Tony, When you said a "good dose of Boris" I completely misunderstood. I didn't realize there was a poster by that name here until just a minute ago. I'm going back to delete that section of the post. Sorry, ~Caleb
The whole alien idea is ridiculous in my eyes but it leaves a third possibility and therefore the argument is not polar. With your box there is more than 2 possibilities. Never in true science have I seen a theory proved by disproving the alternate. Pseudosciences have always used this as a backing. The UFO phenomenon for instance is a grate example and I would take your evidence in the same view. They say there is no other explanation for cattle mutations, pictures and the like and try to disprove natural phenomena. Sounds exactly like what you are attempting to do here. Anyway, I do not want to find myself defending evolution, I said I would not and I hate to go back on my word Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! " I hope I don't sound sarcastic, but I am truly shoked at this statement.....Wow. O.K. So now we're limited to the top side, or the right, and all I must do is give evidence for intelligence, right? " The reason why I said what I did is the big bang theory requires that it start outside our natural laws and you stated this as supernatural. I was simply following your definition. Our natural laws including time were created at that moment as the theory goes and anything that created them would be outside those laws boundaries. Yes, all you have to do is come up with an argument for an intelligent designer. And thanx for that last post, I got a laugh out of that! hehe Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Clarificaiton, please? FA_Q2-- I'd like to ask for a little clarification here. It's just that given the number of religious philosophies which have, over the ages, concluded that existence is a fallacy or illusion, it seems a valid point. In the end, I'm just trying to ensure that the debate does not, in restricting itself to polar theories of the origins of the Universe, congratulate itself for exscinding possibility. Or else I've completely missed your point, sir; either way, it is wisest of me to ask for clarification. thanx, Tiassa Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Evidence of intelligence in the Universe. -This may be slightly more dfficult to show than the fact that the universe had a supernatural origins. Anything that demonstrates intelligence will be also able to be explained by huge coincidence -- coincidences that I believe are far too great to be of natural origin. There is far to much of nature that is designed so precisely that for it to have arose under random chance places too great a strain on probability. First of all, as Tiassa pointed out, there is no law that states the universe must be orderly (I assume that's what s/he meant by "make sense". This is an excelent point. There is no reason why the universe should be so orderly -- yet observations show that it <i>is</i>. Just as surely as observations indicate that there <i>is</i> a universe, they also indicate that it is an orderly universe. This points to an orderly designer behind it all. Not only is this direct proof, but it overlaps into being contrary proof as well, since there has been no other satisfactory way of scientifically explaining why this order exists. To quote Sherlock Homes, once you eliminate the impossiblse, what ever is left, no matter how improbable, must be the truth. More evidence can be found in the planet Earth. The delicate climactic system that fits the needs of life precisely, and yet is not as delicate as it appears, as there are so many checks, balances, and counterbalances in it to keep it stable. Additional CO_2 increases plant life, which in turn removes extra CO_2. There are an incountable number of such systems that balance each other out, and protect this planet in its high-precision life-support system. Not just the fact that Earth is ideally situated for life with the right precentages of water, the proper distance from the correct type of star, the correct kind of atmosphere, etc... But also the fact that it can <i>stay</i> in this state. Our atmosphere hasn't changed to a toxic one, or completely sublimated into space. Granted there has been at least one ice age, but in general, things don't get too cold or too warm for life. Chemical compositions stay where they should be, etc... Every feature of the Earth's life-support system points too its having been intelligently designed -- like a computer program with extra subroutines to do the error handling and set everything right back on track if something goes wrong. Or like a piece of architecture in which every piece fits together with stunning precision to build the finished object -- a thing of beauty. And if this isn't yet enough, then we shall turn to the existence of life. Even the simpilest micro-organism is more complicated beyond anything we can understand. All of its parts function together in perfect harmony. Bring this up to the level of a simple vertebrate - say a fish - and you have complicated the system beyond reason. Thousands of amino acids, enzymes, proteins, and other chemicals all work together with Swiss-watch-like precision to create what we call a living organism. And this isn't even touching the newer feild of genetics. The DNA strand contains more information than a set of encyclopedias (I'm not sure, but I think it probably contains more information than all the encyclopedias in the world). This information had to have a source -- an intelligent source. Random processes do not create information or signals -- this is a known fact. Consider those new computer algorithims that evolve their algorithms to meet a certain need (I assume everyoe is familiar with the process). These programs may be able to adapt their programing to suit specific tasks better, but only if they have been told to, and only within the range of the orginal programmers specifications. The point here is that the information comes from a source of higher intelligence. Another fact about DNA is that in order to form, it needs certain proteins. But these proteins can't from without the DNA. Therefore, both were designed as part of a complex system and meant to work together as one. Then there are complex individual organs, such as the eye. The fact that we have a pair of eyes - complex organs in and of themselves - which pick up visual images from the outside demonstrates the intelligence of a creator. So does the digestive system. A stomach would be no good without the acid secreting glands in it's lining, yet these glands would be useless if there were no stomach in the first place. Indeed, the presence of teeth and a tongue would similarly have no use if there were no stomach. Yet without a way to breakdown food before it reaches the stomach, it would fail miserably at its job of digesting. And then there are complex symbiotic relations in nature -- hundreds of them. The only one I can think of at the moment is the yucca moth and the yucca plant. The plant cannot exist without the insect, because the yucca moth is the only thing that polinizes the plant. However, the yucca moth cannot exist without food from the yucca plant. Such interdependencies are extremely abundant in nature, and give a strong argument for the creatures having come into existence at nearly the same. Further, it argues for the animals having been <i>designed</i> so as to live together and benfit one another mutually. And then there are all the oddities. For instance, the woodpecker has a highly unusual tongue. It wraps around back, behind its skull! Such a feature is beneficial to the woodpecker (OK, I admit I can't remember why) and argues that it was specially designed different from all other birds for its specific task. This is just one example of an animal that has a "specialized" feature that is completely distinct and different from others. Perhaps one or two or five or ten of such evidences of design can be explained by a random, chaotic theory, but there is such an overwhelming swarm of it that design -- and complex design at that -- seems to be the rule in nature rather than the exception. I have barely scratched the surface!!! Just like how a crowd of truthful, independent witnesses all coroborate one another and help to convict the guilty criminal, so all of these abundant evidences of design build a strong case for an intelligent designer to the universe. The example is often given of a tornado in a junkyard assembling a Boeing 747. Yet the smallest cell is more complex than a Boeing 747. What <i>does</i> assemble a Boeing 747 is robotic arms -- and these arms have been programed to do just what they do by an intelligent engineer (or more likely a group of them) who know the laws of areodynamics, and how to wire electrical systems and work hydralics and other such advanced features. ~Caleb
Grrrrrrr .... Caleb What you're essentially saying is "Isn't it wonderful that God put our eyes and ears, and nose too, where he did so that we can wear glasses!" Ever think that maybe the glasses were created, designed, to match the reality of where those parts of our face are? And by men!
? What did I say about glasses??? Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! Of course, nature is alot more complicated than glasses, and it was not designed my men. If it takes a man to design a pair of glasses, surely it takes a higher intelligence to design an eye!!! ~Caleb
Caleb, Ref Boris: That's OK, no problem. I mentioned his name because he exhibits a high degree of intelligence on the opposite side of the cube to you and me. And although we may not agree with his or others comments they are always useful for us to fully sound the depths of our own theories, thoughts, ideas. The resulting outcome show either strengthen our faith / resolve, or should serve to show us areas where we may have gotten it a little wrong Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! I have througherly enjoyed seeing your approach to this topic and the manner in which you have responded to individuals. Allcare Tony H2o
You didn't, Caleb ... I was just using the 'glasses' metaphorically I guess to make my point. I have a real problem with the idea that millions of years are insufficient to allow life to take many wonderous forms in a day and age when we're just beginning to realize that even plants can intelligently evolve to meet environmental stresses/enemies. That was all. Chagur
I'm not sure I understand the point of your metaphor O.K. You can believe that if you want to, but it isn't any more scientific than the idea of an inteligent designer, because neither have been demonstrated. ~Caleb P.S. ~ <i>"Only sweet-voiced birds are imprisoned. Never Hawks or Owls!"</i> What about Falconers and their Falcons? Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
The critical difference, at last (or, again and again and again) I don't see what your unholy problem is here, Caleb. You keep harping on ideas that aren't scientific because they are not yet demonstrated. Just like the demons that cause disease, right? With each new scientific discovery, a projection becomes a verifiable reality. With each successful scientific experiment, a certain concept or other that has been theorized is demonstrated true. Did microbes come into existence after we were able to observe them? To be less paradoxical, did microbes come into existence merely because we humans attained the ability to observe them? Did all the demons turn into microbes all of a sudden? What is not yet demonstrated by science will be demonstrated true or false as the technology progresses to allow us these observational capabilities. The only hitch here comes if humanity kills itself off before that time. Of course, that's what the redemptive religions seem to be rooting for: the end of humanity in this Universe, so I guess it's a perfect little package for the Creationists. But what is not demonstrated in the Creationist myth is the Creator. Unlike science, the Creator cannot be proven, and this is according to the religions that subscribe to Creationist myth. So I will try this one more time: Were you born knowing everything, or did you have to learn anything in order to be a fully functional human being? Ah, but this may be a result of our natural, planned, but not God's fault, separation from the Creator. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! The simple fact is, Caleb, that we do as individuals have to learn things to survive, and we do as a human species have to learn things to ensure our species' survival. Learning how the environment in which we exist functions is paramount: we could, I suppose, stand around, scratching our asses, waiting for God and saying, "Here there be tigers." Humanity would, it seems, disappear from the food chain. So what you're faulting science for is being human, which is apparently not an acceptable condition to That Which Created the Human Condition. You seem to be faulting science for not having skipped ahead in time and finished the process for you. You seem to be faulting science for the very nature of its pursuit: discovering the unknown. Yet at the same time, you seem to be asserting that the unknown is known. No, apparently you don't need to demonstrate it: to assert it is enough and we all should believe you and the cadre of antiscientists for whom mere discovery is not enough merely because you say so. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! So before you waggle your fingers and stick out your tongue and tease science for not being perfect in its capabilities, you might want to consider that you're teasing it for not yet having finished something you are incapable of undertaking in the first place. After all, you're chasing around the idea that science hasn't all the answers while you assume the answers and refuse by declaration of faith (as opposed to verifiable science) to demonstrate your assumptions. It's hypocritical. It's shallow. It's cheap and tawdry, and best reserved for people who have nothing better to do than stomp around continents showing their merciful love for everything by killing it off. Oh, well ... that explains Creationism, then, I guess. * * * * * An editorial note on Creationism: For the most part, it doesn't matter what one believes about the origin of the Universe; in the end, all will either demonstrate it or won't. To that end, I do worry when such a predominant religion as Christianity gleefully awaits the end of the human species. But aside from that, there are very few reasons why what one person believes should be important to another. And in the United States it has become exceptionally important to some people. The NAS document cited once upon a lonely moon only came about because someone had to explain to the Creationists why their myth wasn't being taught in science class. And that's the thing: many of us would have no objection to religion in our public schools, something that just doesn't seem to work well in the present. What gives us cause to object is the nature of that proposed inclusion: Organized prayer and forced prayer aren't dead concepts here in this country; the "wisdom" of "Thou shall have no other gods before me" is occasionally posted in public offices, and then advocated by its supporters because "Thou shall not kill" is posted in the same. Why not post the Preamble to our Constitution in big, huge letters, instead? Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness? It seems, indeed, why people come together in society. Beyond the various modes of prayer proposed almost exclusively by religionists adherent to the Christian myth there are other problems. The Bible should be treated as a definitive historical document, and not subject to the critical thinking taught in our schools that helps people see through various chicanery; the Bible should be taught as science: How easy is that test? In the beginning, God created the heavens and the Earth. Look, Ma! An A+! Many of us have no objection to including the Bible alongside other holy texts of various cultures as part of the social sciences, but this has been ridiculed by the American evangelical crowd, at least, as a violation of Christians' rights. (Don't ask me the logic; it's never been coherently explained by a Christian in this country.) This is the logic of American Christianity as relates our public institutions: In the Pacific Northwest (Washington, Oregon, Idaho, Alaska ...) there are a number of tribes remaining who were not killed off in an act of mercy. Reservations dot the landscape, and our citizens have enough difficulty figuring out exactly how "we" and "they" relate. Yet I have, before, heard Christians objecting to field trips from our public schools to the reservations because so much of tribal life is "religious". Strangely, this is about the only time these religious beliefs are awarded any credibility by American Christians. In fact, it is the only time whatsoever that it comes into play. The argument goes that by taking the students to a reservation, you are unfairly preaching religion to them, a right that Christians don't have. So, let's see: three hundred sixty-four days a year, the spiritual beliefs of tribe is not a legitimate religion, and suddenly it is? It seems to me a small-minded complaint: since any other day of the year, it seems that these beliefs are not legitimate religion, then there is no religion being preached on this one day. It's a logical conclusion, and has nothing to do whatsoever with the cultural considerations. But that's essentially what it's like here. Have you ever read To Kill a Mockingbird, by Harper Lee? One of the finest novels in American history? It's objected to because of ... well, I forget why, but it offends some Christians apparently. Alice Walker's The Color Purple was accused of "glorifying" sexuality because it discussed the effects of incestuous rape of children. Would these parents prefer that we read Little Golden Books in high school? Maybe The Little Engine That Could? These Christians also object to books like A Bridge to Tarabithia (apparently a children's classic that includes ideas of magic), and A Wrinkle in Time for various reasons offensive to Christianity. Here we must note the paucity of these objections: the most recent objections to L'Engle's Wrinkle in Time included objections to witchcraft, lesbianism, independent thinking among youth, and advocacy of Communism. Specifically, had these objectors a clue, they would find the witchcraft part and parcel of the myth, the lesbianism nonexistant (both witchcraft and lesbianism earn their place because of the author's play on ... MacBeth, I think, as well as some wonderful plays on words: Mrs Which, Mrs Who, and Mrs Whatsit), and the perspective on Communism to be anticommunist. Perhaps in perfect rhythm with this religious-inspired fervor of idiocy comes the demand that the Bible be included for this or that in a public school curriculum (most people don't object to the idea of placing the Bible in the libraries, but again, Christians aren't happy with its classification alongside the Enuma Elish, the Koran, various Oriental texts, and so forth). So what is the problem with these people? They dislike the perversion, sorcery, and violence of other books, but want the perversion, sorcery, and violence of the Bible included, and sometimes so far as mandated. Apparently, it is acceptable in the Christian context, which equates to sheer and inexcusable culturalism. Christians in this country have their hands dirty in various public school issues: * Health: Christian standards should be taught in lieu of scientific data; abstinence should be the primary focus, birth control not discussed, and sexually transmitted diseases only mentioned as a consequence of sin. * Science: Christian standards should be awarded the same scientific merit as actual scientific research. * History: The Bible should be considered a definitive historical source, inerrant to the letter. * Literature: Lit classes and library shelves should be stocked and blocked according to Christian standards. * Cultural studies: If students are allowed to witness indigenous Americans dancing, then why can't they be compelled to take communion? * School counseling: Christian standards should be the only guidelines for handling students' problems. You know, it isn't like it took a menagerie of movies (Footloose, for instance, of all ridiculous examples) and album covers (Styx's Kilroy Was Here) to create a distaste for book and record burnings. I've witnessed a couple in my own lifetime. But university bookstores (and some commercial bookstores as well) generally set aside one week each year called "Banned Books Week", in which attention is drawn to books subject to legal consequences, censorship hearings, and other suppressive tactics. I recall in 1993, at the University of Oregon, what upset Christians was not the display itself, but that the Bible was included on the "Banned" list for its violent and sexual contents. At no point that year did it occur to any one of the Christian objectors that they might be able to win a sympathy vote or two along the usual "oppressed Christian" line; they were indignant at the idea that anyone found anything inappropriate in the Bible, and were upset at the bookstore for finding pretense to include it. The paradox is confounding. It largely seems like the Christians are talking out of their asses when it comes to such matters: instead of capitalizing on offered examples of the Bible being suppressed in the US (or simply objected to), they chose to pretend that such issues did not even exist. And, to bring this little editorial rant back around: this is what we're used to seeing and hearing from these people. This is the only reason it's important. If Christianity did not have the visible effect of instilling a profound dullardness in students pertaining to simple matters like working and playing well with others--in other words, if the religion in application is demonstratively dysfunctional--why should one wish it to be an educational standard? Yet here they come: science, history, literature, culture, psychology--in every case Christians advocate conditions detrimental to this lifetime yet allegedly beneficial to the afterlife. It is living hegemony and living homogony they seek. And that is how Creationism becomes important to the rest of us. It wouldn't be, except that the Christians demand it be, and if we don't make it important to ourselves, it will become the standard, just like it was in Europe all those centuries ago when the good Christian Soldiers marched onward over the bodies of their neighbors. Economy? Sure. Nation? Sure. But mercy? Give me a break. It was idiocy then, and I refuse to allow my culture to slide back into that pit of hateful superstition. Creationists behave as if they tend to think that documents like the NAS passages cited in the most recent Evolution/Creationism thread were written specifically as an aggression against the righteous faith. Truth be told, the authors probably would have rathered not bother; but someone had to explain to the Creationists why their myth wasn't scientific enough to be included in science class; and that was only necessary because the Creationists seem to insist. Maybe this isn't an issue in other nations, but it's a huge one that exists here; it reaches the top of our government, where apparently the most effective prayer would win the presidency, along with a little help from a future GOP senate candidate. But anyone watching our last election would have thought there was no religious diversity in this nation at all, except that Liebermann was Jewish. Check out what Christians advocate around here: it's all about human dominion, and that's why it suddenly matters what people believe. If they had kept their faith where it belonged, we wouldn't have such problems in this country in the first place. But the long and short of it is simply this: if Christians did not demand scientific merit for their myth, nobody would give a rat's behind about Creationism. That is, if Christians did not demand scientific merit for what cannot and, apparently should not be scientifically verified, then we woould not have the problems we do today surrounding the issue. It's amazing: with so many real problems on our hands in this society, all American Christians are interested in seems to be the validation of their myth through government endorsement. It matters not if these myths bring dire consequences to the living, since after all, Christianity is only good for the dying. Creationism, in this country, is part of that massive and enduring assault against human progress. Believe me: at the end of the day, sir, I care not what you believe. But when you demand scientific merit for religious faith, and when you hypocritically deride science for being scientific ... well, it merely demonstrates the cheapness of faith and the sacrifice of the intellect. I thought you should know, though. There are reasons why it's important that go way beyond what any one person believes. It would do you and your faith credit to either establish the scientific veracity of a Creator, or else shut up about the scientific merit of the Creation myth. thanx much, Tiassa Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
off-topic and irrelevant Tiassa, beyond the first three sentences, the rest of your post is completely irrelevant. You put words in my mouth that I have not said in this thread -- most of which that I haven't even said at all! Then you take those words (the ones that I didn't say!) out of context, arive at a faulty conclusion, and attack <i>me</i> as being "cheap and tawdry" for it. I'm sorry, but that is not how science is done. If you have a valid point, relevant to this discussion, please make it -- and be clear about it! I fail to see any point in the above thread except for this one: Just using your standards (and those of the scientific community, E's and C's alike) that, to be science, something must be demonstratable. Actually, as I and others have stated many times it is impossible to provide class I evidence for any theory of origins. That doesn't mean that science can't be used in this feild, however. We can use strong class II.a evidence for one version or the other. I have provided multiple scientific facts that strongly imply an intelligent designer over natural chance. I fully admit the weakness of the scientific method, and realize that this evidence is not class I (which it cannot be). However, from a scientific standpoint, my theory that there is an intelligent designer is based on this scientific evidence of intelligent design. However, I have not seen any evidence that would support the universe arose from chance. Nor have I seen any evidence that contradicts the interpretation of my evidence being designed naturaly. (Though both of these evidence would also be class II). Now while such evidence may exist, and science is free to explore them -- in fact it <i>should</i> explore them -- until they have been observed, there is simply no observational basis to build a theory on. This is not attacking science, it is <i>using</i> the scientific method (which derives theories from observation) and then pointing out that a particular model is not scientific to the extent that it has no basis (or at best a very incomplete basis) in observational reality. ~Caleb
Yes, Caleb: cheap and tawdry Please demonstrate the words I've put in your mouth, clarify your context if you think I've got it wrong, and yes, it is cheap and tawdry. Do you play a musical instrument? Consider the following: A group of schoolchildren sitting in an auditorium listening to their classmates in a band recital. A sour note echoes through the auditorium and the guy next to you giggles and whispers to you about the idiots up on stage. As one familiar with musical instruments, perhaps you would have a sense of sympathy to the musician onstage, knowing well how sour notes can happen. Yet the twit beside you can't even play a musical instrument, can't read music, and thinks the point of music is to make you popular. (This last is irrelevant to our purpose, but I throw it in for the completeness of the concept.) Now: A group of your fellow classmates are discoursing on various scientific concepts. The guy beside you takes exception and leans over and whispers how stupid these people are. Yet he disregards the scientific method he's criticizing and asserts that they're wrong, based solely on superstition. Now: You have criticized science for not having "all the answers"; essentially, for not having yet finished what it has begun. Yet your criticism is based on ideas that are not comparable. You are criticizing the scientific method for not having finished a process that you cannot undertake for the alternative you offer in your haughty criticism. Based on your standards, I would assert that it is impossible for you to run a mile. Why? Because after you take your first step, you have not traveled a mile. Therefore, I can only conclude, by your method, that you cannot run a mile, and the assertion that you can is based only in foolish assumption because I believe nobody has ever run a mile before. Yes, Caleb it is cheap and tawdry. This is what I don't get about your position: you are asserting something which, by the faith which makes it "real" to you, cannot be demonstrated. This is why Creationism is unscientific, and also why you sound like a common American politician with your repeated assertions of Creationism as science. This, too, is cheap and tawdry. Yet without a proof of the Creator, you have no facts to conclude. The hypothesis isn't workable because it isn't testable, demonstrable, or verifiable. Coming from someone like you, whose theory depends on ignoring the scientific method, that means, oh, about ... nothing whatsoever. And based on observational data, I can conclude that gravity makes things fall down; we know that this is incorrect in its incompleteness. But it's the most immediately observational evidence I have. As I explore deeper into scientific data, I will discover that gravity does much more than simply make things fall to the ground. As you look deeper into the scientific method, you will see that the conclusions of the antiscientists you've provided in other threads will be disproven, except of course for the unprovable, untestable, unverifiable assertion of a designer. With no scientific avenue to prove, test, verify, or demonstrate this designer, we can conclude that such a designer is not presently a viable scientific assertion. A couple of notes: * I'm sorry scientists can't provide every last answer according to your schedule of demands. Actually, no I'm not. It's your problem to figure out. * I stand behind the first portion of my post because I feel I have accurately represented the method of your argument. * I stand behind the second portion because I figured it might be important to consider why this is important at all: Why, Caleb is it so important to you that science violate its own method so that it can agree with your assertions? * And that's essentially the bottom line: you can believe any idiocy you choose to put your faith in. But what I don't understand is why it is important to you that everyone else believes the same. In the typical manner of the US, dominion comes to mind, but I would hate to make an ... uh ... assumption (as such; nevermind the historical evidence of religion pursuing human dominion, as I can infer from your posts that history has little relevance to you.) Something about running a mile? Also, something about blind faith? I wonder why you're not seeing? The purpose of science is to find that evidence. If you want to be scientific, devise a test of the Creator, and show it to exist. You're very critical of scientific tolerances, so consider how much room you have to work there when you see your final data. Again, something about blind faith. Tell me, Caleb, how can science explore the Creator? As I noted, devise the hypothesis and the test. A couple of notes here: * Something about running a mile. * No, it's not attacking science to propose a theory and test it. It is not attacking science to say: Okay, we have to resolve this here variable. But, for the record, and also the nth time, it is a puerile attack on science to fault it for not having done what you are incapable by the nature of your faith of undertaking. Can you scientifically demonstrate the creator? ciao, Tiassa Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Still irrelevent Would anyone like to continue debating me on <marquee><blink><h3><u>scientific</u></h3></blink></marquee> grounds, as opposed to "cheap" namecalling? ~Caleb
Aww, Caleb Posit a scientific theory--that is, one that does not rely on undemonstrable evidence for "proof"--and sure, you can have it. In the meantime, I would suggest you consider the fact that with every post you put up here, you resort to cheap name-calling yourself: "The fool hath said in his heart 'There is no God'." It would appear that you consider those who disagree with your god-myth to be fools. In the meantime, when you stop picking on other people for not having perfected what you cannot do at all, let us all know. It's nice to know your Christian humility compels you to operate for your pride. thanx, Tiassa Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
" More evidence can be found in the planet Earth. The delicate climactic system that fits the needs of life precisely, and yet is not as delicate as it appears, as there are so many checks, balances, and counterbalances in it to keep it stable. Additional CO_2 increases plant life, which in turn removes extra CO_2. There are an incountable number of such systems that balance each other out, and protect this planet in its high-precision life-support system. Not just the fact that " This may be true yet then again if you look at it in the reverse it does not need an intelligent guide. The earth would evolve as a planet a certain way and produce abundance of many chemicals. Life would use those chemicals that are most abundant and create other chemicals. Another life form would learn to use those chemicals created as a food source and so on. This would create the circle of life. The yucca moth at one point might not have needed the tree but learned at a time of need that the trees supplied a vast amount of food and they capitalized on it. The balances that are set up in our world are not a product of something presetting them but rather a product of life itself. Which directly pertains to the second half. " Earth is ideally situated for life with the right precentages of water, the proper distance from the correct type of star, the correct kind of atmosphere, etc... But also the fact that it can stay in this state. Our atmosphere hasn't changed to a toxic one, or completely sublimated into space. Granted there has been at least one ice age, but in general, things don't get too cold or too warm for life. Chemical compositions stay where they should be, etc... Every feature of the Earth's life-support system points too its having been intelligently designed -- like a computer program with extra subroutines to do the error handling and set everything right back on track if something goes wrong. Or like a piece of architecture in which every piece fits together with stunning precision to build the finished object -- a thing of beauty. " As I said earlier this is a direct result of life, not of a perfect planet. It is the proper distance from the sun because there would not be life ion this world if it was not. This is one out of the trillions of planets out there and the possibility of a planet in the same position and size of earth is very likely. This planet does not stay the perfect temperature and composition all the time anyway and this speaks to the ability for life to improvise. At one time a meteor struck this planet and caused a gigantic change in this planets atmosphere. Oxygen levels dropped and sunlight was blocked out and in these harsh conditions life survived. Another problem is it assumed that life needs perfect conditions to survive. There is life within the heart of a volcano, miles under the ocean floor and buried within solid rock. When we recovered some of our own pieces of technology from the vacuum of space we were surprised to find living bacterium within it. Life makes due with what it can get. " The DNA strand contains more information than a set of encyclopedias (I'm not sure, but I think it probably contains more information than all the encyclopedias in the world). This information had to have a source -- an intelligent source. Random processes do not create information or signals -- this is a known fact. " I would hold that quantum theory suggests otherwise but I do not know enough of it to delve in to that matter. DNA as far as I know only hold the basic blueprints to life, not really a huge amount of information but a simple set of instruction on how the chemicals in an organism react and a basic structure. It is in its own way a code for life but only one with 4 different chemicals to make up its structure. As I see it a rock has the same code, in atoms rather than chemicals. A rock is a rock, it react the same with those things around it. The only thing it lack is consumption and reproduction. " Another fact about DNA is that in order to form, it needs certain proteins. But these proteins can't from without the DNA. " I have never heard that these cannot form without DNA. " Then there are complex individual organs, such as the eye. The fact that we have a pair of eyes - complex organs in and of themselves - which pick up visual images from the outside demonstrates the intelligence of a creator. So does the digestive system. A stomach would be no good without the acid secreting glands in it's lining, yet these glands would be useless if there were no stomach in the first place. Indeed, the presence of teeth and a tongue would similarly have no use if there were no stomach. Yet without a way to breakdown food before it reaches the stomach, it would fail miserably at its job of digesting." There is no rule to suggest that all the complex organs came into existence at once. You do not need a mouth to use a stomach if you can 'breath' your food. The mouth would come about later as the need arose. A simple form of these things would be found on simpler organisms before they fully came about. " And then there are complex symbiotic relations in nature -- hundreds of them. The only one I can think of at the moment is the yucca moth and the yucca plant. The plant cannot exist without the insect, because the yucca moth is the only thing that polinizes the plant. However, the yucca moth cannot exist without food from the yucca plant. Such interdependencies are extremely abundant in nature, and give a strong argument for the creatures having come into existence at nearly the same. Further, it argues for the animals having been designed so as to live together and benfit one another mutually. And then there are all the oddities. For instance, the woodpecker has a highly unusual tongue. It wraps around back, behind its skull! Such a feature is beneficial to the woodpecker (OK, I admit I can't remember why) and argues that it was specially designed different from all other birds for its specific task. This is just one example of an animal that has a "specialized" feature that is completely distinct and different from others. " As I said before the yucca moth does not necessarily need the yucca tree. It would have at one time begun to use the tree for food when another source of food runs dry thus creating a dependency. At the time of the dinosaurs there were many dependencies that were intricately interwoven and the mass extinction caused life to break out of those dependencies. If the yucca tree were to die off I would bet dimes to dollars that the yucca moth would move on. With less numbers and in bad shape but move on none the less. As for the special abilities, that simply supports life being very resourceful, not designed. " The example is often given of a tornado in a junkyard assembling a Boeing 747. Yet the smallest cell is more complex than a Boeing 747. What does assemble a Boeing 747 is robotic arms -- and these arms have been programed to do just what they do by an intelligent engineer (or more likely a group of them) who know the laws of areodynamics, and how to wire electrical systems and work hydralics and other such advanced features. " And those arms do it in a matter of days instead of millennia. Amazing what intellegance can do Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! Sorry Tiassa but I have to agree with caleb on this one. He is sighting evidence that can lead to intelligence just as much as the evidence evolutionists say they have. There are many hidden problems in both theories. The one thing about a creator is it leaves out room for improvement, an idea that is required for science. If there is no room for improvement then it cannot be scientific, it supposes itself perfect. There is no such thing as a law in science, only a really long standing theory. This debate hinges mostly on your interpitation(sp?) of the chosen facts. I still see more for evolution and that is why I am here. Not to mention I gain more knowledge every time I read on this board. The main gripe I have with creation is it was created in the minds of people who, rather than take data and make an interpitation, took a theory and made the data fit around it. Evolution on the other hand was based on data first. Hope every one could understand my incoheritness(sp?), and sorry for the late reply. PS. Yes I still want to debate and I don't think I have resorted to name calling yet Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! Don't worry, I may take awhile to post but I will eventually
Umm Tiassa, don't you realise you're just the same. whats the deal with these two sentences? Didn't you just accuse Caleb of the exact same thing?
Deadwood No, not quite, Deadwood, and had faith not sacrificed the intellect you might have been able to tell the difference between a process not yet finished (learning) and a process never to be started (aka--faith). Science strives toward answers that faith says shouldn't be discussed. What Caleb asserts cannot ever be scientifically demonstrated. What, can you, as a Christian, ever prove God? Run a mile: by Caleb's standard, you can't, because you're not finished the moment you begin: specifically, because your single stride isn't a mile long. Clear enough? thanx, Tiassa Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
I was going to type a reply, but Netscape did something funny and I lost it (fortunately I hadn't been typing to long). At the moment, I have to go, because I need to get home before my family leaves on vacation without me. I'll be gone till Sunday, but I may/may-not be able to access the internet during that time. Will (hopefully) post later, ~Caleb
