Intellegent Design?

[mythosx]

I'm to lazy to point as to where these arguments go or to qoute.

1. On hearts, look up the cardiov vascular systems of smaller animals like grass hoppers. They have many small hearts that beat along one main line.

2. There are groups of single cell organisms that form larger clumps in order to float up to the surface of the water, thereby getting more oxygen.

There are multicellular organisms, that consist of about 20 some cells. They have the specialization also.





3. Evolution: What happens with life over many years.
Creationism: How life starts.

Wheres the conflict?


After Football today, in the lockeroom there was an argument about jesus walking on water. My point was however, that they all believed he was a god, but that he didn't walk on water. People easily get sucked in to the wrong arguments. Darwinists bring up creating life in order to shred ID.

4. There will never probably be fossil evidince of singe to multi cell, becuase they are too small

1. I'm not saying you can't have a small cardio vascular system. I am saying you can't develop one organ at at a time over millions of years.

2. 20 cell organisms is not the same as a 2 cell organism. IF you jump from 1 cell to 20 cells then you restated my point of quantum jumps in the evolutionary process.

3. There should be no conflict between evolution and creation. But the powers that be want to teach an evolution where there is no creation at all.

4. If there is no evidence then why would you believe it? OH WAIT thats faith. Which brings me back to my point, why is it ok to teach one faith based idea and not another?

 

[Oversoul]

If there is no evidence then why would you believe it? OH WAIT thats faith. Which brings me back to my point, why is it ok to teach one faith based idea and not another?

I can call any idea "faith-based."

 

[mythosx]

I can call any idea "faith-based."

Thats right you can. So its time we started being honest and stop saying certain ideas are facts while others are myths.

 

[Oversoul]

You mean theories? And biology is useless if all ideas are considered equally valid. The scientific method is a system that makes biology practical (when applied properly). You are correct that this requires faith. But it doesn't follow that anything else which requires faith is just as good and could replace that which has already demonstrated usefulness, simply because both require faith, so they MUST be the same.

You need oxygen to survive, and a euglena also needs oxygen to survive. But this does not mean the euglena is the same as you in other respects. All ideas require faith, but this doesn't mean that they are all the same in other respects.

 

[Spiderman]

I am saying you can't develop one organ at at a time over millions of years.

Why is this so?

 

[EricBess]

... You are correct that this requires faith. But it doesn't follow that anything else which requires faith is just as good and could replace that which has already demonstrated usefulness, simply because both require faith...

I could be wrong here, but I think you are missing point mythosx is trying to make. He's not trying to say that we should replace one thing with another simply because both require faith...If I am understanding correctly, he is simply stating the same thing others of us have said that whether or not a theory is "valid" is often different than whether or not a theory is "factual".

I believe that there have been a few people throughout this thread talking about "scientific method", but at some point, that breaks down...Just because it is easy to test one theory and not so easy to test another doesn't make the second theory any less valid. It is certainly easy to argue that there are more "proofs" demonstrating evolution to have more validity than there are for "creationism" (for lack of a better word), but I could just as easily argue that there is more evidence to disprove evolution as well.

Whether or not God created the world and/or how he did it is something that, as far as I know, no one really has any idea how you would "test" from a scientific standpoint. Personally, I have conducted a lot of research, tests, etc towards the existance of God and every bit of evidence I've seen indicates that there is a higher being in charge of things. But I certainly wouldn't call any of my tests "scientific" nor would I expect anyone to simply accept my "results" without conducting their own tests

 

[Gizmo]

Faith is what people use when things are too complicated for them to work out.

Faith is mankinds biggest flaw.

 

[DÛke]

Gizmo:

Faith is mankinds biggest flaw.

I'm sure they taught you in any Freshman level college course that this is logically flawed if only because, well, it's merely a statement. Can we get the foundation of it please? Can we get the logic? Can we get more than a simple (and common) opinion please?

Thank you, next caller please.

 

[Oversoul]

Just because it is easy to test one theory and not so easy to test another doesn't make the second theory any less valid.

From a scientific perspective, it does (assuming the first theory fits the data in the experiment or test, rather than conflicting with it). From a philosophical perspective, of course it doesn't. But in a biology class (and I'm one of the ones that thinks evolution should NOT be taught in high school biology, as there isn't enough time in such a class to teach all of the other things that should have more priority), teaching an untestable hypothesis is a waste of time.

 

[mythosx]

Why is this so?

Some organs may be developed indepently from everything else, some can not. When you are talking about entire interdependent systems. That's when slow evolution falls apart. It becomes a huge problem when you start talking about how a heart develops into a species. The heart by itself can't do the job that is required to an organism alive. It requires the entire cardiovascular system. If a heart doesn't do the job then the mutation does not help the organism alive. Can't pass on the mutation...so on and so forth. The entire cardio system needs to fall into place at once. This requires a huge jump in evolution to work.

Scientific process....ah...Correct me if I am wrong...it requires testing of theories doesn't it? So how do you test a process that requires millions and millions of years? I don't see how that is scientific at all.

 

[Spiderman]

But why does it have to be "one organ at a time"? Why can't a whole system "just develop" (admittedly over millions of years)?

 

[EricBess]

teaching an untestable hypothesis is a waste of time.

There you have it...we've solved our problem. They should stop teaching evolution. End of story.

 

[Oversoul]

There you have it...we've solved our problem. They should stop teaching evolution. End of story.

Well, with purely education in mind, that is what SHOULD be done (but politics has saturated the educational system enough to cause problems like this one).

However, while IDT is untestable (until we have more to work with, at least), I'm not convinced that ALL of evolution is untestable. If parameters were set and the theory were more fully defined, it would be possible to devise experiments. However, since that is NOT what is being done now (instead, the details of the theory, if it should even be called a theory, become so vague that they are as untestable as IDT).

 

[Mooseman]

Here is a decent site for information.
Maybe some people, well most people on this thread should read it.
http://www.religioustolerance.org/evolutio.htm

 

[mythosx]

But why does it have to be "one organ at a time"? Why can't a whole system "just develop" (admittedly over millions of years)?

Im not sure what you mean? I think people have a miss conception of evolution of Lamarkism where gradual changes are introduced through either learned or unknown paramiters. Current evolution theory requires mutations. When you try to develop an entire system at once its a huge mutation. Having a system is a binary state...like preganancy. Either you are warm blooded or you aren't, either you have a respritory system or you don't, so on and so forth. Have a central nervous system for example, requires an organism to have one or don't have one. It's a huge mutation with out any indication of increased survival traits. It kind of flies in the face of the evolutionary theory.

 

[Spiderman]

I guess I have to read more about evolution to see how you're trying to relate this in the discussion. To me, over a timespan of "millions of years", anything is possible. It's just a vast stretch of time. I don't understand how anyone could dismiss anything if it takes that long since no one really has a conception of how long it actually is in relation to what happens to things during that time.

In other words, you're saying it's not possible but like a lot of areas of this discussion, you don't have "proof". No one has been around for millions of years to conduct such an experiment or observe. So you can't really say if it's possible OR impossible.

 

[Oversoul]

In other words, you're saying it's not possible but like a lot of areas of this discussion, you don't have "proof". No one has been around for millions of years to conduct such an experiment or observe. So you can't really say if it's possible OR impossible.

Of course not. But one also can't really say that IDT is possible or impossible. My stance is that a biology class (and especially a high school biology class, where most of the curriculum is basic stuff that can serve as a foundation for later education) should teach things that can be experimented on. No amount of speculation can replace experimentation.

 

[Spiderman]

I'm not arguing that. I'm just differing with mythosx's stance that it's impossible for organs to develop over millions of years.

 

[mythosx]

I'm not arguing that. I'm just differing with mythosx's stance that it's impossible for organs to develop over millions of years.

Not impossible...highly improbable...but its so improbable I wouldn't bank on it...like lottery tickets...if you can accept evolution, then you should accept the fact that if you bought lottery tickets for a million years you would win...sure its possible...but you don't put your money on that so why would you put your money on evolution? Evolution still doesn't address the life issue.

 

[Oversoul]

Evolution still doesn't address the life issue.

What is the "life issue"?