THE COLLAPSE OF EVOLUTION video download

jibber · 12-15-2004, 02:49 AM

and one more post before I'm out for the night. I just realized that my posts could be interpreted as claiming intelligent design as the only theory of creationism. This of course isn't the case, there are many different variations on the general theme of creationism, but I chose intelligent design because one of the most common arguments I've come accross from creationists is that the universe involves too many complexities and sequesnces all with a specific function to have come into being merely by chance, and therefore must have been created by a higher being embodying the characteristics of Godhood. My post was to reason why this specific argument simply doesn't hold, and is utimately senseless. As for creationism in the broader sense, as of yet, it is impossible to disprove creationism, as is is impossible to prove it. On the flip side, it is still impossible to prove or to disprove evolution.

Yellow Card · 12-15-2004, 06:19 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jibber

ok i'm bored, so i'm just going to point out a few flaws with the intelligent design theory, or as we've been calling it, creationism.

The basics of design of any form created to perform a certain function is the same, the simpler the better. Paley's (who wrote extensive documents on the theory of intelligent design) theoretical argument compares a watch to living beings. He argues that if you found a watch lying in the forest, you wouldn't assume that it had simply come into being on its own. Being that it is of complex (relatively speaking) design, and can conveniently tell time, one would assume that a watchmaker had created it. He relates this to the theory of intelligent design by speculating that as living beings are complex in design, and have been created to serve a specific purpose (to serve God), the it follows that we were created by a higher being as well. Here's the problem with that. As stated before, any engineer, designer, or basically anyone who knows about the construction of a form to serve a specific purpose will tell you that the most perfect designs are the most simple, with no unnecessary functions. Now, since this is not true for living beings (on the grounds that there are many functions within our bodies that serve no usefull purpose), the theory of intelligent design doesn't meet the definition of Godhood, that being an entirely intelligent power. Let's look at birds for example. Many species have hollow bones in the legs to allow for less weight and an all around easier flight. This in iself seems to be almost an argument for intelligent design, were it not for the fact that this characteristic is also present in emus, a bird that doesn't have the capability of flying. If we were created by an all powerfull, Godlike figure, it doesn't stand to reason that that power would incorporate elements of wasteful design. Of course, Paley's other theory that our distinct purpose is to serve God is so obviously a mere opinion that I'm not even going to touch on that. Just another add on, it's been scientifically proven that chimpanzees have 99% identical DNA to that of human beings, so it stands to reason that we did have chimpanzee ancestors at one point. As well, gorilla's have been found with 89% identical DNA, and even cows simply by being a mamal have 50% identical DNA of that of human beings.

Having said all that, we simply can't assume that there is only two possible answers. By saying that intelligent design isn't a valid theory, it doesn't by any means automatically prove the validity of evolution. Of course there are holes in the logic of the theory of evolution, but that by no means is definitive proof that we were created by a higher being. It must be simply assumed that there is an alternative answer, because obviously we came into being in some way, just not by how the theory of intelligent design has been laid out or how darwin lays out his theory of evolution.

Quote:

Originally Posted by jibber

Just another add on, it's been scientifically proven that chimpanzees have 99% identical DNA to that of human beings, so it stands to reason that we did have chimpanzee ancestors at one point. As well, gorilla's have been found with 89% identical DNA, and even cows simply by being a mamal have 50% identical DNA of that of human beings.

1. There are many scientists today who question the evolutionary paradigm and its atheistic phiosophical implications.

2. There are not many scientists today who question the evolutionary paradigm and its atheistic phiosophical implications.

These sentences have 97% homology and yet have opposite meanings. Just a small example showing what difference a very small percentage can make to the factor.

Quote:

Originally Posted by jibber

Now, since this is not true for living beings (on the grounds that there are many functions within our bodies that serve no usefull purpose), the theory of intelligent design doesn't meet the definition of Godhood, that being an entirely intelligent power. Let's look at birds for example. Many species have hollow bones in the legs to allow for less weight and an all around easier flight. This in iself seems to be almost an argument for intelligent design, were it not for the fact that this characteristic is also present in emus, a bird that doesn't have the capability of flying. If we were created by an all powerfull, Godlike figure, it doesn't stand to reason that that power would incorporate elements of wasteful design.

Firstly it is impossible to tell whether or not an organ is useless. The function may simply be unknown and its use may be discovered in the future. this has happened with more then 100 formerly alleged useless vestigial organs in humans that are now known to be essential

Coops

Oi_To_The_World · 12-15-2004, 11:24 AM

cant we all agree that evolution and god can coexist? or maybe that neither are true? i guess our natural instinct is to want to know answers to everything. but somethings are better left unknown, and i think people should live their lives knowing that either can in reality be wrong.

~~[MERIT]~~ · 12-15-2004, 02:17 PM

^well put.

jibber · 12-15-2004, 07:49 PM

"Firstly it is impossible to tell whether or not an organ is useless. The function may simply be unknown and its use may be discovered in the future. this has happened with more then 100 formerly alleged useless vestigial organs in humans that are now known to be essential"

It's has been scientifically proven that the apendix is a useless organ. However, a better example of wasteful design is hollow bones in emus, as well as ostriches. A cave fish for example has partially evolved eyes, though lacks certain parts for it to function normally. That in itself disproves the theory of intelligent design, as the theory states that all beings had been created by a being which meets the criteria of Godhood (all powerful, all knowing, beneficient.) As an all knowing power would not implement elements of wasteful design, the theory of Intelligent Design is utter nonsense. And I have to ask, specifically, which organ in the human body was once thought to be useless, then later proved to be "essential"?

"These sentences have 97% homology and yet have opposite meanings. Just a small example showing what difference a very small percentage can make to the factor."

This has absolutely nothing to do with the discussion at hand. Linguistics and science are completely different fields, your example isn't in any means an argument to diminish the validity of proven scientific facts. If you're going to partake in a discussion dealing with SCIENTIFIC evidence, stick to scientific evidence and don't muddle up the arguments with unrelated topics.

Now that I've said that, yet again, I have to point out that you COMPLETELY missed the point of my post. I specifically said that the evidence I put forth was not meant to disprove creationism in a broader sense, nor did I say anywhere in my post that it was meant to prove evolution. I even wrote a third post explaining all that, and, as Oi to the world said, evolutionism and God are not seperate and conflicting theoretical concepts, they can work toegther, and by no means does believing in one require disbelief in the other.

12-15-2004, 02:49 AM	#11 (permalink)
jibber Freeskier Join Date: Jan 2004 Location: Istanbul was Constantinople now it's Istanbul not Constantinople... Posts: 1,536	and one more post before I'm out for the night. I just realized that my posts could be interpreted as claiming intelligent design as the only theory of creationism. This of course isn't the case, there are many different variations on the general theme of creationism, but I chose intelligent design because one of the most common arguments I've come accross from creationists is that the universe involves too many complexities and sequesnces all with a specific function to have come into being merely by chance, and therefore must have been created by a higher being embodying the characteristics of Godhood. My post was to reason why this specific argument simply doesn't hold, and is utimately senseless. As for creationism in the broader sense, as of yet, it is impossible to disprove creationism, as is is impossible to prove it. On the flip side, it is still impossible to prove or to disprove evolution. __________________ What you've done becomes the judge of what you're going to do -- especially in other people's minds. When you're traveling, you are what you are right there and then. People don't have your past to hold against you. No yesterdays on the road. William Least Heat Moon, Blue Highways Your toughest competitor lives in your head. Some days his name is fear, or pain, or gravity. Stomp his ass. HOOKED ON THE WHITE POWDER

12-15-2004, 11:24 AM	#13 (permalink)
Oi_To_The_World Unpatriot Act Join Date: Nov 2004 Location: planet of the rapes Posts: 389	cant we all agree that evolution and god can coexist? or maybe that neither are true? i guess our natural instinct is to want to know answers to everything. but somethings are better left unknown, and i think people should live their lives knowing that either can in reality be wrong. __________________ what is the mind? no matter. what is matter? never mind.

12-15-2004, 07:49 PM	#15 (permalink)
jibber Freeskier Join Date: Jan 2004 Location: Istanbul was Constantinople now it's Istanbul not Constantinople... Posts: 1,536	"Firstly it is impossible to tell whether or not an organ is useless. The function may simply be unknown and its use may be discovered in the future. this has happened with more then 100 formerly alleged useless vestigial organs in humans that are now known to be essential" It's has been scientifically proven that the apendix is a useless organ. However, a better example of wasteful design is hollow bones in emus, as well as ostriches. A cave fish for example has partially evolved eyes, though lacks certain parts for it to function normally. That in itself disproves the theory of intelligent design, as the theory states that all beings had been created by a being which meets the criteria of Godhood (all powerful, all knowing, beneficient.) As an all knowing power would not implement elements of wasteful design, the theory of Intelligent Design is utter nonsense. And I have to ask, specifically, which organ in the human body was once thought to be useless, then later proved to be "essential"? "These sentences have 97% homology and yet have opposite meanings. Just a small example showing what difference a very small percentage can make to the factor." This has absolutely nothing to do with the discussion at hand. Linguistics and science are completely different fields, your example isn't in any means an argument to diminish the validity of proven scientific facts. If you're going to partake in a discussion dealing with SCIENTIFIC evidence, stick to scientific evidence and don't muddle up the arguments with unrelated topics. Now that I've said that, yet again, I have to point out that you COMPLETELY missed the point of my post. I specifically said that the evidence I put forth was not meant to disprove creationism in a broader sense, nor did I say anywhere in my post that it was meant to prove evolution. I even wrote a third post explaining all that, and, as Oi to the world said, evolutionism and God are not seperate and conflicting theoretical concepts, they can work toegther, and by no means does believing in one require disbelief in the other. __________________ What you've done becomes the judge of what you're going to do -- especially in other people's minds. When you're traveling, you are what you are right there and then. People don't have your past to hold against you. No yesterdays on the road. William Least Heat Moon, Blue Highways Your toughest competitor lives in your head. Some days his name is fear, or pain, or gravity. Stomp his ass. HOOKED ON THE WHITE POWDER

12-15-2004, 02:17 PM	#14 (permalink)
~~[MERIT]~~ Account Disabled Join Date: Nov 2004 Location: Missouri, USA Posts: 4,814	^well put.