Intelligent Design and Plasticine

reply to post by All Seeing Eye

It is not known how many individuals exist, as only 11 have been recorded alive.

There is certainly going to be more than 11 out there. There is a population. What's more new species of animal are frequently being found in the rain forests. Because it's a newly discovered species doesn't mean it's new in nature either. I don't see why you think this is problematic.

I don't see 1994 anywhere there. Now, it doesn't mean one evolved from another in less than 2 years. It simply means they were previously unknown to science. Genetic evidence is making scientists reclassifing the Sumatran Tiger as its own species instead of a subspecies.

1. Once again, it always baffles me religious people get a deer in a headlights look whenever you ask "Who created God?" If you want to try to get into the field of Science, you can't have an answer be "He poofed from nothing."

It's an argument as old as philosophy and science itself. You have two choices: 1)An infinite regress; 2)an un-caused cause (a non-contingent one most likely perhaps even necessarily.) The universe isn't infinitely old... so there goes your infinite regress.

2. Everything did not come from nothing. The Big Bang(Which has nothing to do with Evolution) was a rapid growth of space time from a singularity. What caused the initial expansion of space time? We're not sure. But to say it came from nothing is BS.

Time and space began at the BigBang. Logic dictates that there is no such thing as before time and no there there (aka, space) for something to be... ergo nothing. [Theoretical physicist Paul Davies [note: he's not a creationist]: "Well, I didn't promise to provide the answers to life, the universe, and everything, but I have at least given a plausible answer to the question I started out with: What happened before the big bang? The answer is: Nothing." Perhaps you have a new model, but until then, that's what we know (what the math/model dictates)... there's a reason this was such a big deal when the BB model was first proposed. Between the singularity math, philosophical argument and fine-tuning of the constants it is an interesting issue which favors (imho) the strong anthropological argument. All you've proposed (e.g., "we're not sure") is an argumentum ad ignorantiam fallacy. Unless you were going somewhere else here, in which case, I'll be happy to listen and discuss what you've got.

3. False Dichotomy between God and the current state of the Universe as the only two possible explanations of the Universe.

I didn't watch the video; I'm not a fan of young earthers. Perhaps you could clarify this?

4. And here we go with Venom misunderstanding Einstein's famous E=MC^2 or Energy=Mass*Speed of Light^2. The amount of energy released during the Big Bang may well have been infinite, we just don't know. So yes, there is a change .

"[T]here is an infinite amount of matter in the Universe" is false as is the 'infinite amount of energy released during the BB.' Perhaps you could elaborate here as well?

5. You can very well believe an infinite being always existed Shawn. Give us some proof besides a 2000 year old book and we'll look into it.

The philosophical argument for a non-contingent First Mover is logically sound (e.g., Aquinas and Aristotle, etc.) On what grounds (philosophy, science or logic) do you prefer the infinite regress?

6. A common quote mine from Darwin about the formation of the eye. Then throws out a strawman argument about removing parts of your eye. No Venom, what he means is, a creature that gains a light receptive patch of cells is useful to know if its night or day, and so on and so forth until the final formation of the current human eye.

As an Intelligent Design argument (which your thread title suggests this is about, but so far has been about Biblical creationism instead) the progression of 'ocular evolution,' if you will, is evidence of foresight or a telic evolution as opposed to a purposeless one (i.e., Dawkins' Blind Watchmaker thesis.) Your speculation as regards a possible pathway is not scientific. Similar to the ID one that you don't like, both in form and presentation, neither present a testable/falsifiable hypothesis. The ID 'argument' is just a telling of the data or lack-there-of. So far as an argument wrt creationism goes, I'm not sure how your speculation is any different than the de novo argument is. Interestingly, the fact that eyes developed separately in disparate lineages (e.g., convergent evolution) suggests a plan from the beginning (aka, de novo). There are many examples in the 'tree of life' of convergent evolution which evidence the idea of a front-loading of information or the idea that evolution/life unfolds according to a plan. So there's some evidence (as a start) for you to consider ala the watchmatcker -vs- blind watchmaker argument. What is your opinion?

7. For his argument that God could have potentially designed the Earth to look old and mess with us, I consult my avatar, Bill Hicks, btw there are some NSFW parts

Does he really argue that God made the Earth to look old just to mess with us? You've objected to the strawman fallacy several times, therefore, I'm sure that's not what you did here... so, yes... that's silly. One of several reasons I stay away from YECs (and evangelical atheists for what that's/their worth.) I stayed away from the old-vs-young Earth stuff because I have no issue with the consensus opinion on it but wrt what you said he said:

3. "The Earth formed 4.6 billion years ago from a bunch of asteroid's colliding together" A lie and straw man argument."


While not sophisticated, it is neither a lie or a straw-man. Earth is theorized to have formed from the initial accretion disk (i.e., The Nebular Hypothesis) in such a way as to be comparable (given a charitable reading.) It's a bit more involved than "asteroids colliding together" to be sure, but the point is (more-or-less) the same... for debate's sake. Unless you were going somewhere else with your refutation of his claims and just haven't gotten around to making your point yet.

I just wanted to touch on these points... I'll read the rest of your thread and see if I can contribute anywhere else. And, if worse comes to worse, I may just watch the video... though I don't look forward to it. Hopefully we can just keep this 'in-house.'


For the record: I'd be interested in any ideas, comments, or refutations/arguments you have wrt to what I've written so far. I'm no ideologue and don't feel any need for these things to be true or false in order to keep my faith... so, provided it stays civil (which is rare) I'd enjoy discussing these issues further. If not, have a good one, and I'll see ya around the boards another time.


Regards.

(edit)closed a tag; spelling

[edit on 22-11-2008 by Rren]

Originally posted by dbates
there's very little in here that's even worth discussing. Disappointing really.

thats how we feel about the video's

we could do a detailed pick it apart

and teh vast essays would probabily still include a bunch of ad homnims because its the kinda guy he is, let your argument stand on its merits not how high your voice gets when your insisting up is actually down

Judging by how fast this topic dwindled down to nothing I'd say it was at least a good example of how "the entropy of the universe tends to a maximum". I guess I could make an attempt to elevate this back to the original post.

i guess no one was willing to come to poor shawn's rescue and hand him a science book or speak up on his behalf

Originally posted by FSBlueApocalypse

Hardly. How can we claim that the Earth formed over millions and millions of years and still make the claim that humans have observed other solar systems forming.

scientific theory(well its still a hypothesis as its work in progress but vast chunks of it are theory ready), not a regular theory like creationists and id'ers try to make evolution, an actuall scientific theory, an encompassing explanantion of facts (the facts them selves bieng repeatable testable obesrvable to anyone who feels the need) every theory must also be able to make predictions and the proving or failing of these predictions kill it or keep it alive

from these predictions you should be able to look around and say if this is right we should - x and we did

ok we should find y as well - and we did

so on and so on, and then we made computer models and we could aproximate every event step of the forming of a solar system and then find parts of tne universe in this process and then we can sit there and observe them, the theory predicted them so its correct, so now we get to sit and watch it follow the predictid actions in sequence

we havnt seen it start to finish but we used a theory(just like evolution and gravity and atomic) to make accurate predictions which were proven right and have shown us snap shot images of solar systems in predicted stage of composition

You're making an unsustainable claim and you know that no one can back that up.

accurate predictions made on our solar systems observations can and have predicted what we find in space proving the theory correct

or god is a big tease who just made it so we would think it was that way, which makes god a liar and a deciever .. which sounds more like satan but unless your now saying he made the universe in its entiriety your falling down a deep dark hole and the light of logic and reason wont go that far

Please direct us to the collection of information that someone gathered while a solar system formed. We just don't have that data. Even if we had our current technology for thousands of years we still wouldn't have the time to gather this information.

good job we didnt need to then isnt it

else we would still be sitting around looking for macro evolution as well

theory+predictions+evidence of predictions bieng accurate = proof it happened that way

which is why we understand how the planets and proto-planets we are finding in other solar systems were formed, we know what they are made of we can predict orbits and all sorts of crazyness which later gets shown again to be accurate







[edit on 22/11/08 by noobfun]

pulls out special big book of sarcasm for this one

Originally posted by All Seeing Eye
Can someone please explain were NEW species come from? Hmmmmmmmm?

sepciation its part of evolution maybe you should look it up some time its really quite facisniating ya know

Well, it appears that the "Creators" are at it again... Oh, wait a minute, maybe these TWO NEW species are in fact, transitional, even thought the DNA tests confirm they are a new distinct species.

or maybe they different species of the same family(which they are) mening they are both sperate speices and related shockin huh?

One discovered in 1992, the 0ther in 1994. You would think the people in the area would know whats out there and what isn't. Silly Vietnamese, they don't even know whats lurking about in the dark.

ummmm can you read? do you lack certain comprehentions skills

i shall quote for the article in the oder you posted them

The deer is a popular food, second only to wild pig, for villagers in the Vu Quang area, the wildlife fund said. Confirmed by Genetic Tests

well they have been eating them for a very long time so i think they knew they were there and have been there for quite a while

The Hmong natives call this beast saht-supahp, a term derived from Lao meaning "the polite animal", because it moves quietly through the forest.

so locals already knew about this one too

wow ... do you think the importance of the discovery is not that a bunch of suprised vietnamese villagers suddenly realised they were surrounded by a new type of animal, but the fact they knew they were there all along but until now scientists have been unaware of them as they are very remote places and are now doing lots of hard work to find out more about them? (and none of it contradicts evolution so thats a bonus too )

So, can someone explain this, are they evolutionary, or created. Please, Im all ears.......

that would be evolution a combination of micro and macro evolution

Do you believe this "Speculation" could occur within a two year span, with to separate species, with at least 11 others of its species that is alive? Please continue..

yes in bacteria and life that procreates at a massive rate

not for deer species though ... luckily they were there all along the villagers told us wooohooo

As I said, please continue. Where did these two new species come from.

they arnt new you just think they are

I should inform you that the nearest relative of one of the "deer" is from India,

does he write or get the occasional chance to fly home and visit?

and that is a far piece from Vietnam. I doubt a casual stroll could account for the "Mating".

no but a gradual migration of a decent amount of time could easily cover this, then micro evolution and speciation could account for the pupoluations we currently have. your also forgetting that they could have originally come from vietnam and the indian relatives are migrant variants

but for this to happen we would of course require the animals to have existed before 1992 or we may have spotted a bunch of them sneaking across the borders on a mass run to escape to the freedom of vietnam

ooo wait didnt we already show they are older then that pheww problem solved

i guess god didnt pop down to make them for somthing to do then


[edit on 22/11/08 by noobfun]