromosone pair in human DNA compared with other primates, the fact that the same extremophile organisms exist today (sure there are more and different ones, but that we have exactly the same one today as well which have not evolved?) etc etc. I dont think the article you posted addresses any of these or other points Pye made. Would you mind filling me in on what arguments have been placed against these facts, if thats what they are?
And, errr, do me a favour and dont use the word "debunked". I hate that word!!!

Ok. Firstly Pye uses what he terms the "warm pool" theory as an attack on Darwinism. Simply because we don't know how life started yet, does not mean we never will, or that aliens started. He makes mention of Panspermia which in its undirected form (ie bacteria brought to earth on meteorites) is still a possible theory as it has been shown that bacteria can survive in the vacuum conditions of space and survive the impact to earth (the recent 'red rain' falling on Kerala is currently being analysed to see if it could be a form of biological life which was seeded from a meteor). This in no way means it was seeded by intelligent life. And it no way explains how such intelligent life was first created. Was their planet seeded too? And the aliens which seeded their planet had their planet seeded who had their planet seeded etc? This simply moves the creation of life to another location with and throws no life on the creation process what so ever. Pye seems to argue because he thinks early earth was a pretty inhospitable place, he finds it hard to believe anything could develop there. Then he questions why the things which were the precursors of life were so tough (because they evolved in an extremely hostile environment perhaps?)
For his information prokaryotes and eukaryotes read here:

http://www.talkdesign.org/faqs/flagellum.html

Cambrian "explosion" was not a short period of time, but tens of millions of years and as new evidence shows, it's beginning  seems to be farther in time that once was believed - fossils of older animals haven't survived because their lacked hard parts, because rocks predating the Cambrian "explosion" are rare and etc. - as new fossils have been found, like the two fishes in China couple of years ago that were about 530 million years old and so distanced from one other that they must be tens of millions  of years away from an common  ancestor. During the Cambrian era happened first time what has since seen several times after mass  extinctions - rapid evolution as lifeforms evolve to fill new niches that opened for  them. Why the Cambrian  "explosion" happened? Before it Earth experienced  one of periods of extreme  glaciation, when most of the surface of the  Earth was filled with ice except  the areas near the equator where life survived  and when conditions changed,  life evolved rapidly as more possibilities emerged to living organisms.

Links about the Cambrian explosion read here (the top two links should be read if none of the others):

http://groups.google.co.uk/group/sci.bio.evolution/browse_frm/thread/86bb273e107600c1/fbdfac042ee7f0c7?lnk=st&q=cambrian+explosion+explanation&rnum=2&hl=en#fbdfac042ee7f0c7

http://groups.google.co.uk/group/talk.origins/browse_frm/thread/fc2a6f9a2bd65b49/1b79e55a4491a020?lnk=st&q=cambrian+explosion+explanation&rnum=4&hl=en#1b79e55a4491a020



http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CC/CC300.html
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CC/CC301.html
http://www.ucmp.berkeley.edu/cambrian/camb.html

Rather than type everything out, the above cover this in far more detail (I don't want to write a 10k + word count post ). If there's anything you disagree with in any of the links we can talk about them on a point-by-point basis.

I'd be interested if you could point me to some scientific journals on Pyes next claim of: "bacteria, preserved in 4.0-billion-year-old cratonal rockbacteria, preserved in 4.0-billion-year-old cratonal rock" as I'm having trouble finding anything outside of Pyes article and so can't comment on it yet.


Pyes critique of the Cambrian explosion firstly omits several large pieces of scientific research to make his point. This imo is using selective knowledge to prove a point. What's worse, the knowledge he omits is not readily available on the public domain, so the layman would not have read it, and would take Pyes statements at face value. Please read the above links to show alternatives to Pyes critique.
If you want me to critique Pyes primate evolution points I will, but I don't have time right now, and 5 minutes on google will counter his claims and provide alternatives which do not require genetic modification by aliens.


Pye uses emotive prose, he chooses to ignore time periods of 500 million to 1 billion years as irrelevant to prove points (they're not).

Regarding your points on aliens visiting Earth, I will answer them later as there was a lot of science overlooked or misinterpreted. I have got to go out soon so don't have time right now.

[greatoutdoors]

Inguma and MisterJingo, compliments to you both on the way you are handling this discussion. You both sound like knowledgeable, well read folks and both have some valid points. Posts like yours are very interesting reading!   I also greatly appreciate you avoiding personal name-calling and the like. Keep up the good work!

All I can add is personal opinion -- admittedly not worth much.  

We know absolutely that natural selection is real. Evolution (meaning mutational changes rather than selective breeding) is harder to demonstrate, but signs are there that it might exist. Science has done so much with genetic manipulation, I am almost afraid to think what they would do if we found the answer to genetic mutation!  

I don't discount that some intelligent agent may have first seeded life on Earth. However, it is just as likely that everything on Earth resulted from chance chemical reactions. Not as good for the ego, but quite possible.

IMO, we will never know how everything first began.  No matter how far back we go, there is always the question, "What happened before that?" For instance, given that the Big Bang is valid, what existed before that -- what caused it?

[Rob]

Quickly

This in no way means it was seeded by intelligent life. And it no way explains how such intelligent life was first created. Was their planet seeded too? And the aliens which seeded their planet had their planet seeded who had their planet seeded etc? This simply moves the creation of life to another location with and throws no life on the creation process what so ever. Pye seems to argue because he thinks early earth was a pretty inhospitable place, he finds it hard to believe anything could develop there. Then he questions why the things which were the precursors of life were so tough (because they evolved in an extremely hostile environment perhaps?)

I agree with all this completely. However, it is still useful to consider these things, since the question of how life started on earth may be different to the question of how life started in the universe as a whole - they dont have to have the same answer. And for now, the only one we have any hope at all of addressing is the former - how here?
And yes, of course the first life on earth will have been tough, but thats no reason to think it could and indeed should not have evolved by now. But yeah, it being tough is no reason to promote ID.
Honestly, I dont put any more credit in ID theory than others. Pyes article was simply useful to me as it provided an alternative viewpoint, and some good attacks on evolutionary theory.

Will read your articles when I too have more time.

Rob

[WarpedReality]

Just a quick addition, the walk in theory would still require a 'genesis' at some point. That is, there must still have been a moment where life began - so it doesn't answer that question.

I would have to go with the "big bang"

Interestingly, some modern theoretical physicists believe that there have been an infinite number of big bangs and will continue to do so. That would explain why gravity and base elements were present at the perfect ratios/measurements necessary for gases and stars to form, eventually leading to life.

Each time gravity was too strong, the universe would collapse back in on itself. Too weak? It would expand too fast, nothing would form and quickly it would reach its limits. Perfect? Well thats now.

[gdo]

Maybe "life' comes before the big bang.  Maybe 'life' is inherent if the effect of 'the big bang'.    LOL.

[Flannery]

Why do I need to scroll horizontally to read this thread ?

(I have closed any lateral parts.)

[El-Bortukali]

Maybe "life' comes before the big bang.  Maybe 'life' is inherent if the effect of 'the big bang'.    LOL.

maybe the physical big bang created the universe and life.
so what did create souls, and all the rest of the spiritual stuff?
another big bang?

[Flannery]

We know absolutely that natural selection is real. Evolution (meaning mutational changes rather than selective breeding) is harder to demonstrate, but signs are there that it might exist.

How about viruses ? They mutate. How about new diseases that are genetic ? How about Tchernobyl causing mutations in human and vegetable DNA ? How about PCBs in the Grand Lakes causing mutations in fish ?

[WindGod]

Ok lets see:
-The earth is estimated to be 4 billion years old, and the universe 15 billion (though I believe this figure is being pushed further back all the time). Now, life on earth appeared 2 billion years ago, and humans are supposed to have evolved primarily in the last 1 million years (generous). So, from primate to us, in 1/2000'th the time since life appeared. And we have come up with our major technological advances, again to be generous, in the last 1000 years, which is again 1/1000th the time of the evolutionary period. Thats TINY!! And 1000 years is only 1/2,000,000th of the evolutionary time scale since life first appeared. Give our civilisation another 1000 years (another irrelvantly small fraction) and I see no reason why we could not become an inter-galactic civilisation. Looking at these sort of numbers, there is no reason another intelligent civilisation could have appeared, been given a few tens of thousands of years to complete advanced technology, and be flying around the galaxy today. They only need the slightest edge, in evolutionary timescale terms, to get ahead of us. Infact, there is no reason to think that another planet could not have formed and evolved a couple of billions of years before us - our estimates for the universe forming at at best weak estimates, 2 billion in 15 billion IMO is a realistic error, even given our currently knowledge which is changing all the time (as you said "give 5-10 bilions years for the stars to form - but 5 billions years is quite a lot of error!!!!!!!! More than enough for out purposes). However, IMO its not really necessary to argue this point:
- From that point to the greater timescale of the universe, bing bang theory is increasingly getting into seriously hot water. Red shift, if you consider the evidence coming in (well, evidence which has in actuality been around years and years now, just mainstream doesnt like considering it, big bang is taught in schools, and the former ideas are not being allowed an easy death due to how much science has invested in them, but now we have better telescopes, which are showing some rather telling anomalies which are becoming increasingly hard to ignore), has been well shown to be caused by something other than relative velocities, and indeed all our models for how space works are coming under heavy heavy strain. Gravity is looker weirder and weirder by the day, for instance, and the electric theory of the universe is gaining more and more ground - either of which would, in themselves, necessitate some redical re-evaluations of current theories. Erm I am sure there are other direct reasons to take big bang theory from its current dogmatic-truth status, but cant remember them. So anyway our age of the universe is based on red shift, which many forward thinking scientists realise is plain dodgy (red shifts occuring in discrete jumps, rather than continuous scales, finding heavily red shifted stars in binary systems with non-red shifted stars, quasars being right next to stars and galaxies with no red shift in them, there's more I cant remember but thats a taster). Given that, our timescale for the universe is thus entirely fallacious. Again, there is therefore no reason why another civilisation could have got ahead of us by billions of years, not just thousands.
- Imagine, your civilisation has reached a technological peak. You have had aeons to perfect technology that allows you to completely master the physical universe. You have perfected your own physical form to give yourself effective immortality, and have thousand even millions of years to play with. What is there to do next? The only thing left, create!! You start creating myriads of new life forms, on new planets - life is, after all, the most complex mechanism in the known universe, and certainly one of the most interesting to study. And heck, sure there are a lot of planets in the sky, but you have an eternity to play with, and your civilisation is already vast, probably spread over many times many solar systems. You keep monitoring there planets you've seeded, probably leaving equipment behind to keep a watch over your creations, maybe returning every few thousands or millions of years to see whats going on and make tweaks here and there.
- The technological barriers. Every time a scientists says something is impossible, new inventions and experiments prove these silly statements wrong. If you'd have described to the average joe one or a few hundred years ago the state of technology today, they would have laughed at you. If you'd described it to the intelligencia of those times, they'd have declared you insane. This is just one reason I have no doubt that we will become an inter-stellar civilisation, if we survive long enough without killing ourselves first. I mean, look at what we have done in the last 100, or even last 50 years!! We've come so far. Antigravity is in the works, zero point is waiting in the wings, there is so much more for us to explore.
- UFO's - if you havent thoroughly researched this field, you really should!! Since you say you dont think there are aliens here now, my guess is you have not looked into this too deeply, you might even rely on societal opinions to come to your conclusions on this. But the evidence that there are advanced craft around is utterly mountainous! Society is in denial of this at the moment, for the most part, which is a real real shame. I have videos stored on my computer and have seen many more, police videos, military videos, civilian videos, nasa videos, photos, descriptions from credible witnesses, books by highly credible people, government documents by the truckload and we know there's much more they keep hidden. Aye, I am in no doubt about UFO's, which display very advanced technology, and even sometimes more life like characteristics.

So yeah, I dont think we should discount any theory yet, not even ID Rob

I really like what Robs saying here.
Remember that at the turn of the 19th century, some very "smart" influential people suggested to close down the patent offices because "every thing has already been invented".

Setting aside all the layman's condensed morphology of popular theories,

What are your views of the moral justification for "creation" to have existence?

Suppose you were to uncover the torture chamber of a terrible psychopath. You discover many intricate and ingeniously designed implements of torture.

SO, this torture chamber contains evidence of a highly intelligent, genius master of torture technology.

Does the fact that the sadistic creator of the torture chamber is an intelligent genius make the design morally right?

Complete annihilation and dissolution of this system of creations can not come too soon.

(sorry for being such a whaa-whaa whiner but I'm sure there are plenty of tormented creatures who want some responsible intelligence to have revenge against. )   :confused:

[gdo]

Perhaps life is inherent.  Whether you call it evolution or anything else.

Forms change but life is constant.  Everything is alive but not conscious.