http://abcnews.go.com/Technology/wireStory?id=2629683&technology=true

we are doing a paper about evolution in history and we were talking about the different ways we might have gotten onto earth. this story was on good morning america and when we were talking about it, a girl in my class started to freak out and was saying it couldn't possibly be true.

so, my question is: do you think dolphins and whales could have had legs with which they walked on land with millions of years ago? and could evolution be a part of why they do not have legs anymore?

What the hell? Obviously.

That's what evolution is all about...change within species to suit the environment.

This really isn't very surprising news...

Haha, creationists are funny.

That's what evolution is all about...change within species to suit the environment.

Wrong. This change doesn't do anything to prove evolution.

In creation-evolution debates, “evolution” isn’t mere ‘change in gene frequencies.’ Unless context indicates otherwise, it refers, ultimately, to naturalistic molecules-to-man transformation – anything less involves creation. “Macroevolution” makes the large-scale transformation fully explicit.

It's also interesting to note that hardly any top evolution blogs or websites made mention of this. So it shouldn't be considered evidence of evolution but a mere change which creationists agree with.

Dolphin fins are evidence of design. (http://teleological.org/WPblog/2006/11/07/dolphin-extra-fins-are-evidence-of-design/)

The emergence if fins is clearly contra NDE. If dolphins evolved from four legged animals then it is clear they would never evolve rear fins.

Here is why:

If natural selection will not even pay the cost of maintaining rear fins, it certainly won’t pay the cost of evolving them from rear legs. In terms of information cost, evolution would remove legs before it would evolve rear fins. Therefore, the fins are evidence of robust design, the recent existence of rear fins in dolphins, and the degredation of the dolphin from its original design. The literature is full of examples of genomic degredation and loss of features in animals, specifically the loss of pelvic fins in fish.

I guess evolutionists can come up with a “just-so” story that at one point the dolphin needed pelvic fins to maneuver and so paid the cost of evolving hind legs into pelvic fins. Of course, there is no evidence of this but it will interesting to see what they come up with, it is only limited by their imaginations!

Excellent argument in my opinion! The battle over intelligent design and evolution rages on.

Only fanatical, backwards Americans still refute evolution.
There's no problem with British christians, or most other christians around the world. Why only Americans?

The battle over intelligent design and evolution rages on.

In the minds of ID supporters it does; in the minds of rational thinkers around the world, it does not.

If only those geniuses that work for ID think-tanks could find any sort of support for their claims...

In the minds of ID supporters it does; in the minds of rational thinkers around the world, it does not.

:rolleyes: I expected pitiful mocking and especially from teens who understand hardly anything about the debate. Honest evolutionists recognize that ID is a battle and this applies to Dawkins who recognizes design but would rather give credit to natural processes.

In the minds of hardcore evolutionists, it doesn't, but in the mind of honest thinkers around the world, it does.

Really, you're assertions prove nothing. Why don't we have everyone express each others opinion about God? Why do you people complain about people saying God does exist but it doesn't in the mind of fools? Oh not to mention that you're using the appeal to ridicule fallacy.

The dolphin's extra fins are "an ancestral characteristic that has reemerged for some reason," Baker said.

"Humans occasionally are born with excessive hair—the so-called werewolf gene—so we look more like our ancestral form shared with apes."

All human embryos also go through a stage in which they have tails that are later absorbed. But sometimes a person is born with an actual tail.

Similarly, dolphin embryos pass through a stage in which they have hind limbs that disappear as the embryo develops.
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2006/11/061106-dolphin-legs.html

Dolphin With Four Fins May Prove Terrestrial Origins

One some news articles it is mentioned that these whales have legs such as this article (http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,227572,00.html). Going on, the title of this national geographic article states that it may but doesn't imply that' it's absolutely sure. Therefore there is some doubt on these "legs" which are really just fins. Due to their evolutionary bias, they've already concluded that these fins are the remains of back legs even before research had been laid out. So they start using words such as "may" or "could" etc. It's also interesting to note that many of the usual evolution websites don't even make mention of this. The only mention of this is by the news media. Makes one wonder as to why this is the case? This is not evidence for evolution in the least and cannot be used against creationists.

These fins are perfectly functional and shouldn't be considered as some remain to their evolutionary ancestors. No new information was gained because these fins were already part of the DNA and this wouldn't lead to macro-changes. As mentioned above, this actually proves design!

One key element distinguishes science from psuedoscience: physical evidence. Intelligent design presents little-to-no valid physical evidence for its claims; it merely points out, to non-scientists, how absurd-sounding the theory of evolution is.

I claim that living pink unicorns exist; however, I do not have a strong suit of evidence to back me up. It is philosophically impossible to prove that something does not exist; therefore, any attempt at trying to prove that living pink unicorns do not exist will fail. I will, therefore, attempt to point out flaws in theories that either try to disprove the existence of living pink unicorns or require an acceptance that pink unicorns do not exist. As you can see, it is impossible to prove that something (in this case, intelligent design) is not true; that something, however, likely is not true if no physical evidence supports it.

Intelligent design is essentially an appeal to ridicule fallacy. It presents no scientific evidence to disprove a scientific theory (evolution); it only ridicules the absurdity of the theory of evolution. I fail to see how I was using an appeal to ridicule fallacy.

Let’s say I am an alien from a far-away galaxy who just landed on Earth. I am presented with two theories of how living creatures on this planet evolved. One is a scientific theory with a mountain of evidence and a few holes in it, but those holes are expected because it is science and, therefore, self-correcting and forever developing. The other has a few cases that could be considered evidence (but these cases are negligible when compared to the other theory’s amount of evidence) and is primarily focused on pointing out the flaws (keeping in mind the nature of scientific theory) of its competing theory. Which theory am I likely going to side with?

Why do you people complain about people saying God does exist but it doesn't in the mind of fools?

Do you mind clarifying?

Dolphin With Four Fins May Prove Terrestrial Origins

One some news articles it is mentioned that these whales have legs such as this article (http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,227572,00.html). Going on, the title of this national geographic article states that it may but doesn't imply that' it's absolutely sure. Therefore there is some doubt on these "legs" which are really just fins. Due to their evolutionary bias, they've already concluded that these fins are the remains of back legs even before research had been laid out. So they start using words such as "may" or "could" etc. It's also interesting to note that many of the usual evolution websites don't even make mention of this. The only mention of this is by the news media. Makes one wonder as to why this is the case? This is not evidence for evolution in the least and cannot be used against creationists.

These fins are perfectly functional and shouldn't be considered as some remain to their evolutionary ancestors. No new information was gained because these fins were already part of the DNA and this wouldn't lead to macro-changes. As mentioned above, this actually proves design!
Scientists don't assume extremes as you seem to be doing. They've just discovered it and they're now answering their own theoretical questions.

It doesn't prove design, what it does is give creationists an orgasm because something doesn't make sense at first glance, so it must've been designed. It's happened before.

For example, the Bombardier beetle.

Intelligent design

Bombardier beetles have come to public attention in recent years largely because of arguments put forward by creationists, particularly in the children's book Bomby the Bombardier Beetle. The book argues that the beetles' internal design is an example of irreducible complexity, because various components needed to make the system work appear to provide no benefit in themselves, meaning the entire system would have to be created at once. According to the book this indicates that the beetle is the product of intelligent design.

However, researchers have shown that creationist claims were based on a misreading of research and that the chemical weapon involves minor alterations from systems in other, less noxious beetles. This lends weight to the idea that this beetle has diverged from other species as a product of evolution by natural selection.

In one demonstration, documented in the book The Blind Watchmaker, biologist Richard Dawkins mixed together hydroquinone and hydrogen peroxide in an artificial environment. No reaction occurred—a catalyst was required. Dawkins' point was that as the beetle's defensive mechanism evolved, the intermediate stages would not explode - the chemicals would not react without a catalyst.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bombardier_beetle

The moral of the story: Don't be quick to assume.

One key element distinguishes science from psuedoscience: physical evidence. Intelligent design presents little-to-no valid physical evidence for its claims; it merely points out, to non-scientists, how absurd-sounding the theory of evolution is.

False. Either you are just plain ignorant or stupid on what ID is. Even Dawkins recognizes that there is design but said that this is due to evolution. Every scientists recognize design so this is rather established among the scientific community. The disagreement is what and how this was designed. Are the mechanism for evolution sufficient to explain away design?

Behe, the author of irreducible complexity has conducted research on this subject in-depth. How can one make the theory of evolution sound bad? The real way is to present evidence. How does one make the theory of evolution sound good? By using rhetorical evidence and even ID supporters do the same. You're not very aware of the debate at all. Before making such claims, please do a lot more research on the subject and stop acting like evolution is a fact.

As you can see, it is impossible to prove that something (in this case, intelligent design) is not true; that something, however, likely is not true if no physical evidence supports it.

Actually, no one is saying that you have to absolutely prove intelligent design false but to make it more plausible! Which is how science works. Intelligent design is challenging naturalism and cannot prove evolution 100% false either!

Intelligent design is essentially an appeal to ridicule fallacy. It presents no scientific evidence to disprove a scientific theory (evolution); it only ridicules the absurdity of the theory of evolution. I fail to see how I was using an appeal to ridicule fallacy.

Ever heard of Michael denton? Well, this person was an agnostic who found the evolutionary theory as insufficient although he is an evolutionary agnostic. He recognized that design was seen in nature yet this is what you're ignorance fails to realize. You fail to see how you did so? This is seriously lame. Here it is:

In the minds of ID supporters it does; in the minds of rational thinkers around the world, it does not.

You call anyone who supports evolution as thinkers yet wish to say that ID supporters are not thinkers. This is an argument to ridicule.

Scientists don't assume extremes as you seem to be doing. They've just discovered it and they're now answering their own theoretical questions.

They already assumed regardless of their research. Scientists are supposed to base their conclusion on evidence but not merely assume.

It doesn't prove design,

I already quoted something that explains WHY it is designed.


[Edit] In regards to that beetle, that wasn't put forth by intelligent designers. Even behe in his book title Darwin's Black Box agreed with the evolutionist. This is not evidence against ID. Besides, everyone makes mistakes an no one denies this. Even the creationists have progressed. (http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v27/i3/bombardier.asp) Notice that the article makes no mention of the two chemicals exploding and thus prohibiting evolution but just mentions the complexity of the process. Take another one as an example:

Other creationist writings have perpetuated the notion that these compounds ‘literally explode’ when combined but to their credit one anonymous creationist writer did report that the mixture would simply discolor and become un-reactive.

You accuse me of assuming yet the scientists on the article you mentioned are the ones assuming. Also notice that the popular darwinist website didn't even make mention of this new highlight.

False.

Easily said.

Can you show me evidence (fossil, genetic, embryonic, biochemical, observable) that suggests intelligent design? For your information, merely finding a dolphin with four limbs is NOT evidence that some supernatural force caused such a change.

While you are working on that, could you give me examples of the MANY scientists who believe in ID (a survey of, say, AAAS members showing that greater than 50% of respondents believe in ID would be nice, for example), and how Richard Dawkins also supports it (I find it hard to believe that a self-proclaimed strong atheist and major researcher in evolutionary biology accepts such a psuedoscientific theory).

How can one make the theory of evolution sound bad? The real way is to present evidence.

Easier said than done.

Actually, no one is saying that you have to absolutely prove intelligent design false but to make it more plausible!

Clarification, please.

You call anyone who supports evolution as thinkers yet wish to say that ID supporters are not thinkers.

No. I implied that rational thinkers realise ID is not a valid competitor of the theory of evolution; nevertheless, supporters of ID cannot possibly be complete rational thinkers if they base a great deal of their beliefs on psuedoscience. If anything, in the above quoted sample, I am making a mockery of the supporters, not the theory itself. You have mistaken an appeal to ridicule for an ad hominem.

They already assumed regardless of their research. Scientists are supposed to base their conclusion on evidence but not merely assume.
The difference between scientists and creationists is that scientists go through a long, thought out process called the scientific method. When one puts forth an idea, it isn't automatically accepted by the scientific community. It goes through the scientific method and gets looked at and critiqued by many scientists and the original hypothesis may even change. That's what makes science such a work of beauty.

Easily said.

And i gave a short explanation.

Can you show me evidence (fossil, genetic, embryonic, biochemical, observable) that suggests intelligent design? For your information, merely finding a dolphin with four limbs is NOT evidence that some supernatural force caused such a change.

Wow, no one is saying that a supernatural force did such a change. What they're saying is this:

If natural selection will not even pay the cost of maintaining rear fins, it certainly won’t pay the cost of evolving them from rear legs. In terms of information cost, evolution would remove legs before it would evolve rear fins. Therefore, the fins are evidence of robust design, the recent existence of rear fins in dolphins, and the degredation of the dolphin from its original design. The literature is full of examples of genomic degredation and loss of features in animals, specifically the loss of pelvic fins in fish.

One evidence is homologous structures and irreducible complexity as a start. For one would be the bacterial flagellum which was done on research.

While you are working on that, could you give me examples of the MANY scientists who believe in ID

I never said they did believe in intelligent design but in design. They realize that there is incredible design in this world. As i said, dawkins realized there is design but gave credit to naturalistic processes.

Clarification, please.

What is there to clarify? If you want to know more, get started in reading what Iders really say.

If anything, in the above quoted sample, I am making a mockery of the supporters, not the theory itself. You have mistaken an appeal to ridicule for an ad hominem.

You, however, made no such thing clear as to who you were mocking. Not to mention that the topic was on the theory of Intelligent design. If you mock the supporters then you would also mock the theory. All in all, you've committed two logical fallacies and haven't proved your point at all.

The difference between scientists and creationists is that scientists go through a long, thought out process called the scientific method.

The creationists have done the same with the observable world. Perhaps they're not always correct but they use the scientific method.

When one puts forth an idea, it isn't automatically accepted by the scientific community. It goes through the scientific method and gets looked at and critiqued by many scientists and the original hypothesis may even change. That's what makes science such a work of beauty.

And science always changes which makes one wonder whether they will reach absolute truth.

Wow, no one is saying that a supernatural force did such a change.

Then you agree with me: intelligent design presents little-to-no evidence for its claims and is focused primarily upon pointing out the flaws of evolutionary theory?

One evidence is homologous structures

You merely saying so is no evidence whatsoever. As far as I am concerned, homologous structures are of great support to evolutionary theory. Convince me otherwise.

irreducible complexity as a start

Irreducible complexity is practically synonymous with "what current scientific knowledge does not support." You forget that science is forever developing; apparently you learned little from Disable's bombardier beetle example. Just because something seems irreducibly complex, does not mean it is so.

For one would be the bacterial flagellum which was done on research.

Go on...

I never said they did believe in intelligent design but in design.

Design is a vague term. I believe in design as well: interior design. You have failed to convince me that many scientists, including Dawkins, believe there are other suitable answers to evolution beyond natural selection.

What is there to clarify?

I couldn't make sense of the sentence that I asked you to clarify. Please rephrase.


A few tips before you continue: elaborate on your points. I can say Hitler was a great person, but if I do not support why I believe him to be so with reason, then my claim is worthless.

Another thing to keep in mind: insignificant is not the same as not significant, just as evolutionism and a non-belief in ID are not the same thing.

Then you agree with me: intelligent design presents little-to-no evidence for its claims and is focused primarily upon pointing out the flaws of evolutionary theory?

Why do you continually insist on misrepresenting my view? I say ID presents evidence for it's claims and is focused on empirical evidence. It points out the flaws because there are flaws. I'll reply to your latter comments later.

Why do you continually insist on misrepresenting my view?

Well, when I asked for evidence for ID, you presented none. All you said was, "Wow, no one is saying that a supernatural force did such a change," and then proceeded to give me an example of how ID points out flaws in evolutionary theory. Therefore, you agree with me: intelligent design presents little-to-no evidence (you failed to present any evidence) for its claims and is focused primarily upon pointing out the flaws of evolutionary theory (you proceeded to give an example of such). Unless if you can give me reason to believe otherwise, that is what I shall believe.

Your lack of elaborating on points or providing actual replies to my requests is what is causing me to misrepresent your view.

I say ID presents evidence for it's claims and is focused on empirical evidence.

Case in point. Elaborate on your points!

Evolution is true.

The creationists have done the same with the observable world. Perhaps they're not always correct but they use the scientific method.
So you claim. Valid scientists find it laughable that creationists find dinosaur fossils that they claim date back three thousand years.

Edit: I should add, they claim these dinosaur fossils are a few thousand years old, then they seal them off so no non-biased scientists can have a look at them.
And science always changes which makes one wonder whether they will reach absolute truth.
It makes me glad that they don't accept the first assumption that comes to their mind.

Disable, stop ASSUMING what my position is darn it! I am not a young-earth creatonist so get that through your wacky head.

Also, start realizing that there are multiple creationist theories such as OEC or YEC along with their other differences.

Just because something seems irreducibly complex, does not mean it is so.

I guess you would say that irreducible complexity as an argument from ignorance but you admit that it's observable.

I can imagine how something evolved so it must have.

Argument from imagination.

Here's the fact of the matter. The Fox News article I read did not mention this, but the National Geographic one did.

The four-finned dolphin, now swimming in an aquarium tank in Taiji, will require considerably more study before scientists can determine what it reveals about dolphins' evolutionary history.

"There's not much science yet," Baker said. "It's an interesting finding, and I think the interpretation that it is consistent with our expectations from evolution is true. [But] that's as far as it can go at the moment."
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2006/11/061106-dolphin-legs_2.html

"There's not much science yet," Baker said. "It's an interesting finding, and I think the interpretation that it is consistent with our expectations from evolution is true.

Good...But he still thinks that their expectations would prove evolution as true. I've already posted a quote why it's evidence for the robustness of design. I am glad to see they've admitted that there isn't much science yet.

Good...But he still thinks that their expectations would prove evolution as true. I've already posted a quote why it's evidence for the robustness of design. I am glad to see they've admitted that there isn't much science yet.
There isn't much science yet because they just caught it and made a hypothesis based on the observation. There's much science to be done, and they certainly aren't screaming creation.

By the way, he's not saying this find will prove evolution as true, what he's saying is he expects this find to be consistent with what they know about evolution.

By the way, he's not saying this find will prove evolution as true, what he's saying is he expects this find to be consistent with what they know about evolution.

I understand that but IDers expect to see this as evidence for design which says that there are about 2 hypothesis for this dolphin's fins. By the way, i never said that they should scream creation. Please stop putting words in my mouth.

If this is the only one that's been found, I think the original hypothesis that this one specific dolphin has the back fins, not the species, makes the most sense.

All human embryos also go through a stage in which they have tails that are later absorbed. But sometimes a person is born with an actual tail.

Similarly, dolphin embryos pass through a stage in which they have hind limbs that disappear as the embryo develops.

I understand that but IDers expect to see this as evidence for design which says that there are about 2 hypothesis for this dolphin's fins. By the way, i never said that they should scream creation. Please stop putting words in my mouth.
I apologize. The evidence for the robustness of design should make us all second guess intelligent design/creationism.

You may word it how you please.

If this is the only one that's been found, I think the original hypothesis that this one specific dolphin has the back fins, not the species, makes the most sense.

That still is evidence for the robustness of design.

I did a little googling on this story, and I find that none of the usual Darwinian propaganda outlets are reporting this discovery. The only reporting is done by the news media. So I wonder why? If this is another missing link the Darwinian Priors would be flocking to the journals to spin their just so stories. Why the relative silence? Does anyone else think this is unusual?

One possible reason for this silence is the apparent contradiction these extra fins cause for one of Darwinism’s major axiom, lost features are almost impossible to be recovered. e.g. The pruning of the number digits in vertebrates are never regained except in the occasional mutants. In the case of this dolphin, the fins are well formed and have no signs of being a mangle mutation. What gives? That is one problem, but what else?

If this was a sign that cetaceans were descended from land mammals, why did it revert back to well form fins and not some early terrestrial limbs? If the genetic information is retained from its evolutionary past then where are the genes for terrestrial limbs? According to Martin Cohn, Ph.D., a developmental biologist and associate professor with the UF departments of zoology and anatomy and cell biology,

“Their transition to an aquatic lifestyle occurred long before they eliminated their hind limbs. During the transition, their limbs became smaller, but they kept the same number and arrangement of hind limb bones as their terrestrial ancestors.” … In all limbed vertebrates, Sonic hedgehog is required for normal limbs to develop beyond the knee and elbow joints. Because ancient whales’ hind limbs remained perfectly formed all the way to the toes even as they became smaller suggests that Sonic hedgehog was still functioning to pattern the limb skeleton.

Ironically the reversion of genomic information does not produce any characteristics of a terrestrial mammal rather it produced features of an aquatic animal. This is evidence for the dolphin’s aquatic ancestry rather than some putative terrestrial ancestry.

The next problem with this discovery is against Darwinian utilitarianism. Was this a gradual reversion or was it instantaneous? According to Dr. Hans Thewissen, Ph.D., a professor of anatomy at Northeastern Ohio Universities,

“Studies on swimming in mammals show that a sleek body is necessary for efficient swimming, because projecting organs such as rudimentary hind limbs cause a lot of drag, and slow a swimmer down,” said Thewissen, who spends about a month every year in Pakistan and India collecting fossils that document the land-to-water transition of whales.

Researchers say the findings tend to support traditional evolutionary theory, a la Charles Darwin, that says minor changes over vast expanses of time add up to big changes. And while Sonic hedgehog’s role in the evolution of hind limbs in ancient whales is becoming apparent, it is still not fully defined.

“It’s clear when ancient whales lost all vestiges of the limb it was probably triggered by loss of Sonic hedgehog,” said Clifford Tabin, Ph.D., a professor of genetics at Harvard Medical School who was not involved in the research. “But it’s hard to say for certain because you’re looking at events long after they occurred. As they suggest, there could have been a continual decrease in Sonic as the limbs reduced until the modern version of the animal arrived.”

If whales really did evolved from land mammals slowly over long period of time, (although the alleged time that it took was really short in an evolutionary scale) a la Darwin, because of advantageous traits like a sleek body. Why would these fins reemerge when it would create a selective disadvantage? If selection is selecting for this putative disadvantageous trait over gradual time; what evidence do Darwinists have that it was selected against in the past?

On the other hand if these fins were not due to a gradual process it would become a piece of evidence against Darwinian evolution. Indeed, rapid/instantaneous appearance would be evidence for ID/design. From a design perspective well form phenotypical fins like these are not due to cumulative process. The amount of genetic information to create these characteristics and their regulation are complex. My prediction from ID is that we will not find dolphin fins with knees, hoofs or paws and hips. The reason is that they never existed in the genome and there is no way for random mutation to evolve such a novel feature. The appearances of inordinate characteristics are invariably of existing features of an organism. They are either due to the copy of an entire existing gene or irregularities in regulation. This is a modification of existing designs, not incremental accumulation to create new information.

I'd like to see what outcome these scientists come up with. As mentioned before, WHY are darwinists ignoring this if it's evidence for evolution? Shouldn't this be something for them to get excited about?

I apologize. The evidence for the robustness of design should make us all second guess intelligent design/creationism.

Sure, i am fine with them criticizing intelligent design's hypothesis. It's not a creationist hypothesis though.

I'd like to see what outcome these scientists come up with. As mentioned before, WHY are darwinists ignoring this if it's evidence for evolution? Shouldn't this be something for them to get excited about?
Start all the conspiracy theories you'd like, but no scientists are going to hop like a school girl knowing they could be investigating this dolphin.

Fact of the matter is, your article assumes that there must be more of these modern Darwinian disadvantages and they must have existed for quite some time. If that were true and the hind fins were in fact a disadvantage, it would create a Darwinian problem. We don't know if those assumptions are true. Right now the prominent hypothesis is that it's a random mutation as they do sometimes occur in several species. If that hypothesis proves correct, it would give us much more insight on the dolphin's evolutionary past.

Start all the conspiracy theories you'd like, but no scientists are going to hop like a school girl knowing they could be investigating this dolphin.

It's not a matter of conspiracy but of hope for the darwinian theory. They should at least mention something about it if they thought it could be used for evidence for evolution and was good.

We don't know if those assumptions are true.

That's true which is why it's called a hypothesis. Ever heard one of those? Yeah, thought so...

Right now the prominent hypothesis is that it's a random mutation as they do sometimes occur in several species. If that hypothesis proves correct, it would give us much more insight on the dolphin's evolutionary past.

He already discusses whether it could be a random mutation if you read it fully. Then again, it's a hypothesis and time will tell. If the ID hypothesis is proven correct, it would give us much more insight on the dolphin's robust design features.

That's true which is why it's called a hypothesis. Ever heard one of those? Yeah, thought so...
Yes, I've been talking about that the whole time, but the creator of that article seems to put down the prominent hypothesis and go with his design assumption. And yes, I do call it an assumption.
In fact, recently, in Japan, a Bottlenose Dolphin was discovered to have two additional pectoral fins, or "hind legs", at the tail, appearing to be about the size of a human's pair of hands. Scientists believe that a mutation must have caused the ancient trait to reassert itself.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bottlenose_Dolphin

From what I can see on Wikipedia about these dolphins, this one exception leads me personally to believe that this is a fluke mutation. Right now, that's my assumption. If the scientific literature ends up backing me up, then it becomes not only a correct hypothesis, but my correct assumption.

I am very much looking forward to seeing how this all unfolds.

Argument from imagination.

Yes. That's exactly what ID is. Think about it: ID provides answers to the "holes" in the theory of evolution and, simultaneously, provides a believable, although not one bit supportable, storyline explaining how we developed from simple molecules.

You know, you can believe in evolution and a supernatural being (God) at the same time. It's called theistic evolution; I suggest you check it out.

but the creator of that article seems to put down the prominent hypothesis and go with his design assumption.

A hypothesis and not really an assumption just as your idea is a hypothesis.

I am very much looking forward to seeing how this all unfolds.

As am i. Good thing science is always interesting eh? ;)

Yes. That's exactly what ID is.

No, you would say ID is an argument from ignorance. I would say that you're theory is an argument from imagination.

It's called theistic evolution; I suggest you check it out.

I appreciate for letting me know but i've been all over the internet when it comes to these issues. As of now, i am making a observation that scientists haven't adequately answered Irreducible complexity but this is not to say that this will never be figured out. Isn't it good for science to be aware of criticisms and then figure it out? Most would say yes. All ID is doing is challenge naturalistic thinking while saying that a designer is a reasonable assessment. To say that ID is 100% fact is foolish in my opinion and this goes for macro-evolution because it's a simple fact that science always changes! A theory today could be dead tomorrow or be in need of serious revision. No Id proponent is stating that we've won the battle because evolutionary scientists can't answer it at the moment! Please understand this and it would greatly help you know what intelligent design proposes. Also, ID doesn't rule out the possibility at all that the designer could've used evolutionary processes which of course is what creationists don't really like.

I've been in a variety of forums and don't want to get into whether ID is science. Hopefully you can understand how tiring it would be after one debates for quite some time. I would recommend that you do more research in the intelligent design movement to increase your knowledge on the topic. Besides, i wasn't intending to debate whether ID is true but saying that dolphin fins cannot exactly be posed as evolution. Yet you insisted on using a ad hominem and argument from ridicule. To me, that was simply unnecessary and i don't find any need to do the same to evolutionists and wish you would do the same.

There are two areas of investigation on ID that i currently know of:

(1) Challenge Naturalism (Philosophically, IC etc)
(2) Find ways to detect design that distinguishes it from chance. (Explanatory Filter)

So you forgot about the other half that intelligent design works on.

As am i. Good thing science is always interesting eh? ;)
No argument here.

macguy, I'd like to ask you something. If evolution is so widely accepted in the scientific community, and for good reason, then why go against it? It can't be because of a lack of evidence, because there's plenty. So, why? What makes you think that life forms were intelligently designed rather than evolved?

I'm off to bed. I look forward to delving back into this tomorrow.

macguy, I'd like to ask you something. If evolution is so widely accepted in the scientific community, and for good reason, then why go against it?

First of all, things that are widely accepted don't prove whether things are true. IDers are challenging evolution on good grounds and not on biblical YEC creationism. Throughout the history of science there have been a majority of scientists who hold a certain stance. Take for example a flat earth. Many people and even scientists just assumed that it's true while Galileo challenged it. Indeed it was a mostly the church who tried to stop this change but i find no reason for their them to panic on such an occurrence. Galileo was ridiculed, criticized and then tested. It is also of good value to help the scientific community to improve their evolutionary theory if they can of these problems that ID has mentioned.

For what good would it be if science never had critics and just gave in to what everyone else believes? Every day scientists challenge a variety of theories but i suppose it's even more difficult when there's 90% against 10%. Also note that many people in the scientific community concluded atheism and do you expect them to go further to challenge their underlying thinking?

So going against a theory helps:

(1) Accumulate more knowledge,
(2) Learn from mistakes and revise these mistakes.
(3) Gives more possible explanations for evidence.
(4) Challenges a underlying philosophy that may be flawed.
(5) Makes things interesting...(this is my opinion ;])

If a theory has problems, why not go against it? If it's purely on religious basis then that wouldn't really be considered an argument. When it's science vs science then things get a lot more serious. Why teach people a theory that has problems? Iders state that evolutionary teaching should be increased but it's flaws should also be noted. Basically, present the evidence in support of evolution and it's flaws.

I propose four reasons as to why the scientific community believes in evolution without noticing any difficulties with the theory.

(1) They were taught to believe in evolution as fact.
(2) Some authoritative scientists says it's true and passed this on.
(3) A lack of desire to test the theory or lack simply a lack of interest.
(4) The thought that religion and science are excluded therefore they can't consider anything that has religious implications.

It can't be because of a lack of evidence, because there's plenty. So, why?

It can also be that Intelligent design could be better at explaining that evidence. Remember that scientists are humans and are capable of wishful thinking that is mixed with empirical evidence. It gives an awareness to these scientists that there are other theories that shouldn't be ignored.

No, you would say ID is an argument from ignorance. I would say that you're theory is an argument from imagination.

There is no doubt in my mind that ID is an argument from ignorance; in fact, I would go as far to say that that is entirely what it is. Although I am not too familiar with what an “argument from imagination” is, I can only speculate that it refers to an argument that works backwards through the scientific method: formulating a theory (“from imagination”) and, then, establishing the evidence to support that theory. To me, that is exactly what ID is, and if you think the theory of evolution was developed in the same way, then you are terribly mistaken.

As of now, i am making a observation that scientists haven't adequately answered Irreducible complexity but this is not to say that this will never be figured out.

Understandable. Nevertheless, Neo-Darwinian evolution so elegantly and accurately explains many, many observations on the evolution (as a non-scientific term) of organisms and their parts that it would be hard to say it is completely wrong. Sure, improvements could be made on this theory (it is science, after all), but these will not drastically change the postulates of the theory.

A theory today could be dead tomorrow or be in need of serious revision.

As above, NDE seems almost too perfect in most regards that I doubt it will ever be disproven.

I've been in a variety of forums and don't want to get into whether ID is science. Hopefully you can understand how tiring it would be after one debates for quite some time.

Yeah, I could write a book on my opinion on the subject.

Yet you insisted on using a ad hominem and argument from ridicule. To me, that was simply unnecessary and i don't find any need to do the same to evolutionists and wish you would do the same.

If I were to base my entire argument on insulting your incapability in writing or lack of knowledge on the subject, then I would have used an ad hominem. Merely making a single statement at the beginning of an argument to fuel up your yearning for debate, however, is not an ad hominem. The same goes for your argument from ridicule claim: if a majority of my argument contained statements like, “ID? How did snails form then? Unintelligent design? Lol ROFL lmfao,” then I would have used an argument from ridicule. You, by constantly bringing up this not so important point, are creating a red herring.

So you forgot about the other half that intelligent design works on.

I am well aware of ID’s attempt at making its own postulates rather than simply attacking the postulates of the theory of evolution. As far as I know (and as I have suggested previously), ID hasn’t yet been too successful in making its own evidence-supported postulates.

Throughout the history of science there have been a majority of scientists who hold a certain stance. Take for example a flat earth. Many people and even scientists just assumed that it's true while Galileo challenged it.

The key, and extremely important, difference between the evidence for a flat Earth and the evidence for NDE is that NDE has an incredible amount of evidence from various fields, whereas the evidence for a flat Earth consisted only of the fact that the Earth seemed, without rational consideration, flat.

If a theory has problems, why not go against it?

Attacking a scientific theory with a theory (for lack of a better word) that contains no scientific evidence is pointless though. For example, in the dolphin example you are so fond of, ID is pointing out what scientists already know: the formation of these hindlimbs are currently unexplainable. Major point: ID cannot explain it either!

Why teach people a theory that has problems?

I propose four reasons as to why the scientific community believes in evolution without noticing any difficulties with the theory.

Although I agree with you 100% on those 4 points, keep in mind that many people know with near-absolute certainty that natural selection occurs, just as many people know that gravity occurs. There are some problems (i.e. the dolphin case and irreducible complexity), but these are more likely due to a current lack of understanding than anything else. I am no astrophysicist, but I am sure there are cases (black holes perhaps) where our conventional knowledge of gravity is compromised. Does this mean the law of gravity is not true, or is it more likely that we just have to learn more of black holes to completely understand the phenomenon?

Don't forget: scientific knowledge is forever increasing. As such, students must learn what is currently known. The real problems with NDE do not lie in its fundamental postulates (i.e. the ones that are taught in high school science classes); rather, they lie in more advanced problems, i.e. does evolution occur as a punctuated equilibrium or by phyletic gradualism?

Nevertheless, I believe ALL scientific theories should be taught primarily as evidence and mechanism, with some presentation of current misunderstandings---after all, it is these misunderstandings that this generation of learners will have to address in their careers.

It can also be that Intelligent design could be better at explaining that evidence.

Once again, ID presents no physical evidence to what NDE cannot explain. It also cannot provide any evidence for any of its other claims, so if anything, the holes in evolution are better explained by NDE than ID. You are constantly making arguments from ignorance: just because an event is not explained by NDE, it is NOT, consequently, explained by ID.

There is no doubt in my mind that ID is an argument from ignorance; in fact, I would go as far to say that that is entirely what it is.

I know you think that and stop repeating yourself.

if you think the theory of evolution was developed in the same way, then you are terribly mistaken.

As i said, they think something can evolve therefore it evolved. So if some scientist solves the flagellum via a gradual process then this wouldn't prove that evolution itself occurred.


Nevertheless, Neo-Darwinian evolution so elegantly and accurately explains many,

I have no time for you accolades of the theory. You might as well worship the theory...Not to mention that evolution is a negative against religion since i've seen plenty atheist philosophers, scientists and agnostics use it as evidence against God's existence? How? Well most basically propose that a God wouldn't use such a non-random process and insufficient as well.


Yeah, I could write a book on my opinion on the subject.

And i wouldn't read the stupid thing. I have no use for opinions. Bah, i miss the evolutionist named WhiteMage.


ad hominem.

A ad hominem is a ad hominem.

You, by constantly bringing up this not so important point, are creating a red herring.

I brought it up because your whole conversation was based on your opinion. Yes you can say that evolution is strong but can you just admit that design is testable or can be testable? This is all i want to discuss as of now and not whether evolution is true or false.

As far as I know (and as I have suggested previously), ID hasn’t yet been too successful in making its own evidence-supported postulates.

As you're opinion has suggested.

I find it interesting because I don't think most states agree that ID is indeed more science than it is religion, or if it's science at all.

The key, and extremely important, difference between the evidence for a flat Earth and the evidence for NDE is that NDE has an incredible amount of evidence from various fields, whereas the evidence for a flat Earth consisted only of the fact that the Earth seemed, without rational consideration, flat.

Whether something is have evidence doesn't mean that this evidence cannot be explained via another theory. As a repetition of this mistake, you state in similarity that evolution is a proven fact. Again though, just what type of evolution were we discussing here? Besides, my pint is that what may seem correct to some and strongly doesn't prove anything. Since you use "perhaps" or "it is likely" that irreducible complexity will be solved then i will play the same game.

it is likely that the evidence for evolution will be reexamined and then discarded as false and the whole common descent paradigm will fall down the drain. All you've done is ask for my evidence but i already said that IC is evidence of design (not proof) that also challenges naturalism.

you are so fond of,

Perhaps you never noticed that this topic is in regard to dolphins? I didn't intend on discussing and trying to prove evolution wrong here unless you want to continue this conversation with me elsewhere. What do you expect for us to discuss? Also notice that this thread isn't titled:

"Is evolution true?"

"Who loves evolution?"

"Evolution is WRONG"

ID is pointing out what scientists already know

You didn't even read the conversation. Disable and i were hypothesizing what this evidence would lead. Then we agreed that time will tell and didn't draw any conclusions. I was just pointing out at the beginning of this thread that saying dolphin's leg proves evolution correct isn't correct as of yet.



Although I agree with you 100% on those 4 points, keep in mind that many people know with near-absolute certainty that natural selection occurs, just as many people know that gravity occurs. There are some problems (i.e. the dolphin case and irreducible complexity), but these are more likely due to a current lack of understanding than anything else. I am no astrophysicist, but I am sure there are cases (black holes perhaps) where our conventional knowledge of gravity is compromised. Does this mean the law of gravity is not true, or is it more likely that we just have to learn more of black holes to completely understand the phenomenon?

That's good i guess that you agree. Finally we agree about something... That stage of evolution is known as micro-evolution which even creationists accept. We know that the dolphin case is due to a lack of knowledge and it's possible that IC is the same but it could get even more complicated in terms with it's design. I think you mean "black boxes" though. It could mean that the theory of gravity when it comes to mathematical terms is incorrect but i think this is different. Here we can observe the effects of gravity and study it. Scientists are able to test evolution on the small scale but never on the larger scare.

Don't forget: scientific knowledge is forever increasing.

Why does scientific truth change?

Once again, ID presents no physical evidence to what NDE cannot explain.

You even admitted that NDE cannot explain irreducible complexity, at least at the moment. Though you have faith in science that it can solve this seemingly increasing problem. Thus this problem is based on good reasons and is scientifically testable.

I find it interesting because I don't think most states agree that ID is indeed more science than it is religion, or if it's science at all.

Dawkins thinks it's testable but he thinks it's all an illusion since evolution explains this design:

"Biology is the study of complicated things that give the appearance of having been designed for a purpose".

I think the evolutionary scientists who claim ID isn't science and CANNOT be tested is a double -standard. They notice the design. If they didn't then everything would still be considered as a simple cell blob. This world is complicated and they should consider the design question legitimate regardless if it has religious implications. As i said, there are people such as Michael Denton and other agnostics who question the theory's ability to explain away this design. The same could be said of evolution which implies an atheistic framework of the world.

[Edit] Whoops, you said states eh? My bad. This is a true statement.

The same could be said of evolution which implies an atheistic framework of the world.
Evolution does not require a god, but it does not rule one out either. Intelligent design/creationism and atheism rule each other out. Theism and evolution do not.
[Edit] Whoops, you said states eh? My bad. This is a true statement.
Indeed.

I know you think that and stop repeating yourself.

OK.

As i said, they think something can evolve therefore it evolved.

It is a fact that organisms evolve over time. If the structure and genetic makeup of a flagella shows a gradual, sequential change over time, then this finding suggests development by NDE or theistic evolution. If research were to suggest that a flagella all-of-a-sudden appeared and the cause of this sudden appearance was a substitution of DNA, then this could be explained by NDE or theistic evolution. If research were to suggest a sudden appearance caused by an addition of DNA, then this could be caused by NDE (transduction or transposition), theistic evolution, or ID. If a change occurred where nothing other than a flagellum forms, only in this case could ID be the best explanation for the phenomenon. Evidence is very rarely complete; as such, some degree of induction is involved. It is not as simple as, "I think this could have evolved, therefore it has." If a lot of evidence suggests a certain trait was the result of NDE (or theistic evolution), if little-to-no evidence suggests otherwise, and if a rational explanation (that is applicable in similar cases) can be made using this evidence, then it is most likely that that trait evolved by NDE (or theistic evolution). Keep in mind: in science (therefore, not ID), it is evidence to theory, not theory to evidence.

I have no time for you accolades of the theory. You might as well worship the theory...Not to mention that evolution is a negative against religion since i've seen plenty atheist philosophers, scientists and agnostics use it as evidence against God's existence? How? Well most basically propose that a God wouldn't use such a non-random process and insufficient as well.

And i wouldn't read the stupid thing. I have no use for opinions. Bah, i miss the evolutionist named WhiteMage.

Awesome.

A ad hominem is a ad hominem.

That one post was an ad hominem; my argument, however, was not.

Either you are just plain ignorant or stupid on what ID is.

I could say this is an ad hominem, and I would be correct if this was your entire argument. However, that was not your entire argument, just as my alleged ad hominem was not my entire argument. Now, you are mistaking a subtle, minor insult for an ad hominem.

Yes you can say that evolution is strong but can you just admit that design is testable or can be testable? This is all i want to discuss as of now and not whether evolution is true or false.

It is potentially testable (just as my belief in living pink unicorns is): if evidence were there to suggest ID (and not just not-evolution), then it would definitely be testable.

As you're opinion has suggested.

Well, you have yet to point out evidence for ID nor have I ever been pointed out genuine evidence for ID. As such, my opinion is well-backed, and is also held by many other people.

I know you know that I consider ID an argument from ignorance; however, you show a lack of knowledge of what an argument from ignorance actually is. For example, is there a difference between “not important” and “u****ortant”?

EDIT: * * * * = n i m p

They notice the design. If they didn't then everything would still be considered as a simple cell blob. This world is complicated and they should consider the design question legitimate regardless if it has religious implications.
At first one would assume design, but we now know that organisms have evolved over billions of years.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pMHNnhAEDN4

At first one would assume design, but we now know that organisms have evolved over billions of years.

Yes i understand the process but thanks ;]

Yes i understand the process but thanks ;]
It certainly doesn't seem you do.

I think black people are more closely linked to monkeys; African culture, music, and the way they look (eg: big lips, big nose, dry thick skin, bristly hair) shows that they are underdeveloped and inferior. African music is primative and percussion based whereas European instruments are much more complex and sophisticated and has sheet music. American black music is sexually charged or to do with violence; it's cringeworthy to listen to negros talking about 'i got my hoes, my bitches i'm a pimp ****a' and all that repulsive crap that shows that fundamentally, they're still those primative tribal people who have had too much sun to their heads.

I think black people are more closely linked to monkeys; African culture, music, and the way they look (eg: big lips, big nose, dry lips) shows that they are underdeveloped and inferior. African music is primative and percussion based whereas European instruments are much more complex and sophisticated and has sheet music.
I hope that was a bad attempt at comedy.

Intelligent design/creationism and atheism rule each other out. Untrue. Intelligent design does not have to be the product of a god - for example, all those Arthur C. Clarke books about "uplift", like the monolith at the beginning of 2001 which speeds up the development of proto-humans.

I am not promoting ID, by the way. I do think that there are interesting gaps in evolution - double-circulatory systems which can't be gradually formed, for instance - but I'm not a biologist so I can't really comment with any authority.

I hope that was a bad attempt at comedy. I think it was a troll. Low post count, numbers in name, overwhelmingly freakish post - about covers it.

It is interesting though, how we supposedly enlightened and no longer anthropocentric people are often unwilling to view the human condition in the light of evolution.

Whether something is have evidence doesn't mean that this evidence cannot be explained via another theory.

I don't even know how to respond to this. If a million separate pieces of evidence suggest one theory, it is highly improbable that that theory is wrong.

Conceptually, think of it like this: I have a bacterium that produces a second generation of 2, a third generation of 4, a fourth of 8, a fifth of 16, then 32, 64, 128, 256, 512, 1024, 2048, 5096, ... Is it unreasonable for me to state that my bacteria grow as a function of 2^n and, therefore, grow by binary fission? Sure, they COULD grow by some other mechanism (i.e. budding) and, just by chance, produce two offspring per parent (which generally suggests binary fission, but not always), but this would be incredibly improbable (if the probability of budding two-and-only-two offspring is 0.25, then, after a thousand generations, the probability of this occurring would be 0.25^1000---in other words, zero).

As a repetition of this mistake, you state in similarity that evolution is a proven fact.

I said that? :shrug:

Perhaps you never noticed that this topic is in regard to dolphins? I didn't intend on discussing and trying to prove evolution wrong here unless you want to continue this conversation with me elsewhere. What do you expect for us to discuss? Also notice that this thread isn't titled:

"Is evolution true?"

"Who loves evolution?"

"Evolution is WRONG"

This is teenspot. Since when does a thread's title envelope the topic of discussion within the thread?

I was just pointing out at the beginning of this thread that saying dolphin's leg proves evolution correct isn't correct as of yet.

It seemed as if you were implying ID was the only answer to the problem. Why? For one you titled your article “Dolphin fins are evidence of design” (suggesting that you agree with the title of your linked article); you stated after posting a sample of that article that “the battle of ID and evolution continues”; and you actually stated, “As mentioned above, this [the case of the dolphin with hindlimbs] actually proves design!” So, I find it hard to believe that you were “just pointing out at the beginning of this thread that saying dolphin's leg proves evolution correct isn't correct as of yet.”

Why does scientific truth change?
“Truth” wasn’t the word I used, but scientific knowledge changes as we learn more about the natural world.

Though you have faith in science that it can solve this seemingly increasing problem.

As I have said before, claiming something is irreducibly complex is nothing more than a claim. Disable gave an example of something that was considered irreducibly complex, but was proven by scientists to not be so.

I won’t lie: I believe NDE has the potential (with further understanding) to explain the evolution of every living thing. I accept that I could be wrong; nevertheless, I believe that because NDE explains (USING A MOUNTAIN OF EVIDENCE) many aspects of organismal evolution that it most likely can also explain those aspects of organismal evolution that are considered unexplainable. If a theory can be so perfect in explaining cases that are easily explainable, then why would it stop with cases that are not so easily explainable? (Rhetorical question).

I think of it as an all-or-nothing thing (because all organisms would have developed in the same way): either NDE can explain the evolution of all organisms or it cannot explain the evolution of any organism. Because NDE can explain the evolution of most tested organisms and because all organisms would have evolved in the same way, the most rational inference would be that NDE can explain the evolution of all organisms, including the ones with parts that are claimed to be irreducibly complex.

Even if ID was hypothetically the only answer to irreducible complexity, how would it explain microevolution or any other known case of evolution? Or would it not be an all-or-nothing thing, i.e. ID explains irreducible complexity, NDE explains most other cases of evolution?

Whereas my faith rests in science, your faith rests in some supernatural force.

Nevertheless, I want to pull away from my own purely-conceptual, lacking reason beliefs (the all-or-nothing stuff) and ask you why you believe in ID. Secondly, a major criterion for something being considered science is reproduction through experimentation---how can intelligent design be proven by experiment? And, if the intelligent designer is some supernatural force (as I am sure most proponents of ID propose), how can science explain this, by definition, non-scientific force?

Untrue. Intelligent design does not have to be the product of a god - for example, all those Arthur C. Clarke books about "uplift", like the monolith at the beginning of 2001 which speeds up the development of proto-humans.
I believe you could possibly be correct, but I haven't looked into it. Unfortunately, that's not the mainstream thought.

"I think the designer is God..."

- Stephen Meyer, founder of the Discovery Institute and its Center for Science and Culture, which advocates the controversial concept of intelligent design, and a leading proponent and lobbyist in the intelligent design movement.

http://www.bringyou.to/apologetics/p90.htm

"Intelligent design is just the Logos theology of John's Gospel restated in the idiom of information theory,"

Phillip E. Johnson, founder of the intelligent design movement.

http://touchstonemag.com/archives/issue.php?id=49

This is no big deal. All animals have vestigal organs, this was a more prominent specimen. This supports evolution in the way that dolphins may have had more extremeties, therefore may have been land animals in the past.

I don't really understand the arguement that's going on here, but anyone that actually argues that this supports intelligent design is a twit. There is no way an organism could have originated from unnatural causes.

like a female monkey in the wild shaking her behind (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C-2BUD_fyT8&mode=related&search=)

:clap:

I believe you could possibly be correct, but I haven't looked into it. Unfortunately, that's not the mainstream thought.

Actually, i believe he was referring to the theory itself and not what the people themselves have concluded. You see, now we have a case of people concluding theism as a result of intelligent design or already believed it. Where as most evolutionists concluded atheism as a result of evolution or already believe it. Evolution is of course believed by theists but i find their theology really odd. For example, what kind of God would allow people to suffer and evil to endure since the beginning? Or when did evil begin?

Different conclusions but the theory can say nothing in regard to who this designer is. This investigation lies elsewhere.

It certainly doesn't seem you do.

I said that they recognize design and give credit to evolution. Basically, it can solve this design.

There could also be another theory to fit with this evidence better. Welcome to Hume's problem of induction which challenges the underlying "logical" thinking of science and presents the limits at it's core. I'll explain and this will also explain why science always changes.

"Science is a process of searching for the truth and few things are more certain in science than that, as the process continues, current theories will be revised and eventually abandoned in favor of new theories. this process is the core of the scientific method". Nigel Brush

During the first half of the 1700's, philosophers began to realize that the logical foundations of modern science were quite faulty. In layman terms, these methods that science uses weren't powerful enough to achieve the ends that many scientists wanted which is absolute truth. These problems have never been resolved. Francis Bacon, who was a christian is credited for the inductive method which all of scientific research assumes. The Inductive method is an argument that argues from specific instances to general and universal statements which was according the Bacon, the only proper way to do science. Before Aristotle taught in his book "The Organon" that the deductive method was the only proper method of logic. The deductive method states that a scientist needs to find specific instances about nature to conclude something about nature.

Deduction: Starts with a hypothesis without necessarily making any observations.

Hypothesis: Men are smarter than woman.

* Confirm the hypothesis:
1. Men are stronger.
2. Men can protect people.
3. Men have better skills.

* To Negate the hypothesis:
As you can see, there can be many instances that negate this hypothesis rather than to confirm it. Why? The researcher has started out with a hypothesis which is often based on personal opinion rather than observation. The deductive method makes it far easier to confirm a theory than negate it.

Francis Bacon achieved fame in the 1600's for strongly opposing Aristotle's approach of search for truth. Instead, he proposed what is called the "experimental method". If a scientist really wanted to to understand the world, then he/she should begin by observation. On the basis of these observations (specific), they would then create a hypothesis (general instance) in a attempt to explain what had been observed. Let's take a professional detective as an example. In a new murder case, a detective found several pieces of evidence and didn't assume anything:

(1) The wife evaded the date of the murder.
(2) Perfume lingered on the weapon.
(3) There wasn't any evidence of a break-in.
(4) A large amount of insurance money had been taken out form the husband.

This evidence then suggests that the wife did it (hypothesis). An amateur detective, however, begins his case with the assumption that the neighbor committed the crime:

(1) This neighbor had some evil looking eyes.
(2) He talked with a arabic accent.
(3) He didn't like children or pets.

These lines of evidence supposedly validate his assumptions that the butler did it. So in this situation, most would say that the inductive method is a lot more objective than than the deductive method which shouldn’t be used in science. Bacon, on the other hand, had a disliking for deduction but realized that it should be used as a way to test the hypothesis. Once it a hypothesis has been formed by induction then it must be tested via deduction. The deductive method allows a scientist to make predictions that should be true if the original hypothesis was correct.

Induction: We create a hypothesis after making a number of specific observations:
1. Rock a is brightly colored and contains iron oxide.
2. Rock B is brightly colored and contains iron oxide.
3. Rock F is brightly colored and contains iron oxide.
4. Rock I is brightly colored and contains iron oxide.
5. Rock K is brightly colored and contains iron oxide.

Hypothesis: Based on these specific observations, we might inductively conclude that all brightly colored rocks contain iron oxide.

Deduction: To test the hypothesis whether all rocks that are brightly contain oxide then other brightly colored rocks should also contain oxide.

1. Rock M is brightly colored and should contain iron oxide.
2. Rock O is brightly colored and should contain iron oxide.
3. Rock R is brightly colored and should contain iron oxide.

Confirm the Hypothesis: If the rocks M, O and R do contain iron oxide then our hypothesis is confirmed.

Negating the Hypothesis: If one or more of these rocks do not contain iron oxide then our hypothesis is negated.

The more times a certain hypothesis has been tested and confirmed the greater our confidence in the hypothesis right? We can conclude that of these two methods of logic, the inductive method is the most essential. Without this first step, the foundation crumbles. Francis Bacon who is a christian created the foundation of induction which is still used in science today as the objective method for accumulating knowledge. We shall now proceed with what is known as, "Hume's Problem of induction" which still stands with vengeance in the scientific community today. One important note should be made:

"Facts by themselves, however have no meaning. Facts are given significance only by our hypotheses and theories. The observation I saw a flash light at 10 p.m is a factual statement that has no significance unless we attempt to explain it. The flash light i saw at 10 p.m could, for example, have been lightening, an explosion, car headlights, cresting a hill, a plane wreck. Facts of any kind become interesting only when we try to explain what they mean". Nigel brush

Why does scientific truth always change and isn't absolute? Hume claimed that this question is answered by looking at the foundations of science. After one hundred years of Bacon's revolutionary change of science there were people who argued that all knowledge comes about through observation and experimentation. This philosophy became known as empiricism. David Hume himself was a rather fervent empiricist and he saw religion and metaphysics as being purely meaningless because these couldn't be tested and had no physical properties. While Hume was an empiricist by choice, he was forced to become a skeptic. At the heart of the inductive method is the assumption that any association of events leads to causation. Such as if X and Y are always found together, then one must cause the other.

Hume attempted to prove the truth of empiricism which is based on the inductive method and found that such a thing simply couldn't be done. Why? Past and current experiences (specific instances) couldn't be used as a bridge for future expectations. This is because associations in the past or present doesn't ensure that we'll continue to experience such associations in the future(general/universal instances) (Hume 1978, 139). Perhaps other minerals than iron oxide will also cause rocks to be brightly colored or a variety of instances! Hume realized that inductive generalizations don't have any logical basis. No inductive generalization such as A causes B can ever be proven by experience because one would need to make an infinite amount of observations and experiments. Only when one knows every rock in the universe, can they justifiably universally make the statement that all brightly colored rocks contain iron oxide. As a result of this limitation, inductive statements can never be absolutely proven. Hume stated:

"All our reasoning concerning causes and effects are deriv'd from nothing but custom; and that belief is more properly an act of the sensitive, than of the cogitative part of our natures." (Hume, A Treatise of Human Nature)

Therefore, this outcome leads us to conclude that science cannot be equated with absolute truth. I put a lot of effort on this and hope you find it interesting. Rarely do I post such lengthy articles. For further reading i'd invite you to borrow or purchase the book entitled, "The Limitations of Scientific Truth" by Nigel Brush.


I said that? :shrug:

Well most would say that the evidence for evolution is equated to the evidence of gravity. Clearly i am assuming what you're implying by "evolution is true" but you still don't clarify as to what type of evolution you are referring to. Neither do you confirm as to how "true" the evolutionary theory is.

Dolphin Fins:

I would have to say that to imply such a thing. My point was rather clear once Disable's conversation with me continued. It is clearly foolish to make such a statement.

The article doesn't state with absolute assurance that "Dolphin fins are proof of design". After the article was mentioned i said, "Excellent argument in my opinion! The battle over intelligent design and evolution rages on." Notice that i didn't draw a conclusion that this proves evolution wrong but that it's a good argument. I also said that the battle rages on due to the fact of two running hypothesis for the argument.

My first response said "Wrong. This change doesn't do anything to prove evolution" and i quoted a person which provided a reason as to why this isn't the case:

In creation-evolution debates, “evolution” isn’t mere ‘change in gene frequencies.’ Unless context indicates otherwise, it refers, ultimately, to naturalistic molecules-to-man transformation – anything less involves creation. “Macroevolution” makes the large-scale transformation fully explicit.

If i thought it was absolute proof that this disproves evolution then it would've been mentioned in my concluding statement. All that was being point out that it is incorrect to say that this is evidence for evolution due to our lack of knowledge on the dolphin.


“Truth” wasn’t the word I used, but scientific knowledge changes as we learn more about the natural world.

I meant that it's known as truth in our time but wouldn't be truth in the future.

As I have said before, claiming something is irreducibly complex is nothing more than a claim. Disable gave an example of something that was considered irreducibly complex, but was proven by scientists to not be so.

Again, since when did i say that this problem cannot be solved by scientists? I also mentioned that creationist solved this! So if ID is wrong, this just proves that it needs work on it.

(USING A MOUNTAIN OF EVIDENCE)

Just what evidence are we talking about here? As of yet, you've made bold assertions without providing proof. Since i am providing explanations in this reply, it's your turn.

Whereas my faith rests in science, your faith rests in some supernatural force.

My faith rests on both.

Secondly, a major criterion for something being considered science is reproduction through experimentation---how can intelligent design be proven by experiment?

ID 101 (http://telicthoughts.com/?p=101#more-101)

And, if the intelligent designer is some supernatural force (as I am sure most proponents of ID propose), how can science explain this, by definition, non-scientific force?

Short History of Intelligent Design.

The theory of design holds that the universe and living things is best explained by an intelligent cause and it isn’t directed by chance-based processes. The theory doesn’t make any claims about the supernatural and as to who this creator is. The ID movement states that the most rational inference is design. During the 1950’s, people with no religious motivations began to question this theory but were being accused by the scientific community as liars! People such as Michael Denton who was an evolutionary agnostic expressed serious doubts on the theory of evolution which triggered the creation of his book titled, “Evolution: A theory in crisis”. Thus the design theory was used as an alternative for evolution but the common descent process could still be used if it was guided by an intelligent cause which is what Michael Behe believes. Denton was a scientist with impressive credentials who didn’t question the theory out of religious motivations. For Denton, creationism wasn’t an alternative because he felt that the creationist notions breaks the natural law. Even if God did exist, he said, that it was absurd to think that the one who created the laws would break natural laws to allow for miracles. There were even doubts over the TOE (theory of evolution) before Denton but those proponents were called liars or creationists in which the scientists and mathematicians answered, “No!”.

Design has been around since the beginning of civilization but was further progressed by Cicero in 44 b.c wrote a book titled “On the nature of Gods” to challenge the evolutionary philosophy of his day. He argued that a conscious being was needed to make art and this showed purpose. Nature, however, is more perfect than art so it shows purpose also. Recent developments of the design argument would be from William Paley. A important distinction between this observance of design and intelligent design should be noted. First, design (natural theology) finds design in the appearance of things but intelligent design wishes to identify signs of intelligence to obtain scientific insights while excluding chance/necessity from design.

All in all, intelligent design implies that we are purposefully created which is in contrast to Darwinian evolution. ID allows naturalistic processes but says that it was guided via intelligence. The question that they pose is, “Can we observe intelligence?”. In the scientific realm, this is certainly a scientific question which is in need of an answer. Even Richard Dawkins admitted that design is observable:

“Biology is the study of complicated things that give the appearance of having been designed for a purpose”. Richard Dawkins

Since it appears designed, why not create a working hypothesis that is subject to scientific testing and see where it heads? Is it not the objective of science to test all theories and happily accept these criticisms? Science is the search for truth and criticisms of any theory should help progress in scientific knowledge.

Further reading
The Origin of Intelligent Design (http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/filesDB-download.php?command=download&id=526): A brief history of the scientific theory of intelligent design
Intelligent Design Timeline: (http://www.ideacenter.org/contentmgr/showdetails.php/id/1119) The history of the controversy

Is ID testable?

This would take quite a while to respond to so i'll just copy and past some of the replies online. Hope you don't mind.

Intelligent design begins with a seemingly innocuous question: Can objects, even if nothing is known about how they arose, exhibit features that reliably signal the action of an intelligent cause?

The first thing to note about the question is that you don’t have to be a religious fundamentalist to ask it. You don’t have to be a religious fundamentalist to consider it. In fact, you don’t even have to be a religious fundamentalist to answer it. The question is a good one, as it stems from the fact that certain things do exist in our reality only because they were brought into existence by an intelligent cause. If human beings did not exist, for example, Mount Rushmore would not exist. Thus, Mount Rushmore’s existence is dependent on intelligent causation. So one begins to wonder if there are other aspects of our reality that are likewise dependent on intelligent causation. If so, can we detect them? If so, just how reliable is our detection?

if someone answers Dembski’s question with a ‘yes.’ At this point, we turn to these proposed methods for detecting design without the luxury of independent information about the designers. Do the methods work? If so, how reliable are they? And here you find all sorts of positions. The two most widely known methods are Michael Behe’s concept of Irreducible Complexity and William Dembski’s concepts of Specified Complexity and the Explanatory Filter. You will find people who think these methods have succeeded in detecting design and thus the payoff is in. On the other hand, you will find people who think these methods fail (this can either mean that there is no design or the methods are not up to the task of reliably detecting design). And then there are people somewhere in the middle (like yours truly), who is not convinced that the proposed methods have truly delivered a design inference, yet also think they are on the right track.

Thus, for me, ID becomes a challenging and exciting investigative search. If design, as a consequence of intelligent causation, exists amidst biotic reality, it might only be the most difficult question any investigator can address. The obstacles are many. And one of the most annoying obstacles is not from Nature herself. It comes from the manner in which many are willing to paint the investigator as deceptive apologist for sectarian views simply because the investigator finds the Question to be so intriguing.

Intelligent Design through the Scientific Method:

Observation ----> Hypothesis ----> Experiment ----> Conclusion

i. Observation:
The ways that intelligent agents act can be observed in the natural world and described. When intelligent agents act, it is observed that they produce high levels of "complex-specified information" (CSI). CSI is basically a scenario which is unlikely to happen (making it complex), and conforms to a pattern (making it specified). Language and machines are good examples of things with much CSI. From our understanding of the world, high levels of CSI are always the product of intelligent design.

ii. Hypothesis:
If an object in the natural world was designed, then we should be able to examine that object and find the same high levels of CSI in the natural world as we find in human-designed objects.

iii. Experiment:
We can examine biological structures to test if high CSI exists. When we look at natural objects in biology, we find many machine-like structures which are specified, because they have a particular arrangement of parts which is necessary for them to function, and complex because they have an unlikely arrangement of many interacting parts. These biological machines are "irreducibly complex," for any change in the nature or arrangement of these parts would destroy their function. Irreducibly complex structures cannot be built up through an alternative theory, such as Darwinian evolution, because Darwinian evolution requires that a biological structure be functional along every small-step of its evolution. "Reverse engineering" of these structures shows that they cease to function if changed even slightly.

iv. Conclusion:
Because they exhibit high levels of CSI, a quality known to be produced only by intelligent design, and because there is no other known mechanism to explain the origin of these "irreducibly complex" biological structures, we conclude that they were intelligently designed.

Irreducible Complexity: An argument from ignorance?

In regards to this reply, Irreducible complexity doesn't say that this proves evolution wrong but says it proves evolution as highly improbable when it comes to a gradualistic process. I am surprised at what creationist have to say:

In Charles Darwin’s book, The Origin of Species, in chapter six, “Difficulties on Theory,” he states that, “If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed, which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down.” On the surface this sounds as if Darwin is telling us exactly what we need to do in order to disprove his theory.

However, this statement is highly decep-tive for at least two major reasons. First, it requires the would-be disprover of evolution to do the impossible, viz., to demonstrate how something could not happen. Demonstrations, by nature, show how things do happen; not how they do not happen. If someone were to set up a set of circumstances (i.e., an experiment) and observe that evolution of a particular complex organ did not happen, does that mean that it could not have happened? Of course not. That evolution of such an organ could not happen can be demonstrated only if every possible set of experimental conditions were set up and observed. Even if every conceivable set of circumstances were investigated, and no evolution was observed, this would not disprove Darwin’s theory. Darwin could argue that there must be another set of circumstances, not thought of, that would produce such an organ, since we know the organ exist.

The bombardier beetle’s defense mechanism is often set forth as an instance
of a complex organ which could not have come about by “numerous, successive, slight modifications.” It seems impossible for such an organ to develop in this way because the insect would likely fail to reproduce if the mechanism were present in an incomplete form (he would likely blow himself up!). However, just because we cannot imagine a scenario that would gradually produce such a mechanism does not mean that there is no such scenario. So, even this amazing mechanism fails to meet the impossible demands of Darwin’s theory. His theory is unfalsifiable, and therefore is not scientific.

The second reason that Darwin’s challenge is deceptive is that it diverts the would be disprover’s attention to looking for the impossible (viz., how Darwin’s mechanism could not work), while Darwin is allowed to escape without having himself offered any demonstration of its working (a com- plex organ being formed by “numerous, successive, slight modifications”). To this day no one has demonstrated any complex organ coming into being by observing “numerous, successive, slight modifications” over many generations. If demonstrating how this could not have happened would disprove his theory, then certainly demonstrating how this could happen would have to be considered evidence for the theory.

Conversely, even if there were many such demonstrations of evolution hap-
pening in the lab, this would never conclusively prove Darwin’s theory. Just
because an organ could be produced in such a way does not necessarily mean
that it was produced that way in history. But many such actual demonstrations would certainly offer support for his theory. However, there has not been even one such demonstration. Therefore, Darwin’s theory is utterly without any empirical evidence; and those who claim that it has been proven as well as any law of science are greatly mistaken.

All in all, we should conclude that this makes evolution improbable though it's practically unfalsifiable.

"...always learning but never able to acknowledge the truth". 2 Timothy 3:7

Further Reading:

The Logical underpinnings of Intelligent Design. (http://www.designinference.com/documents/2002.10.logicalunderpinningsofID.pdf)

The pattern that signifies intelligence (http://www.designinference.com/documents/2005.06.Specification.pdf)

These links provide in-depth answers as to why Intelligent Design isn't an argument from ignorance. As stated before, they've developed methods for discovering design. Perhaps they could be in need of further improvements but that's what all theories experience.

You call anyone who supports evolution as thinkers yet wish to say that ID supporters are not thinkers. This is an argument to ridicule.

In a sense they are not thinkers. They use Intelligent Design to say a higher being designed these things and thus they skip the processes of getting deeper into past things before this thing (thing probably isn't a good synonym with animal, but the meaning in this context is just the same). As in...

Animal 'A' is all there is and will ever be. It will not evolve and it was not evolved into.

Animal 'A2' although similar to animal 'A' is not and did not precede or come after. They were both put into being by a higher power.

They skip critical thinking. If you are blind to see this, god help you (not to bring in a higher being :-)).

Another thing...

macguy - debating this is fruitless. ID contains NO, absolutely NO evidence. Nothing tangible. It is impossible to prove. Only the simple minded and ignorant would believe it over evolution. Evolution is nearing fact if you haven't heard. And by nearing fact I mean its possible one or two minor details are incorrect, which, as someone previously stated, won't even effect the actual theory. You're never going to open your eyes to another persons side of a debate, at least that's how it seems at the time being as all you do is dismiss them and tell them to better educate themselves yet you provide no resource or reason. Shut the fuck up, I'm sick of reading your shit, and I know you'll say "then don't read it" and that's exactly what I plan on doing.

macguy - debating this is fruitless.

I noticed this since i joined teenspot. Everything is fruitless here and all people do is either hook up with some people or debate.

Shut the fudge up, I'm sick of reading your reasoning, and I know you'll say "then don't read it" and that's exactly what I plan on doing.

Since when did i ask you to read it? Why don't you shut your stinky mouth before it goes haywire. You're the one who doesn't want to be open to reason.

u're never going to open your eyes to another persons side of a debate, at least that's how it seems at the time being as all you do is dismiss them and tell them to better educate themselves yet you provide no resource or reason.

You're never going to open your eyes to another person's side of the debate either! People on here, as of yet, haven't provided any substantial reason to believe in evolution so why should i do so? In fact, my above post uses REASON but no on can answer that challenge and scientists recognize this limitation very well. They should better educate themselves before making pitiful arguments against ID as i presented above.

People here argue that Intelligent design is an argument from ignorance but evolution is also an argument from imagination! Just because something can be explained via a gradualistic process, doesn't make evolution true. By ruling out design, scientists rule out other possible explanations.

ID is not an argument from ignorance but is the best inference based on what we do know.

In a sense they are not thinkers. They use Intelligent Design to say a higher being designed these things and thus they skip the processes of getting deeper into past things before this thing (thing probably isn't a good synonym with animal, but the meaning in this context is just the same). As in...

Oh boy... Do i really have to repeat myself? ID doesn't rule out the idea that evolution was how the designer created us. You greatly simplify the issue and twist the ID theory to fit under your "non-thinker" category. Just be quiet already. This is the worst argument i've read over here.

Another note that should be made is that the ID theory itself says nothing in regard to the supernatural and this "higher" being could be an alien! The intelligent design theory is for investigating whether there is design in nature and not how this designer created everything. People such as Michael Behe believes that evolution is involved. The only doubt that ID poses to naturalism is whether it is sufficient to explain all the design we see.

Let's now look into naturalistic thinking vs ID thinking.

Animal 'A' is all there is and will ever be. It will not evolve and it was not evolved into.

As i demonstrated, this is blatantly deceptive because intelligent design doesn't say animal a never evolved.

The cosmos is all there is, or was, or ever will be. ~Carl Sagan

Animal 'A' which is similar to animal 'b', wasn't put by a higher power. Instead, it was put into being by a natural power.

You and evolutionists skip critical thinking. If you are blind to see this, then i wish all the best (on sticking with ignorance).

There's no reason to believing in a higher being. There's no proof. There never will be, but feel free to do so if you so wish to.

There's no reason to believing in a higher being. There's no proof.

Thank you. I'll consider it once something happens.

Just what evidence are we talking about here? As of yet, you've made bold assertions without providing proof. Since i am providing explanations in this reply, it's your turn.

As much as I despise letting a hyperlink do the work for me, I must do so in this case. 1.) Wikipedia does a decent job at illustrating major pieces of evidence from various disciplines (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evidence_of_evolution); 2.) this NAS report is fairly convincing as well (http://www.nap.edu/html/creationism/evidence.html); 3.) TalkOrigins presents compelling evidence for evolution, although it does so at a more advanced (university) level (http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/evolution-research.html); and 4.) An even more compelling and even more advanced review of molecular evidence for evolution is presented also by TalkOrigins. (http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/section4.html)

For the amount of reading and level of ease, Wikipedia is the best of the four sites I listed.

ID 101

That did not answer my question whatsoever; neither did your whole copy-and-paste on the scientific method.

We can examine biological structures to test if high CSI exists. When we look at natural objects in biology, we find many machine-like structures which are specified, because they have a particular arrangement of parts which is necessary for them to function, and complex because they have an unlikely arrangement of many interacting parts. These biological machines are "irreducibly complex," for any change in the nature or arrangement of these parts would destroy their function. Irreducibly complex structures cannot be built up through an alternative theory, such as Darwinian evolution, because Darwinian evolution requires that a biological structure be functional along every small-step of its evolution. "Reverse engineering" of these structures shows that they cease to function if changed even slightly.

Something being irreducibly complex COULD be considered evidence against our CURRENT knowledge of evolution; however, it is NOT evidence that solely supports ID. As a result, this is NOT a valid argument for ID being science.

Analogously, Observation: Trees swing when wind occurs.
Hypothesis: Trees cause the wind by swinging their branches.
Experiment: A competing theory (wind has no effect on trees swinging) is wrong because a) whenever there is wind, trees swing and b) whenever there is no wind, trees do not swing. Strictly because that theory is wrong, my hypothesis is supported.
Conclusion: Trees cause wind.


The last little bit on irreducible complexity is actually a valid argument for the flaws in NDE, but, due to time constraints, I will tackle it at a later time.

EDIT: but [ID] is the best inference based on what we do know.

No. It is the most conceivable answer we know (I will full-fledgedly admit this). It, however, has little-to-no evidence supporting it and, therefore, is the worst inference with regards to evolution.

Another note that should be made is that the ID theory itself says nothing in regard to the supernatural and this "higher" being could be an alien!

True. Nevertheless, you must admit, ID proponents generally propose that the creator is some supernatural being, such as the Abrahamic God.

As much as I despise letting a hyperlink do the work for me, I must do so in this case. 1.) Wikipedia does a decent job at illustrating major pieces of evidence from various disciplines (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evidence_of_evolution); 2.) this NAS report is fairly convincing as well (http://www.nap.edu/html/creationism/evidence.html); 3.) TalkOrigins presents compelling evidence for evolution, although it does so at a more advanced (university) level (http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/evolution-research.html); and 4.) An even more compelling and even more advanced review of molecular evidence for evolution is presented also by TalkOrigins. (http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/section4.html)

I noticed that you completely ignored the argument i presented that gives a very good reason as to why science shouldn't be equated to absolute truth. My presentation was especially useful for this so-called evidence of evolution which would have to make an infinite amount of observations to make the general/universal conclusion that a certain evidence for evolution is absolutely true. Before i go into reading all that stuff..Where's the fossils for evolution? By the way, speciation is a form of creationism and isn't evidence of macro-evolution but for micro-evolution.

Perhaps I'll take on wiki-pedia's article as it's supposed to present the most reliable proof for evolution.


That did not answer my question whatsoever; neither did your whole copy-and-paste on the scientific method.

It answered as to why such a question was legitimate. My further links at the very bottom provided evidence in that regard. Just so that you're aware, the history of design, my responses to your quotes and the limitations of science was typed by me.

Something being irreducibly complex COULD be considered evidence against our CURRENT knowledge of evolution; however, it is NOT evidence that solely supports ID. As a result, this is NOT a valid argument for ID being science.

"The phrase 'god of the gaps' [aka argument from ignorance] is nothing more than a question-begging insult meant to stop the flow of argument before it barely started." Michael Behe.

Every inductive conclusion we make is based on ignorance for we cannot know every single possible explanation. What you fail to realize is that both the design theorists and scientific community are ignorant here. In fact, they're clueless as to how the mechanisms can be put under darwinism thus reducing evolution's chance of using chance as an advantage. There is no realistic explanation as of yet so this isn't an argument from ignorance or personal incredulity but is a global disciplinary failure of biology and gross theoretical inadequacy of neo-darwinism. A few biologists such as James Shapiro and Franklin Harold have both admitted to this problem not based on ignorance or personal incredulity and these people don't even support intelligent design!

James Shapiro who is a molecular biologist said:

There are no detailed Darwinian accounts for the evolution of any fundamental biochemical or cellular system, only a variety of wishful speculations. It is remarkable that Darwinsim is accepted as a satisfactory explanation for such a vast subject ---evolution--- with so little rigorous examination of how well its basic theses work in illuminating specific instances of biological adaption or diversity.


David Ray Griffen who also isn't a supporter of intelligent design writes his book Religion and Scientific naturalism:

There are, i am assured, evolutionists who have described how the transitions in question could have occurred. When i ask in which books i can these discussions, however, I either get no answer or else some titles that, upon examination, do not in fact contain the promised accounts. That such accounts exist seems to be something that is widely known, but i have yet to encounter someone who knows where they exist.


Analogously, Observation: Trees swing when wind occurs.
Hypothesis: Trees cause the wind by swinging their branches.
Experiment: A competing theory (wind has no effect on trees swinging) is wrong because a) whenever there is wind, trees swing and b) whenever there is no wind, trees do not swing. Strictly because that theory is wrong, my hypothesis is supported.
Conclusion: Trees cause wind.

And as i presented, this form of conclusion from the inductive method is flawed and this example proves my point. Interesting that you bring it up though, because Scripture says the wind has weight (Job 28:25) long before science knew and had the benefits of the scientific method. There was even a time where men thought the wind blew straight but the Scripture declares; "The wind goes toward the south, and turns around to the north; The wind whirls about continually, and comes again on its circuit. Not to mention that this was known 3,000 years ago where the majority of people during that time period thought otherwise. Of course the cause of the wind was unknown but now we know that it is a result of heat rising and cold air taking it's place.

Back to the analogy. First of all, the observation of wind and the tree blowing was found via naturalistic processes which can have a variety of explanations. In our world, however, we find that we are designers and know what to expect from an intelligent designer. Through this, we look to see if nature is equal to or more complicated than the design we see now. The option of less complexity is no longer an option when it comes to observing nature today. You're right, an explanation for a certain phenomena have their own set of hypotheses which helps science to differ between argument in favor of and not in favor of. As i said, all our conclusions are based on our ignorance but we make the best inferences based on what we do know.

No. It is the most conceivable answer we know (I will full-fledgedly admit this). It, however, has little-to-no evidence supporting it and, therefore, is the worst inference with regards to evolution.

As i said, you probably never even read the links i provided that explain why irreducible complexity supports Intelligent design along with other evidences. Intelligent design solves this complexity by giving the credit to an intelligent designer even if it was done by evolution. So providing evidence for evolution isn't evidence against intelligent design. Second, you haven't demonstrated why it is un-educated to make the inference that an intelligent designer and created these systems. Of course there are times when creationists and Iders say that it is inconceivable for such systems to be created by random mutations, but they don't say it's impossible to explain but they normally provide good reasons for believing this. For the evolutionist, these systems do exist and must have come about somehow. You also don't address the reasons for believing these systems are irreducibly complex thus making this observation based on what we know. What other inference should we make? We shouldn't conclude, however, that naturalism can never explain this but that it hasn't explained this as of yet. You, as i am sure, would admit that we are basing conclusions on ignorance but making the best conclusions on what we know. This is what Intelligent design is doing. If not, then what inference should we make? Should we remain agnostic and wait for thousands of years without making any conclusions throughout our scientific endeavor until we reach absolute truth?


True. Nevertheless, you must admit, ID proponents generally propose that the creator is some supernatural being, such as the Abrahamic God.

And you must admit that most evolutionist proponents propose that say the cosmos is all there is, or was, or ever will be are atheists. Just take the fanatic named Dawkins who thinks that evolution has made atheists capable to be a full atheist. As a result:

Evolution: argument implies God's non-existence. (http://www.stephenjaygould.org/ctrl/news/file002.html)

Intelligent design: argument implies God's existence.

Just as the big bang theory had religious implications, so does the intelligent design theory. Since Genesis, it was stated that the universe had a beginning and was created from nothing. Scripture itself even claims that there are invisible things unseen by the eye.

‘If the solar system was brought about by an accidental collision, then the appearance of organic life on this planet was also an accident, and the whole evolution of Man was an accident too. If so, then all our present thoughts are mere accidents—the accidental by-product of the movement of atoms. And this holds for the thoughts of the materialists and astronomers as well as for anyone else’s. But if their thoughts—i.e. of materialism and astronomy—are merely accidental by-products, why should we believe them to be true? I see no reason for believing that one accident should be able to give me a correct account of all the other accidents. It’s like expecting that the accidental shape taken by the splash when you upset a milkjug should give you a correct account of how the jug was made and why it was upset.’
C.S. Lewis (1898–1963)

An introduction to Intelligent design. (http://tasc-creationscience.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=148&Itemid=44)

Read the entire link if you want to learn what it really teaches.

I noticed that you completely ignored the argument i presented that gives a very good reason as to why science shouldn't be equated to absolute truth.

I read it, and I agree with it. I can only be as certain that science is truth as I can be certain that other things beyond my mind exist.

My presentation was especially useful for this so-called evidence of evolution which would have to make an infinite amount of observations to make the general/universal conclusion that a certain evidence for evolution is absolutely true.

Yeah, and I agree 100%. I never said otherwise---I even used the example of the law of gravity.

Where's the fossils for evolution?

What do you mean?

By the way, speciation is a form of creationism and isn't evidence of macro-evolution but for micro-evolution.

You might want to learn a little more about evolution before you try to debunk it. Telling me that speciation has nothing to do with macroevolution is akin to telling me two plus two doesn't equal four. Speciation is definitely not a form of creationism. In fact, I do believe (Christian) creationism states that all the animals God created are in perfect form and, therefore, do not change. This is the total opposite of speciation, which is one species changing to form one or more new species.

It answered as to why such a question was legitimate. My further links at the very bottom provided evidence in that regard. Just so that you're aware, the history of design, my responses to your quotes and the limitations of science was typed by me.

Then, if we suppose a supernatural force was the intelligent designer, you can explain to me how a supernatural force can be explained by science---correct? And if an extraterrestrial being is the intelligent designer, you can explain how experiments can be conducted to suggest that this is true?

Every inductive conclusion we make is based on ignorance for we cannot know every single possible explanation.What you fail to realize is that both the design theorists and scientific community are ignorant here.

True. However, when a large number of observations suggest one explanation more than all others, it is only probable that that explanation be correct. In the case of evolution, this large number of observations is provided for by evidence. The only observation ID has going for it is that organisms seem far too complex to be made by natural processes---so, obviously some incredibly, unforeseeably intelligent designer, with a disgustingly incredible amount of time on its hands would for some weird reason want to create us AND would for some conspicuously bizarre reason never show (or even suggest in any way whatsoever) us its existence created us.

James Shapiro who is a molecular biologist said:

I have taken more evolution courses than most biologists (especially molecular biologists) need to take, and I have taken those evolution courses recently; therefore, I am most likely just as qualified as this James Shapiro is. Moreover, it is likely that, of the millions of scientists in the world, a few scientists are going to disagree with the theory of evolution. You keep citing various people’s opinion as if it matters; and you were the one who first brought up the flat Earth belief of our ancestors. Do realize that an incredibly large majority of AAAS members believe in NDE and a good majority of religious figures (Pope John Paul II was a large supporter of NDE and its non-contradictory nature with Catholic beliefs) also believe in evolution. I’m not saying that other people’s opinions should sway your opinion greatly, but you seem so adamant on posting others’ opinions that I figure I should return the favour.

And as i presented, this form of conclusion from the inductive method is flawed and this example proves my point.

Apparently you don’t understand what an analogy is. It was my intent to make those conclusions flawed because that process of making conclusions is exactly how ID makes its single conclusion. As a result, you agree that that one article’s (of how ID is a science; that you presented) reasoning is wrong.

Scripture says the wind has weight (Job 28:25) long before science knew and had the benefits of the scientific method.

Correction: long before popular culture knew. For the writer of the scripture to know this, he/she would have had to use scientific method.

In our world, however, we find that we are designers and know what to expect from an intelligent designer.

I don’t find that we are designers. I don’t know what to expect from an intelligent designer. There is no evidence that we were created by an intelligent designer OR that there even is an intelligent designer.

As i said, you probably never even read the links i provided that explain why irreducible complexity supports Intelligent design along with other evidences.

I skimmed through all links other than the history of ID ones. Never did I find anything that presents any evidence that exclusively suggests ID or any evidence beyond evidence that NDE has its flaws (something I already know).

Intelligent design solves this complexity by giving the credit to an intelligent designer even if it was done by evolution.

This would be known as theistic evolution: something I have no real argument against.

So providing evidence for evolution isn't evidence against intelligent design.

How so? If there is evidence that suggests we were gradually created by natural processes, then this evidence cannot also suggest that we created abruptly by unnatural processes.

Second, you haven't demonstrated why it is un-educated to make the inference that an intelligent designer and created these systems.

For God’s sake, I’ve done so many times: NO EVIDENCE SUGGESTS SO. Without any evidence that exclusively suggests ID, one cannot make any inferences whatsoever. I can say living pink unicorns exist. I have no evidence for this, however. It is “uneducated” to make inferences such as “living pink unicorns cause rain” because a) I have no proof that living pink unicorns exist and b) if I had proof that they exist, that they actually exert some force to cause rain.

Hypothetically, evidence that would exclusively suggest ID would be an immediately abrupt change in an organism that could not possibly be the result of an earthly force. For example, if all of a sudden some totally different organism appeared. No such evidence exists. Any evidence for evolution is evidence against ID. Any HYPOTHETICAL evidence for ID would be (if such evidence actually existed) evidence against evolution. HOWEVER, any evidence against evolution is NOT evidence for ID; the flip-side is also true: any evidence against ID is NOT evidence for evolution. PLEASE, try to envision this.

And you must admit that most evolutionist proponents propose that say the cosmos is all there is, or was, or ever will be are atheists.

I do (assuming you aren’t referring to some incredibly complex space-time scenario).

Evolution: argument implies God's non-existence.

I won’t even read this. Evolution is one more reason why a god (or gods) might (or may) not exist; however, it does NOT imply God’s non-existence. Praeco_Noctis would gladly tell you how this is so, but once again I will only refer you to THEISTIC EVOLUTION.


Seeing as this argument is broadening like crazy and I have given you plenty of reasons why I believe in evolution, why don’t you attempt to convince me why ID is the best explanation of our creation (I AM NOT ASKING FOR WHY YOU THINK EVOLUTION IS WRONG, I AM ASKING WHY YOU THINK ID IS RIGHT).

Macguy: I read your assertation involving "truths", and might I say...magnificient (I recall doing a paper on this very same idea), even though most of that reply can be translated into laymens terms (for one only needs simplex sense to comprehend the common) it was interesting nonetheless, and I feel I can not rebuttal that statement for this can be categorized with another classical argument (I'm sure I don't need to remind you ;)) and besides the point, our minds can only exam logic so much, I guess this is where our trust in the empirical holds. I hope however you don't believe induction and deduction methodology is only limited to science itself. Your ways of logic are included (what ever they may be). I do have one question and that would be: In the first quote by Nigel Brush, it says "...science is a process of searching for the truth..." is this just "his" synonym for factuality or Truism?

Edit: I see you are using this knowledge to denounce empiricism. Which in rather similiar terms means denouncing ones own cognition; If we can't rely on our own senses to explain the probable then what makes you percieve the metaphysical is more likely?

Macguy: I read your assertation involving "truths", and might I say...magnificient

Thanks :D. I've been putting quite some effort in evaluating how the scientific method works along with its' flaws.

(I recall doing a paper on this very same idea)

Really? I would be quite delighted to see what was written. Is this paper still available?

I hope however you don't believe induction and deduction methodology is only limited to science itself. Your ways of logic are included (what ever they may be).

I wouldn't be so ignorantly presumptuous to conclude such a thing. Now that you've mentioned it, this seems to be a possible conclusion that someone would take if they're not too careful.

In the first quote by Nigel Brush, it says "...science is a process of searching for the truth..." is this just "his" synonym for factuality or Truism?

He was essentially referring to truth as a synonymity for factuality but certainly not Truism.

If we can't rely on our own senses to explain the probable then what makes you percieve the metaphysical is more likely?

Well, what was being meant is that Hume tried to prove empiricism as true via the inductive method but found that such a thing simply could not be done in a absolute sense. We can of course use empricism to observe facts but as Nigel said:

"Facts by themselves, however have no meaning. Facts are given significance only by our hypotheses and theories. The observation I saw a flash light at 10 p.m is a factual statement that has no significance unless we attempt to explain it. The flash light i saw at 10 p.m could, for example, have been lightening, an explosion, car headlights, cresting a hill, a plane wreck. Facts of any kind become interesting only when we try to explain what they mean". Nigel brush

So i would say that these explanations can be a rather doubtful generalized instance to conclude. All in all, the attempt was to explain why Science cannot be equated with absolute truth but not that it doesn't have any truth.

Thanks :D. I've been putting quite some effort in evaluating how the scientific method works along with its' flaws.
I noticed! yes, the system is not perfect...but then again; what is (within th confines of reality)?


Really? I would be quite delighted to see what was written. Is this paper still available?
Unfortunately I don't have it with me, but much of the paper does unfold and describe much of what you claimed.









Well, what was being meant is that Hume tried to prove empiricism as true via the inductive method but found that such a thing simply could not be done in a absolute sense. We can of course use empricism to observe facts but as Nigel said:

"Facts by themselves, however have no meaning. Facts are given significance only by our hypotheses and theories. The observation I saw a flash light at 10 p.m is a factual statement that has no significance unless we attempt to explain it. The flash light i saw at 10 p.m could, for example, have been lightening, an explosion, car headlights, cresting a hill, a plane wreck. Facts of any kind become interesting only when we try to explain what they mean". Nigel brush

So i would say that these explanations can be a rather doubtful generalized instance to conclude. All in all, the attempt was to explain why Science cannot be equated with absolute truth but not that it doesn't have any truth.
Ah, yes. I partially missunderstood. I agree (unfortunately), one can say (to an extent) we all follow faith. I do however truly believe we may fully understand all that this universe contains. For us, all we can acknowledge is logic and it so happens...we are embedded in it.

What do you mean?

The only way to really prove that evolution occurred is by the fossil record. So what's your best evidence for it?

You might want to learn a little more about evolution before you try to debunk it. Telling me that speciation has nothing to do with macroevolution is akin to telling me two plus two doesn't equal four. Speciation is definitely not a form of creationism. In fact, I do believe (Christian) creationism states that all the animals God created are in perfect form and, therefore, do not change. This is the total opposite of speciation, which is one species changing to form one or more new species.

Umm, you seriously might want to learn more about creationism before you try to make a claim about it. I'll demonstrate how this is a straw-man of the creationist position that has been repeatedly mentioned as "evidence" in evolutionary circles. I've been all around the internet yet you somehow think i am not aware of this stuff? A major point that evolutionists say is that all changes are example of evolution but do you recall this quote?:

In creation-evolution debates, “evolution” isn’t mere ‘change in gene frequencies.’ Unless context indicates otherwise, it refers, ultimately, to naturalistic molecules-to-man transformation – anything less involves creation. “Macroevolution” makes the large-scale transformation fully explicit.

Speciation is the evolutionary process by which new biological species arise.

Creationists believe that God created different kinds of organisms which reproduced by their 'kinds'. Each of these kinds were created with a massive amount of information so that their descendants can adapt to their environment. The key aspect that is worth understanding is that the species based on their kind, experience degradation from the once-perfect creation. Therefore, we would expect that mutations will cause some pseudogenes and it would explain why there is less genetic information. Natural selection caused these creatures to adapt to new environments while decreasing the genetic information.

http://i17.tinypic.com/4dmge3a.gif

As seen in the above image, creationists believe that there is a diversity in the created kinds and not a non-changeless species. Created kinds are organisms that share a common ancestory but this is not to be confused with common descent which states that all animals came from one specie. Therefore, the creationists believe that these created kinds went other speciation and micro-evolution. All that your argument has come down to is a straw-man which evolutionists online are quite fond of doing.

For further reading, click here. (http://www.answersingenesis.org/tj/v5/i1/kind.asp)

Then, if we suppose a supernatural force was the intelligent designer, you can explain to me how a supernatural force can be explained by science---correct?

How many times do i have to correct people on this? The theory itself says nothing about "God" but that this designer is intelligent. There are people who believe aliens created us though. We simply cannot explain who this designer is because it lies outside the realm of science. The ID theory just asks posits a question of whether there is design in nature.

True. However, when a large number of observations suggest one explanation more than all others, it is only probable that that explanation be correct. In the case of evolution, this large number of observations is provided for by evidence.

It doesn't matter how many number of observations we make because there could be other explanations for all the evidence you're speaking of. While knowledge is still increasing, such explanations could be proven incorrect which is extremely likely. Evidence? Bah, i'll have to respond to that wikipedia of yours soon. In this case, you're drawing conclusions on what you do know although that still is problematic and cannot be equated with absolute proof and never will be. Religion, on the other had, has claimed that it has divine revelation which is absolute truth. This isn't a topic religious people should worry about anyhow but i would advise them to get informed.


therefore, I am most likely just as qualified as this James Shapiro is.

You haven't proved anything to make it more "likely" that you're just as qualified as James Shapiro. Besides, what kind of 20 year old is wasting their time in a teen forum yet your supposedly very intelligent? Just because someone has been to a lot of classes proves someone smarter than the other?

For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men who suppress the truth in unrighteousness,
19 because that which is known about God is evident within them; for God made it evident to them.
20 For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes, His eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly seen, being understood through what has been made, so that they are without excuse.
21 For even though they knew God, they did not honor Him as God or give thanks, but they became futile in their speculations, and their foolish heart was darkened.
22 Professing to be wise, they became fools,
23 and exchanged the glory of the incorruptible God for an image in the form of corruptible man and of birds and four-footed animals and crawling creatures.
24 Therefore God gave them over in the lusts of their hearts to impurity, so that their bodies would be dishonored among them.
25 For they exchanged the truth of God for a lie, and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever. Amen. Romans 1:18-25


I’m not saying that other people’s opinions should sway your opinion greatly, but you seem so adamant on posting others’ opinions that I figure I should return the favour.

Because you seem to be obstinate in stating that intelligent design is merely an argument from ignorance. Those quotes were by people who didn't support theory of ID to at least give some insight to the problem of irreducible complexity. As for the Pope, i am not a catholic and don't take head to any of his words.

Apparently you don’t understand what an analogy is. It was my intent to make those conclusions flawed because that process of making conclusions is exactly how ID makes its single conclusion. As a result, you agree that that one article’s (of how ID is a science; that you presented) reasoning is wrong.

Nope, i didn't say I agreed and the analogy made sense which actually proved my point. Both sides are ARGUING FROM IGNORANCE. If you got into the philosophy of science, you would see this a lot more clearly. What i agreed with is that intelligent design isn't the only possible explanation.



Correction: long before popular culture knew. For the writer of the scripture to know this, he/she would have had to use scientific method.

Actually, this was evidence of direct foreknowledge which leads to the conclusion of a supernatural. If other people thought the air had weight over 4,000 years ago then please provide your evidence.

I don’t find that we are designers. I don’t know what to expect from an intelligent designer. There is no evidence that we were created by an intelligent designer OR that there even is an intelligent designer.

Then what are we? What do we make with these computers? What is design? How do you find design? You know very well to expect from an intelligent design. Stop trying to get yourself out of it. There is no evidence that we were not although evolution implies that it's unnecessary to invoke God and quite unscientific.

I skimmed through all links other than the history of ID ones.

A history is simply history and of course you just "skimmed".

This would be known as theistic evolution: something I have no real argument against.

I have an argument against it. Praeco-Invictus, however, is catholic where i am non-denominational and follow what Scripture says alone. For me, evolution isn't an option unless you want to take scripture as metaphoric which there isn't any evidence for. Most catholics may believe in evolution but i haven't really double-checked that as of yet. If not, it seems they are more willing to accept such a theory. But here's another reason why it cannot be done:

Trying to harmonize science and religion "is self-defeating since Scientific views are always changing. As a result, a theology that attaches itself to one scientific family today will surely be an orphan tomorrow". John Casti


The only observation ID has going for it is that organisms seem far too complex to be made by natural processes.

You are basically blaming Iders or using a logical fallacy such as this situation

"Shucks, no one has figured out how the flagellum arose" to conclude "Gee, it must have been designed". Though you miss out on one crucial connecting line of argument which is called Specified complexity. If you could for ONCE READ my articles then i wouldn't have to explain the damn thing. This is it:

1. Darwinists don't know how these biological systems could have originated.
2. We know that intelligent agency has the casual power to produce systems that exhibit Specified complexity.
3. Therefore, biologic systems that exhibit SC are likely to be designed.

Notice that the conclusion doesn't say that it is a FACT that it's designed but MORE LIKELY just as you say evolution is MORE LIKELY. IDers are simply attributing design to system that exhibits SC. Scientists formulate a casually adequate explanation for the phenomenon that is in question. Don't know what Specified complexity is? Well too bad. This time, you do the homework and don't come crying to me that my point hasn't been proven. What specified complexity is doing is engaging in a eliminative induction which is a form of reason that all science uses. For once, KNOW what you are debating.

I won’t even read this. Evolution is one more reason why a god (or gods) might (or may) not exist;

Of course you won't read it. That's all you've done with the links i provided so far. It's not a matter of 'might' but a matter of evolution implying. If evolution can explain design, what use is there for a designer?

(I AM NOT ASKING FOR WHY YOU THINK EVOLUTION IS WRONG, I AM ASKING WHY YOU THINK ID IS RIGHT).

First, you should realized that i mix intelligent design with creationism because it fits quite perfectly. Second, the age of the earth usually doesn't concern me but this will lower the probability of evolution occurring. The only alternatives for creation are these:

1. Intelligently designed.
2. Creationism (OEC or YEC)
3. Evolution
4. Popped out of existence somehow.
5. Other

Since the 4th is simply unreasonable and metaphysical, we only have 3 options that we can work with our current knowledge. Intelligent design is right because it sees the biotic message that lies in the complexity of life so that even we can understand. I also quoted C.S lewis which also brings me to conclude something about a meaningful life. Evolution proposes a random life with no purpose but we can create our own purposes. This doesn't explain why logic should be trusted. Then the question, "Why is there something rather than nothing?". ID is correct in questioning whether there is design as we always observe design in our world. The big bang theory also supports a beginning which implies a Creator along with the Anthrophic Principle. The similarities and different varieties in nature points to a single Creator.

I noticed! yes, the system is not perfect...but then again; what is (within th confines of reality)?

True. As they say, a car might not run perfectly but it's better than walking!

Unfortunately I don't have it with me, but much of the paper does unfold and describe much of what you claimed.

I'm sure it was eloquently put and signifies a lot higher lexicon than my article! Perhaps you also made a point or two that i forget to mention which seems to be always the case.

I do however truly believe we may fully understand all that this universe contains.

Perhaps but time will tell eh? ;)

1. Intelligently designed.
2. Creationism (OEC or YEC)
3. Evolution
4. Popped out of existence somehow.
5. Other

Since the 4th is simply unreasonable and metaphysical, we only have 3 options that we can work with our current knowledge. Intelligent design is right because it sees the biotic message that lies in the complexity of life so that even we can understand. I also quoted C.S lewis which also brings me to conclude something about a meaningful life. Evolution proposes a random life with no purpose but we can create our own purposes. This doesn't explain why logic should be trusted. Then the question, "Why is there something rather than nothing?". ID is correct in questioning whether there is design as we always observe design in our world. The big bang theory also supports a beginning which implies a Creator along with the Anthrophic Principle. The similarities and different varieties in nature points to a single Creator. I don't see how both three and four are not applicable for an intelligent designer. All of those scenerios are required (in order to be plausible) to manifest before planck time (tp) but after time of zero (0t). This and many other properties allow relevance between all five of your choices. One can say another possible similiarity is the probability of all five may include ID's in their equations (and therefore cancelling the no purpose proclamation of life).

PS: I understand # one already has a designer, but you understand what I mean.

True. As they say, a car might not run perfectly but it's better than walking!



I'm sure it was eloquently put and signifies a lot higher lexicon than my article! Perhaps you also made a point or two that i forget to mention which seems to be always the case. I doubt it, yours shows much sophistication and quite organized if I may say so. I have the same problem, to much to say...but where to put it?



Perhaps but time will tell eh? ;)
Yes it will.

I don't see how both three and four are not applicable for an intelligent designer.

Good point, but what scenario would you envision that would rule out a need for an intelligent designer? I am quite aware that most assume design but naturalism says that this design can be explained. Apologies for being unclear. What i meant in with evolution is that it's naturalistic side implies a non-designer because these natural processes designed it instead of God or another higher being.

I doubt it, yours shows much sophistication and quite organized if I may say so. I have the same problem, to much to say...but where to put it?

Organization is quite a tedious for most people with a lot of thoughts in their head which is often the case for me. When engaging into a informal debate then i usually do the same. Unlike you, i don't take advantage of some of my higher vocabulary but there really isn't no need for me to do so on a teen forum.


Yes it will.

I wonder how much time we got left though. *looks at the watch* Uh oh, time is up! :scared:

Damnit! Well I wrote out my thoughts and an "invalid link" was given. I'll get back to you shortly... :angry:

Damnit! Well I wrote out my thoughts and an "invalid link" was given. I'll get back to you shortly... :angry:

:rofl: Get a mac. No problems here because it saves my work if i go back. ;)

Good point, but what scenario would you envision that would rule out a need for an intelligent designer? I am quite aware that most assume design but naturalism says that this design can be explained. Apologies for being unclear. What i meant in with evolution is that it's naturalistic side implies a non-designer because these natural processes designed it instead of God or another higher being.


Here we go again:(:


I'm afraid I can't give you a contrasting scenario for #3, you see...(Biology) the origins of man I care the least for. Quoting Mr. Rutherford; "Physics is the only real science. The rest are just stamp collecting."

-- Ernest Rutherford

As for #4: Transitioning is a very tricky event that is shown to occur often. Like earlier stated; at the Planck (tp) level, much of what we know is disrupted into a frenzy of illogicalities. Transitions occur only between (one may say) "imaginary" time periods of > 0, but < tp. Unfortunately for your "sig", these events do happen randomly and evidence shows (if a designer exist) he does role dice on the universe, or so it would seem...

One possible hypothesis for an ID may be: Properties in a system are limited to their surrounding characteristics implemented by that system and therefore not allowing a full view of its mechanics. The same may be said for us and only an illusion of randomness is applied to our bounded minds, perhaps the designer does not role its dice in total probability.

Organization is quite a tedious for most people with a lot of thoughts in their head which is often the case for me. When engaging into a informal debate then i usually do the same. Unlike you, i don't take advantage of some of my higher vocabulary but there really isn't no need for me to do so on a teen forum.
Hehe yeah, I've calmed down a bit...



I wonder how much time we got left though. *looks at the watch* Uh oh, time is up! :scared:
:eek2:

:rofl: Get a mac. No problems here because it saves my work if i go back. ;)
Really? Damn, yeah I've always wanted a Mac. Then again what do I know about computer mechanics...this one will suffice.

Pysics is the only real science. The rest are just stamp collecting."

:lol: The "stamp collecting" statement is rather hilarious.

Unfortunately for your "sig", these events do happen randomly and evidence shows (if a designer exist) he does role dice on the universe, or so it would seem...

From our point of view, it does happen randomly because we can't predict it or understand if it is random. From a higher being's point of view, this wouldn't be a playing of dice but could either be a action by him or He doesn't see it as random. Do we know this absolutely or with assurance that would make us draw the conclusion that God does play dice? Not sure if i could provide a legitimate example but i'll try my best.

We see the universe as infinite in all directions (in our eyes) but scientists understand that it's on a finite-infinite plane (i think you said this). To God, however, the universe isn't infinite of course because we can't see everything all at once.

The same may be said for us and only an illusion of randomness is applied to our bounded minds, perhaps the designer does not role its dice in total probability.

I have of yet still have to read about this topic in the Limitations of Scientific truth which talks about this in-deph. So my lack of knowledge in physics greatly shows but i'll hopefully be improving on that someday.

Really? Damn, yeah I've always wanted a Mac. Then again what do I know about computer mechanics...this one will suffice.

One doesn't have to know about computer mechanics to get a better computer. The only problem that you may encounter is the price tag but you get what you pay for. I know this is off-topic but what type of PC do you own? Most teens i've encountered don't even know what operating system they have. Pretty odd to me, but i realize that all they like to do is chat and be on myspace.

Hehe yeah, I've calmed down a bit...

I think i recall reading that some people complain about you talking all technical. One argument they proposed was:

1. This is a teen forum so many won't understand a high lexicon.
2. Who are you trying to impress here?
3. Therefore, you should stop talking like a physcho.

[Edit] Junior, since you're very educated in terms of physics i have a question from a theory that I came across on a forum. This user posited the theory of perpetual existence which says that existence always existed! Tautologous but still understandable. His argument for it is as follows:

The evidence currently best supports an eternal existence. Why? Because (1) things exist, (2) there is no evidence of a time when existence (matter/energy/quantum-flux/whatever) did not exist, (3) no evidence of any non-material entities or forces that could have poofed existence into existence and (4) no evidence for any entity or force that could serve to stop an infinite regress of who-created-the-creator questions. ... Occam's Razor comes to mind.

Despite the metaphysical characteristics of this theory, what is your take on it? I personally raised the following questions for this theory:

1. Why did the second law of thermodynamics have to occur once something is in motion?
2. What triggered these unknown natural laws to cause motion in the first place?
3. Where are these "natural laws" from and how/why can it effect a non-motionless singularity?
4. Are there any evidences for perpetual existence or is this only confined to our observations where we see everything that exists? How can things like this be known for it to be non-delusional?
5. Why does there have to be perpetual existence?

He first goes on to quote this quy:

I can live with doubt and uncertainty and not knowing. I think it's much more interesting to live not knowing than to have answers which might be wrong.

He added that scientists may 'never know' or really couldn't give a satisfactory answer to these questions. He said:

Science is not certain that there ever was a Big Bang singularity. But, if there was such a singularity, it may not be possible for us to ever know what happened "before." .... I am prepared to live with the possibility that we may never know anything about what preceded this incarnation of the universe. Are you prepared to live with that possibility? ... What's wrong with a little perpetual mystery?

I've never heard of the theory before and don't know what say about it but to say that it seems metaphysical to me...

:



From our point of view, it does happen randomly because we can't predict it or understand if it is random. From a higher being's point of view, this wouldn't be a playing of dice but could either be a action by him or He doesn't see it as random. Do we know this absolutely or with assurance that would make us draw the conclusion that God does play dice? Not sure if i could provide a legitimate example but i'll try my best.

We see the universe as infinite in all directions (in our eyes) but scientists understand that it's on a finite-infinite plane (i think you said this). To God, however, the universe isn't infinite of course because we can't see everything all at once.
Yes, I recall saying this. Great example.

Evidence to support that god plays dice is only based on tests showing fluctuations in energy within the system, the only possible way of truly uncovering this dilemma would be by experimenting beyound the universe...


I have of yet still have to read about this topic in the Limitations of Scientific truth which talks about this in-deph. So my lack of knowledge in physics greatly shows but i'll hopefully be improving on that someday. The book sounds interesting, perhaps I'll pick up a copy one of these days.

One doesn't have to know about computer mechanics to get a better computer. The only problem that you may encounter is the price tag but you get what you pay for. I know this is off-topic but what type of PC do you own? Most teens i've encountered don't even know what operating system they have. Pretty odd to me, but i realize that all they like to do is chat and be on myspace.
I own an HP. I don't recall the price. Meh I'm willing to pay whatever amount for something better...

I think i recall reading that some people complain about you talking all technical. One argument they proposed was:

1. This is a teen forum so many won't understand a high lexicon.
2. Who are you trying to impress here?
3. Therefore, you should stop talking like a physcho.

:lol: I recall! Meh, if they believe that was technical. They should not stumble upon QEDs posts.

[Edit] Junior, since you're very educated in terms of physics i have a question from a theory that I came across on a forum. This user posited the theory of perpetual existence which says that existence always existed! Tautologous but still understandable. His argument for it is as follows:

The evidence currently best supports an eternal existence. Why? Because (1) things exist, (2) there is no evidence of a time when existence (matter/energy/quantum-flux/whatever) did not exist, (3) no evidence of any non-material entities or forces that could have poofed existence into existence and (4) no evidence for any entity or force that could serve to stop an infinite regress of who-created-the-creator questions. ... Occam's Razor comes to mind.

Despite the metaphysical characteristics of this theory, what is your take on it? This is a very complicated theory, I believe in order to move towards. One must define the words existance, and time . Many people have slightly different interpretations of them, and until someone uncovers the meaning of the two, its useless to examine the theory. A seperate thread on this would really help.

"The theory asks so much, when we know so little."

I can easily give you my opinion (which is backed by good amount of evidence) but its useless without uncovering those two properties.

:lol: I recall! Meh, if they believe that was technical. They should not stumble upon QEDs posts.

Ah, so QED must've left a legacy on this forum for long-time goers and intelligent people eh? Was he an atheist?

One must define the word existance, and time.

I would assumed that this person will get the definition from the dictionary:

To have actual being; be real.

Perhaps you'll ask what it is to be "real"(a guess). As for time, he asserts that there is no time.

A seperate thread on this would really help.

Do you want me to start it or you're going to do it?

I can easily give you my opinion (which is backed by good amount of evidence) but its useless without uncovering those two properties.

This will be interesting.

Ah, so QED must've left a legacy on this forum for long-time goers and intelligent people eh? Was he an atheist? I don't remember, there was a thread where he stated what he believed in...somewhere in the religion forum.



I would assumed that this person will get the definition from the dictionary:

Haha, yes obviously, but even this is such an ambiguous definition. For example would you think Imaginary Time to be a subsection of time or time in another state and what have you say about eternity? Tricky indeed...




Do you want to start it or you're going to do it?



This will be interesting.
I believe you should, as I tend to take over my own threads...

I don't remember, there was a thread where he stated what he believed in...somewhere in the religion forum.

Is the username QED or not? I tried search for the name but it didn't show up.


Tricky indeed...

Time and simply mind boggles me. Especially when you read these books on christian philosophy which try to explain God's relation with time.

I believe you should, as I tend to take over my own threads...

:lol: Probably because no one has any answers to it anyhow. The most popular topics i've seen on here is, global warming and evolution.

Is the username QED or not? I tried search for the name but it didn't show up.

Yes, that is his name...strange? I was successfully able to find his posts.

Time and simply mind boggles me. Especially when you read these books on christian philosophy which try to explain God's relation with time. Yeah, I'd rather not think about it at this time.



:lol: Probably because no one has any answers to it anyhow. The most popular topics i've seen on here is, global warming and evolution.
I doubt it...who knows. Yes they do seem to be quite frequent.

Yes, that is his name...strange? I was successfully able to find his posts.

Perhaps the search function wasn't working when i tried it :shrug: but now it works. I checked his profile and it says that he logged in 3 days ago :eek2:

Glancing at some of his posts in the religious section andhe is quite an intellectual person when it comes to defending atheism. I've heard the arguments before but good arguments instead of the norm.

Yeah, I'd rather not think about it at this time.

Studying the topic makes me more confused.

I doubt it...who knows. Yes they do seem to be quite frequent.

There's a 60-70% chance that it is possible. For one, hardly anyone on this forum cares about scientific topics and especially if it has all these wacky words in there. Another reason is that they agree with you...

Perhaps the search function wasn't working when i tried it :shrug: but now it works. I checked his profile and it says that he logged in 3 days ago :eek2:

Glancing at some of his posts in the religious section andhe is quite an intellectual person when it comes to defending atheism. I've heard the arguments before but good arguments instead of the norm.


So he was Atheist, oh yes...if I remember correctly, WhiteMage become one after influence from him.


There's a 60-70% chance that it is possible. For one, hardly anyone on this forum cares about scientific topics and especially if it has all these wacky words in there. Another reason is that they agree with you...
People should care, it's all around us!

I'll be sure to look at your thread come later, I must get some rest...

So he was Atheist, oh yes...if I remember correctly, WhiteMage become one after influence from him.

You serious? WhiteMage used to be religious (or agnostic)? To confirm this, i'll ask WhiteMage but he takes a while to respond since he's working on his new forum and all. In a way, i am delighted to have met WhiteMage as he showed me my profound ignorance. I can't imagine myself making such a idiotic claim as this:

Listen, both the big bang theory and the evolution theory are ways to solve the past without God. Now don't tell me that lie that evolution and the big bang theory aren't together. They are both in a chain.

Man am i ashamed of that statement!! What's even more amazing is that i've learned so much more after 6 months and i anticipate even more learning on the topic!

People should care, it's all around us!

Just as people don't care about logic, it's the same with people on science. The usual excuse is:

"Too technical"
"It's not needed to survive' etc

I'll be sure to look at your thread come later, I must get some rest...

Understandable. I'll await with eager anticipation. :D

[Edit] Now that I read back, there was a time when QED was on but I never spoke to him so i didn't remember. And i also just remembered that i've talked to naomi before. Time sure has flied by. Since i had an introductory course in logic, QED isn't that difficult to understand.

Yes I recall Whitemage stating this. (You do know he is banned right) so good luck trying to get ahold of him.


I could have sworn it was him, eh...oh well.

The only way to really prove that evolution occurred is by the fossil record.

I'm going away for the weekend, and as soon as I saw your massive post and, then, the above quoted statement, I knew right away you still have no idea what you are talking about.

Ask anyone, speciation is evidence for evolution---definitely not creationism.

A stick man would be if I created an argument to spur off from the real one at hand. You said something that was terribly wrong; I corrected you... how is that stick man? Oh wait, you can't explain that because you are merely creating a stick man yourself with all the times you are attempting to point out flaws in my argument simply because that is your only option.

The theory itself says nothing about "God" but that this designer is intelligent.

Good grief, learn to read. "Then, if we suppose a supernatural force was the intelligent designer..." I made sure to include the IF WE SUPPOSE part because I knew you would make some lame argument over this.

You haven't proved anything to make it more "likely" that you're just as qualified as James Shapiro.

I read elsewhere that you make huge pointless arguments to deter people from real debates. This is true.

1. Darwinists don't know how these biological systems could have originated.
2. We know that intelligent agency has the casual power to produce systems that exhibit Specified complexity.
3. Therefore, biologic systems that exhibit SC are likely to be designed.

You complain that I ignore all that you write. If you have read anything I have written, perhaps you could see how A LACK OF EVIDENCE FOR ONE THEORY DOES NOT SUPPORT ANOTHER THEORY.

Possibly designed would be better wording. But SEEING AS THERE IS NO EVIDENCE FOR ID OTHER THAN A LACK OF EVIDENCE FOR NDE, this "possibly" is more like "unlikely."

That's all you've done with the links i provided so far.

I don't sit at my computer all day discussing religion. Make an argument for yourself rather than simply referring me to links that I could not possibly read if I want to also have a life.


You have yet to provide me with any evidence whatsoever that SOLELY supports ID and that does not merely suggest how NDE could be wrong. I am going. Any unbiased outsider will realise what a terrible argument you have made for yourself.

Life is complex. It is not unexpectable then that it be formed through some complex process like evolution.

ID may sound like an easier answer (it seems more conceivable), but so does my hypothetical belief that space-time is linear and there are only four dimensions. Does that make it right?

Yes I recall Whitemage stating this. (You do know he is banned right) so good luck trying to get ahold of him.

Yup i know, and i also know the name of his forum. WhiteMage and I have been debating an i was quite surprised to find out that He thinks ID has evidence but not enough evidence to eliminate evolution.

Ask anyone, speciation is evidence for evolution---definitely not creationism.

As soon as i read this statement, i knew you didn't read my article for further reading and understanding. As far as i am concerned, you've become adjusted to ignorant creationists on here.

A stick man would be if I created an argument to spur off from the real one at hand.

No, you're creating a STRAW man of the creationist position. Ask any informed creationist...Oh wait, you don't know any! :rolleyes: Here we go again:

Speciation: is a change in a population that produces distinct populations which rarely naturally interbreed due to geographic isolation or other factors.

Speciation, is in fact, observable and fits into the category known as operational science. We haven't observed, however, that one kind of animal turned into another. Lions and panthers are both members of the cat kind but they are considered different species due to their geographic isolation. It is possible for a male lion and female panther to mate. The two species came from the cat kind. Informed creationists NEVER say that species are static in the least sense. Evolutionists often set up straw man by saying us creationists believe that life was created just as we see today. There are indeed many changes over time in species but this doesn't disprove creationism at all!

I knew you would make some lame argument over this.

As i said, we can't make any judgement as to who this creator or is or try to test this creator. To think otherwise is simply metaphysical at best.

I read elsewhere that you make huge pointless arguments to deter people from real debates. This is true.

Nope, you simply don't read up on anything to create a real debate. Want me to prove you wrong on this? Since you're not a christian though or a theistic evolutionist, it's quite difficult to try to get through your head that intelligent design is science. It's funny though. First you guys complained that i had nothing to prove with small ridiculous responses and now you complain after i make long posts to correct your mistake. I gave you some of my evidence at the last post.

People think otherwise. (http://www.theologyonline.com/forums/showpost.php?p=1291364&postcount=32) Incase you don't care about reading this i'll quote them:

I'm extremely happy to have someone onboard here who is clearly well-read -- or at least is working towards that goal -- on the subject. I hope we can have some good conversations in the future! Keep reading!

You take me too lightly just as every other creationist on here as a stupid moron.

B]A LACK OF EVIDENCE FOR ONE THEORY DOES NOT SUPPORT ANOTHER THEORY.[/B]

I didn't say a lack of evidence supports another theory but it helps ELIMINATE other theories along with providing evidence for another theory. Seriously, i am tired of you stating that there is no evidence for ID. How far do you want me to go? I'll present evidence for creationism + ID because i don't want to have the option of allowing macro-evolution to be in progress.

In regards to creationism, lack of evidence for evolution is evidence for creationism. This is because us creationist acknowledge change in species and speciation but not a gradual change into an ape to man. We have evidence for design in nature and in the cosmos (anthropic principle) which points to a designer. Similarities between animals doesn't prove evolution but is proof of a common designer.


I don't sit at my computer all day discussing religion. Make an argument for yourself rather than simply referring me to links that I could not possibly read if I want to also have a life.

You referred me to links as well! Don't act all hypocritical on me and I am actually taking the time to read it. Maybe i should just stop reading it if you're this obstinate to not accept any correction by me. Even on something so simple as speciation. In fact, the best link that i provided was a "Introduction to ID" which isn't as long as all those other articles and provides some decent evidence for intelligent design.


You have yet to provide me with any evidence whatsoever that SOLELY supports ID and that does not merely suggest how NDE could be wrong.

Most of the evidence you HAVE supports ID with the exception of the fossils but you haven't shown me any as of yet. Most of the evidence on the articles you presented can be explained by the creationist model but the only proof of evolution ACTUALLY occurring is through the fossil record. If i haven't made a case then you haven't made a case.

Life is complex. It is not unexpectable then that it be formed through some complex process like evolution.

Complex? You call random mutations along with natural selection and whatever else you have as complex? What kind of mechanism has the ability to make these complex structures?

but so does my hypothetical belief that space-time is linear and there are only four dimensions. Does that make it right?

That's metaphysical until further proven so i have no worries about this. Hardly evidence against ID where we can OBSERVE things in nature rather than making all this stuff up.