Ohio Chatter
Ohio Chatter

Forums

All Threads Serious Business Sports Politics Archive Pick 'ems
Log In Create Account

Intelligent Design: Viable Theory or Religious Rewording?

Home ▸ Archive ▸ Politics ▸ Intelligent Design: Viable Theory or Religious Rewording?
Strapping Young Lad's avatar

Strapping Young Lad

Senior Member

2,453 posts
Feb 23, 2010 1:05 AM
Anyone care to posit any ideas on how God accomplished this creative thrust of our universe???
Feb 23, 2010 1:05am
Strapping Young Lad's avatar

Strapping Young Lad

Senior Member

2,453 posts
Feb 23, 2010 1:15 AM
Haha. You think that no one has come up with ways to refute Aquinas???

Do you think the 5 Ways actually prove God. If so then I would be walking around carrying the rosary...

So it doesn't matter what religion you are, just pick one??? I've found a religion. It's called naturalism and its based on empirical evidence and it says its okay to only have faith in my friends, family, and that the natural world will behave in ways which I can expect. There I've chosen my religion. Good enough??? Or do I have to make up some bullshit for it to be authentic......

Is your sister going to hell when she dies???
Feb 23, 2010 1:15am
FatHobbit's avatar

FatHobbit

Senior Member

8,651 posts
Feb 23, 2010 1:21 AM
Wasn't there a time when the brightest minds in the world believed that the world was flat? And, up until like what, 50 years ago, you all thought the atom was the smallest thing, until you split it open, and this like, whole mess of crap came out. Now, are you telling me that you are so unbelievably arrogant that you can't admit that there's a teeny tiny possibility that you could be wrong about this?
Feb 23, 2010 1:21am
B

BoatShoes

Senior Member

5,703 posts
Feb 23, 2010 1:35 AM
Maybe it's just me but I find these discussions about the causal creation of the universe very repetitive and unproductive. They always collapse to fideism.

The theist says "How can the universe be created without a cause? How does evolution without design coincide with entropy?" and the non-theist with a reply that basically amounts to "It's beyond our understanding" "science will get us there"

The same thing goes for when the non-theist who says "how can God not have a cause"; "It's beyond our understanding" replies the theist.

An intelligence, whether it's a designer or not, can be perfectly compatible with evolution and evolution without an intelligence can happen too. We can make just as cogent an induction about some of the apparent mistakes in nature to conclude that there must not be a designer...both create problems of induction just as large as the other.

(Nonetheless, these arguments about violating the second law of thermodynamics are misplaced anyways...of course junkyard parts won't form a car but it's also not the property of junk yard parts to fly around at thousands of miles per hour constantly bonding and at incredibly high temperatures....also, the chemical potential energy of the 20,000,000 molecules that make up elements is greater than the potential energy of the elements in many cases anyways whereas a watch has more potential energy than its component parts. It is not a good argument to use the law of entropy.)
Feb 23, 2010 1:35am
J

jmog

Senior Member

6,567 posts
Feb 23, 2010 8:20 AM
Strapping Young Lad wrote: Who created God????
Come on, that one is so easy I can't believe I have to answer it.

Lets assume for a minute that God exists, if you truly need to ask who created God then you need a few classes in logic.

If there was a supreme being powerful enough to CREATE the laws of physics, he can certainly live outside of the laws of physics hence God can have always existed.
Feb 23, 2010 8:20am
J

jmog

Senior Member

6,567 posts
Feb 23, 2010 8:30 AM
bigmanbt wrote:

Being a sibling of an evolutionary biologist, and an avid life researcher, you couldn't be more wrong. They don't know for sure how the origin of life came about, but they certainly don't think there was a creator. Very, very, very few biologists believe in a supernatural being.

Oh, and about statistics, a conservative estimate of the number of planets in the universe is a billion billion, or 1,000,000,000,000,000,000. With that many planets, it's almost impossible that life didn't pop up somewhere.
So, the estimate of # of planets is 1x10^18. Lets say even a tenth of them could support life (similar to our solar system) that makes 1x10^17 planets that can even support life.

Thats 17 zeros, seems huge.

However, like I said before, if you don't understand statistics that number alone would say "it has to have happened by chance somewhere".

Unfortunately, even what most people who study the origin of life on Earth have some to realize, the probability of creating 1 protein from a couple hundred amino acids is like 1 in 2x10^304. Now, we still have to do that another 400+ proteins/enzymes before you can even make the simplest single cell animal.

So, you talk about the number of planets having 17 or 18 zeros, the probability of creating 1 protein randomly from amino acids is 1 in 300+ zeros.

So again, I said if you truly understand the statistics of the "random" origin of life debate, then you realize how basically impossible it is.
Feb 23, 2010 8:30am
J

jmog

Senior Member

6,567 posts
Feb 23, 2010 8:32 AM
bigmanbt wrote: By the way, without a single fossil ever being found, evolution would still be a verifiable fact. Those that are stuck on fossils and don't look any further haven't a clue about real evolution.
Come on, are you really suggesting that having no physical proof (fossils) doesn't at least poke holes in intraspecies evolution?

That's the atheists whole reason for not believing in God, there is no physical proof but yet when it comes to evolution you say no physical proof is needed?
Feb 23, 2010 8:32am
FatHobbit's avatar

FatHobbit

Senior Member

8,651 posts
Feb 23, 2010 8:43 AM
jmog wrote: Look up Abiogenesis, which is the scientific study of the origin of life here on Earth. I hate wikipedia, but its a quick source on the subject if you don't want to dig through scientific papers on the subject.
Can you give me that link at least?

I looked up abiogensis on wikipedia and there is a link to one article at the bottom where some scientists are looking for radically different microbes, but nothing that says most people believe life originated on a different planet.
jmog wrote: Unfortunately, even what most people who study the origin of life on Earth have some to realize, the probability of creating 1 protein from a couple hundred amino acids is like 1 in 2x10^304. Now, we still have to do that another 400+ proteins/enzymes before you can even make the simplest single cell animal.
That's an interesting number. How did you come up with it?
Feb 23, 2010 8:43am
J

jmog

Senior Member

6,567 posts
Feb 23, 2010 8:54 AM
BoatShoes wrote:

(Nonetheless, these arguments about violating the second law of thermodynamics are misplaced anyways...of course junkyard parts won't form a car but it's also not the property of junk yard parts to fly around at thousands of miles per hour constantly bonding and at incredibly high temperatures....also, the chemical potential energy of the 20,000,000 molecules that make up elements is greater than the potential energy of the elements in many cases anyways whereas a watch has more potential energy than its component parts. It is not a good argument to use the law of entropy.)
What you just said has zero to do with the 2nd law of thermodynamics...zero.

Chemical potential energy has never overcome the 2nd law, matter of fact, since its a scientific LAW nothing has overcome the 2nd law of thermodynamics.

Also, with regards to evolution, things weren't flying around on Earth at 1000s of mph to overcome the 2nd law when life was forming on the planet.
Feb 23, 2010 8:54am
J

jmog

Senior Member

6,567 posts
Feb 23, 2010 8:57 AM
FatHobbit wrote:
jmog wrote: Look up Abiogenesis, which is the scientific study of the origin of life here on Earth. I hate wikipedia, but its a quick source on the subject if you don't want to dig through scientific papers on the subject.
Can you give me that link at least?

I looked up abiogensis on wikipedia and there is a link to one article at the bottom where some scientists are looking for radically different microbes, but nothing that says most people believe life originated on a different planet.
jmog wrote: Unfortunately, even what most people who study the origin of life on Earth have some to realize, the probability of creating 1 protein from a couple hundred amino acids is like 1 in 2x10^304. Now, we still have to do that another 400+ proteins/enzymes before you can even make the simplest single cell animal.
That's an interesting number. How did you come up with it?
I hate using wikipedia, but you asked.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abiogenesis

There are 2 different sections of that article that discuss extraterrestial seeding.
Feb 23, 2010 8:57am
FatHobbit's avatar

FatHobbit

Senior Member

8,651 posts
Feb 23, 2010 9:05 AM
jmog wrote:
FatHobbit wrote:

I don't know anyone who believes aliens planted life on this planet. That would then cause me to ask how the aliens came into being.
Google search my friend, its a very common belief of the origin of life on Earth among evolutionary biologists who study this subject.

Then, why you ask the origin of life on the "other" planet, they are then just lost.

I wish, as a scientist, I was making this up.

Look up Abiogenesis, which is the scientific study of the origin of life here on Earth. I hate wikipedia, but its a quick source on the subject if you don't want to dig through scientific papers on the subject.
jmog wrote: I hate using wikipedia, but you asked.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abiogenesis

There are 2 different sections of that article that discuss extraterrestial seeding.
I would hardly think from reading the two small sections in that lengthy article that "its a very common belief of the origin of life on Earth among evolutionary biologists who study this subject." It's a possibility, but one of many.
Feb 23, 2010 9:05am
FatHobbit's avatar

FatHobbit

Senior Member

8,651 posts
Feb 23, 2010 9:07 AM
jmog wrote:
FatHobbit wrote:
jmog wrote: Look up Abiogenesis, which is the scientific study of the origin of life here on Earth. I hate wikipedia, but its a quick source on the subject if you don't want to dig through scientific papers on the subject.
Can you give me that link at least?

I looked up abiogensis on wikipedia and there is a link to one article at the bottom where some scientists are looking for radically different microbes, but nothing that says most people believe life originated on a different planet.
jmog wrote: Unfortunately, even what most people who study the origin of life on Earth have some to realize, the probability of creating 1 protein from a couple hundred amino acids is like 1 in 2x10^304. Now, we still have to do that another 400+ proteins/enzymes before you can even make the simplest single cell animal.
That's an interesting number. How did you come up with it?
I hate using wikipedia, but you asked.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abiogenesis

There are 2 different sections of that article that discuss extraterrestial seeding.
Also, I'm still curious as to how you came up with the number you were trying to use to prove it statistically impossible that life could have popped up on it's own.
Feb 23, 2010 9:07am
B

BoatShoes

Senior Member

5,703 posts
Feb 23, 2010 9:21 AM
jmog wrote:
What you just said has zero to do with the 2nd law of thermodynamics...zero.

Chemical potential energy has never overcome the 2nd law, matter of fact, since its a scientific LAW nothing has overcome the 2nd law of thermodynamics.

Also, with regards to evolution, things weren't flying around on Earth at 1000s of mph to overcome the 2nd law when life was forming on the planet.
I have to apologize...I mis-typed. I meant to be writing in contrast to the points about watch infers design and cars infer design and therefore earth infers design kind of arguments and got discombobulated in my prose (nothing new for me).

you are correct to say that my point had absolutely zero to do with the second law of thermodynamics. So I've provided some for others to read about thermodynamics not being in contrast to evolution.

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/thermo/probability.html

There's a wikipedia version

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-misconceptions.html#thermo

Here's a link with Christian opinions
Feb 23, 2010 9:21am
J

jmog

Senior Member

6,567 posts
Feb 23, 2010 9:42 AM
FatHobbit wrote:

I would hardly think from reading the two small sections in that lengthy article that "its a very common belief of the origin of life on Earth among evolutionary biologists who study this subject." It's a possibility, but one of many.
Ben Stein's documentary called "Expelled" is a documentary on the persecution of any scientist who doesn't believe in the "big bang" and evolution.

In the documentary he talked to some of the leading evolutionary biologists on the planet, and most of them talked about some time of alien "seed" as the origin of life, whether an intelligent alien or from an asteroid.

I'm sorry, but it is very common, look up Francis Crick, the man who discovered DNA, he is basically the "father" of this panspermia belief.

Maybe I exaggerated in saying most, but it is a common theory/belief among top evolutionary biologists. Maybe the "laymen" biologists have yet to adopt this theory/belief yet, but many of the top level biologists have.
Feb 23, 2010 9:42am
J

jmog

Senior Member

6,567 posts
Feb 23, 2010 9:46 AM
FatHobbit wrote:

Also, I'm still curious as to how you came up with the number you were trying to use to prove it statistically impossible that life could have popped up on it's own.
Google search statistical probability of random generation of proteins.

I understand statistics well, but not the generation of proteins. So, the number was generated by a statistical biologist. I'll take his word for it. Even if he was off by a couple orders of magnitude (read a couple zeros) the result doesn't change.
Feb 23, 2010 9:46am
FatHobbit's avatar

FatHobbit

Senior Member

8,651 posts
Feb 23, 2010 9:56 AM
jmog wrote:
FatHobbit wrote:

I would hardly think from reading the two small sections in that lengthy article that "its a very common belief of the origin of life on Earth among evolutionary biologists who study this subject." It's a possibility, but one of many.
Ben Stein's documentary called "Expelled" is a documentary on the persecution of any scientist who doesn't believe in the "big bang" and evolution.

In the documentary he talked to some of the leading evolutionary biologists on the planet, and most of them talked about some time of alien "seed" as the origin of life, whether an intelligent alien or from an asteroid.
http://www.expelledexposed.com/index.php/the-truth/evolution

Ben Stein is a joke.
jmog wrote:I'm sorry, but it is very common, look up Francis Crick, the man who discovered DNA, he is basically the "father" of this panspermia belief.

Maybe I exaggerated in saying most, but it is a common theory/belief among top evolutionary biologists. Maybe the "laymen" biologists have yet to adopt this theory/belief yet, but many of the top level biologists have.
Crick is one biologist. (and he is a big one) That's not many top level biologists.
Feb 23, 2010 9:56am
FatHobbit's avatar

FatHobbit

Senior Member

8,651 posts
Feb 23, 2010 9:58 AM
jmog wrote:
FatHobbit wrote:

Also, I'm still curious as to how you came up with the number you were trying to use to prove it statistically impossible that life could have popped up on it's own.
Google search statistical probability of random generation of proteins.

I understand statistics well, but not the generation of proteins. So, the number was generated by a statistical biologist. I'll take his word for it. Even if he was off by a couple orders of magnitude (read a couple zeros) the result doesn't change.
I did. The second link was an article on Problems with the creationists' "it's so improbable" calculations

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/abioprob/abioprob.html
Feb 23, 2010 9:58am
J

jmog

Senior Member

6,567 posts
Feb 23, 2010 10:02 AM
FatHobbit wrote:

Crick is one biologist. (and he is a big one) That's not many top level biologists.
Oh my goodness, really?

I have to go list everyone who has wrote an article on the subject?

I listed one of the biggest and figured people could use the internet themselves.

If you truly believe "thats just one" then really, really look more into it.

I'm not going to create a list for you.
Feb 23, 2010 10:02am
B

BoatShoes

Senior Member

5,703 posts
Feb 23, 2010 10:07 AM
Talk Origins, to be fair, although it claims to support evolutionist/creationist debate, there are decidedly more naturalist favoring articles. But, there is a requirement that most posts be supported by peer reviewed journals.
Feb 23, 2010 10:07am
FatHobbit's avatar

FatHobbit

Senior Member

8,651 posts
Feb 23, 2010 10:20 AM
jmog wrote:
FatHobbit wrote:

Crick is one biologist. (and he is a big one) That's not many top level biologists.
Oh my goodness, really?

I have to go list everyone who has wrote an article on the subject?

I listed one of the biggest and figured people could use the internet themselves.

If you truly believe "thats just one" then really, really look more into it.

I'm not going to create a list for you.
If you're not going to create a list, then you can't claim many. I'm not going to do the work for you if that's what you want to claim.
Feb 23, 2010 10:20am
J

jmog

Senior Member

6,567 posts
Feb 23, 2010 12:57 PM
FatHobbit wrote:

If you're not going to create a list, then you can't claim many. I'm not going to do the work for you if that's what you want to claim.
I already listed a few more by proxy with Ben Stein's "expelled". I'm not saying I agree or disagree with the main theme of the documentary, I'm saying that there were a couple major evolutionary biologists on there stating the theory of alien seeding.
Feb 23, 2010 12:57pm
FatHobbit's avatar

FatHobbit

Senior Member

8,651 posts
Feb 23, 2010 1:06 PM
jmog wrote:
FatHobbit wrote:

If you're not going to create a list, then you can't claim many. I'm not going to do the work for you if that's what you want to claim.
I already listed a few more by proxy with Ben Stein's "expelled". I'm not saying I agree or disagree with the main theme of the documentary, I'm saying that there were a couple major evolutionary biologists on there stating the theory of alien seeding.
I haven't watched it, but I'm curious. Did they say that alien seeding was a fact, or that it was a possibility?
Feb 23, 2010 1:06pm
B

BoatShoes

Senior Member

5,703 posts
Feb 23, 2010 1:53 PM
FatHobbit wrote:
I haven't watched it, but I'm curious. Did they say that alien seeding was a fact, or that it was a possibility?
Ben Stein's documentary "Expelled"
Feb 23, 2010 1:53pm
FatHobbit's avatar

FatHobbit

Senior Member

8,651 posts
Feb 23, 2010 2:23 PM
BoatShoes wrote:
FatHobbit wrote:
I haven't watched it, but I'm curious. Did they say that alien seeding was a fact, or that it was a possibility?
Ben Stein's documentary "Expelled"
It's probably not fair for me to comment without watching, but I refuse to contribute any money to this guy or his cause.

http://www.expelledexposed.com/
Feb 23, 2010 2:23pm
J

jmog

Senior Member

6,567 posts
Feb 23, 2010 2:29 PM
FatHobbit wrote:

It's probably not fair for me to comment without watching, but I refuse to contribute any money to this guy or his cause.

http://www.expelledexposed.com/
If you ever watched the documentary you'd know that Ben Stein and the documentary never claims to believe in Intelligent Design at all, the whole documentary is based around the fact that modern science has basically persecuted anyone who happens to believe in a form of ID. From firing people to blackballing them in publications because of their personal beliefs that have nothing to do with the science they were teaching/researching.

That's the basis of the documentary, it wasn't a documentary on ID vs evolution.
Feb 23, 2010 2:29pm