[Folken]

lol I'm sure someone else well tell me different:p

Anyways continue your debate, I just found it interesting so I posted it. And watch the whole thing when you get the time, skimming doesn't really present their argument. its presented in a pretty sound fashion and addresses a lot of the questions I had about evolution.

[Agraba]

I saw it, and the only argument it actually presented was the argument that I already knew all ID theorists use: that life seems too complex to have happened by chance. And given that there can be literally in the 10^15 order of bacteria living in a small pond, and the relative size of Earth, the notion that something as complex as flagella came about by mutations and selection (since it is obviously advantageous) doesn't come as a surprise to me. Chance mutations form so quickly for proliferating viruses that give them special structures granting them immunity to virus treatments; attributing the concept of irreducible complexity to that scenario, you would have to assume that this intelligent designer must be continuously active 24/7 up to today, only so that it can grant some of those viruses mechanisms in which they can resist viral treatment (which would make God pretty evil, but then you could always argue that he's doing it to virus patients in order to punish them). One major thing I caught from the video was that they stated that according to evolution, if an organism acquires a trait or gene that is not advantageous, natural selection will stop it from spreading. But that is obviously wrong; lots of mutations that are neutral but not advantageous remain in a gene pool; it will only be selected against if it directly inhibits an organism's ability to survive and reproduce. This negates the idea of irreducible complexity.

On another subject, as others mentioned, there's no way to disprove God. But accepting evolution does cast doubt on God. The idea of evolution is that we need not explain an intelligent force behind life because evolution explains how it could have come about by chance. Therefore, accepting evolution and still believing in God would assert the notion that God didn't create us, he's just.... there.

Quote

People probably disbelieve in the existence of God for the same reasons: a) they were raised and taught that he does not exist they've had no experiential encounters with him (or at least think they haven't) or c) their examination of the world leads them to believe that he doesn't exist.

I've heard of very few atheists that believe the way they do because they were told that way growing up. It's not generally and culturally encouraged for families to pass on these ideas as traditions; rather those that are atheist are into the notion of free decision, and thus, wouldn't so impose these things onto their kids. But don't quote me on this, because I base what I said on nothing. I just know that in growing up in a jewish family, my father always preached to me about "The Light", and how it showed him the true way, and he took me every Saturday to hear the Rabbi's english preaching of jewish theology. I did believe in God up to about the age of 10, though (a similar transition that christian kids have with Santa Clause). My basis against Jewish theology, however, is more on the subject of physics than Biology, because jewish theology talks a lot about the beginning; what things were before Earth had deveolped.

[Cold Iron]

Quote

evolution explains how it could have come about by chance

... actually it doesnt. its still unclear how amino acids morphed (for want of a more scientific term) into RNA.

This is the thing about science. People think it does everything because there are so many smart people doing things that they don't understand. But there are so many unknowns in science, it doesn't always warrant this faith.

I use the word faith because if you believe in science without understanding it, then thats just what it is. And why so many people are comfortable with the science vs. religion debate. This is a rediculous comparison unless you consider science to be an alternate belief system. Which it patently is not.

[Agraba]

EDIT: I sincerely apologize. My posts always seem to become far lengthier than I would've wished, when I try to make a point.

^By that, Cold Iron, you assert that evolution happened on its own, but the fundamental units of life (amino acids, nucleic acids) were constructed artificially.

Also, I said that it explains how life could have come about by chance, not that it did come about. Granted, molecular evolution isn't nearly as solid as biological evolution, but they are still analogous towards one another. If you accept that the final completed sample of life that is the first bacteria that ever lived divided up and created all of us, then you're accepting that aspect of evolution that already is proven, the biological Darwinian aspect. Then you ask yourself, "well how was that first bacteria created; did God assemble just that one, and then assume that it would start a chain reaction to populate the planet?" (Even a step that far in assumption would negate almost every religion known today, including all the mainstream ones, asserting that this hypothetical god is not one of those religions.) But then I would also point out that there were probably greater orders of magnitude than trillions of prototypes of life happening by chance, but being unsuccessful and dying before they could proliferate, and that first bacteria that was actually successful in proliferation and creating all of us was a successful attempt after all those other failures. Then, would this hypothetical non-christian god have actually cultivated each prototype until he finally got one that could successfuly reproduce?

By the above logic, given that I already accept that aspect of evolution that is proven, the biological aspect, by the idea that bacteria led to modern ecology by chance mutations and natural selection, then although I don't have nearly as strongly a backed up foundation in molecular evolution, I just consider that the idea that we all developed from bacteria by chance makes it seem more likely, in my opionion, that that specific bacteria was assembled by chance from naturally occuring molecules. I, at least, have statistical merit to back that up, if not complete evidence. The relative complexity of the first bacteria that ever existed to naturally occuring molecules is probably less so than a modern mammal to that first bacteria.

[Cold Iron]

Quote

By that, Cold Iron, you assert that evolution happened on its own, but the fundamental units of life (amino acids, nucleic acids) were constructed artificially.

I asserted only that we don't know. And thus your faith in science is exactly that.

If you believe that your scenario has statistical merit, you should acknowledge that its a belief.

Many creationists use the statistical likelihood of evolution (not to mention the fact that molecular biomorphing (for want of the correct term) has not been reproduced in labs) as an argument against evolution.

I'm not advocating creationism, just saying that by advocating science despite science not having proved this is unscientific.

[D Man]

My I at this point bring up the possibly redundant fact that not one of todays credible universities or research institutions uses the idea of god to assist them in any way shape or form in teaching science or revealing new aspects of it to us....?

Discuss...

[caladanbrood]

And that has got what exactly to do with the discussion? I thought we'd established several thousand times over that the existance of god can't be proved. Religion has no place in science. That doesn't mean the two are mutually exclusive.

[D Man]

Yes it does, quite obviously.

[caladanbrood]

Oh. Ok then. After that searing proof, I'll go and not bother you again:)

[D Man]

And after that astonishing ability not to take in the meaning of my post before last (excluding this one) I cant help but be glad you wont. Your 'searing proof' is there. The two modes of thought cannot be reconciled. One is based on the observable and faslifiable, one requires the exact opposite.

[Cold Iron]

umm....

United States Directory of Christian Universities

Apparantly you have to be able to recite the entire Koran to get into Cairo’s Al-Azhar University.

That redundant fact is not only redundanct, D Man, it is not even a fact.

[D Man]

Oh dear me! Find a university that isnt overtly religiously oriented of which the same or similar is true.

Postherds: Word :cool:

[caladanbrood]

potsherds;159199 said:

Oh pshaw. Can we just ignore all uber-religious countries please? I mean, United States? Rational? Wha???? Forget 'em. Lets keep this in the rational world.

Which leaves you with what left? Australia? Parts of central Europe and a smidgen of Asia?

[D Man]

C'mon, brood, back into discusion: P to the H E R D was clearly being facitious.

Tell us a non religious universlity that includes God as a part of the science course for the runner up prize, and a scientific university like MIT or UMIST that does the same for the star prize!

For (major) bonus points, demonstrate that including theology in models of physical reality is sound and consistent with the scientific method.

[Cold Iron]

So your argument now is... no university that isnt overtly religiously oriented uses the idea of god to assist them in any way shape or form in teaching science or revealing new aspects of it to us.

Profound insight. Based on that I now believe unequivocally in unscientifically confirmed assumptions like "life appeared by chance from a soup of lifeless molecules".

[D Man]

You imply I've changed my argument ("Now is...."). Not so. I simply stated an additional fact. As you point out, the only universities that have God on the science sylubi are religious ones. That adds up.

Beyond that, thats a pretty wantonly ignorant reduction of sciences say on the matter. Wassamatter that you feel the need to make strawmen to argue with?

Edit: and, this is kind of the most important part, not the accepted norm of higher education in sciences, which is pretty good, but an argument from authority and niether here not there, ultimately: just a reminder that religiion is no part of science...this is why:

Quote

demonstrate that including theology in models of physical reality is sound and consistent with the scientific method

[caladanbrood]

D Man said:

C'mon, brood, back into discusion: P to the H E R D was clearly being facitious.

But, but wait....

D Man said:

I cant help but be glad you wont.

Bugger my sideways through a hedge, but theres two things there that you said, that in fact contradict each other. I swear it's true! In one you're saying that you don't want me in the discussion, and in the other, that I should get back in.


BRAIN FREEZE!!!!!!


Except no, wait, two contradictory things can seemingly occupy the same brain. Thats awkward.


The point I have always stood by is a rather unpopular one, it being that the two are *shock! horror!* in fact not in direct conflict. Of course you can't involve theology with physical reality, because theology has nothing to do with physical reality. It would be like my Thermodynamics lecturer turning up at 9am tomorrow (eek, today) and starting talking about, say renaissance art. God has no place in science, and science has no place in religion - as everyone seems to keep harping on about - one is falsifyable, the other isn't. So you can't go around judging them on the same basis. They're not the same thing. It's not like a debate between Newtonian black-hole theory and strings. Applying scientific logic to religion simply won't work, nor will applying religious principles to science.

I don't know how better to explain my viewpoint - I'm an engineer, not a linguist:o

By the way, UMIST doesn't exist anymore - you should check your facts;)