I apologise for the double post, but edit isn't working for me currently.

'The examples offered to support the irreducible complexity argument have generally been found to fail to meet the definition and intermediate precursor states have been identified for several structures purported to exhibit irreducible complexity.[2] For instance, precursors to the flagellum's motor can be found being used as ionic channels within bacteria, known as the Type III Secretory System.[3] This is true for most of the structure of the flagellum in general; of the 42 proteins found in the flagellum, 40 have already been found in use in different biological pathways.[4] Even Behe's toy model used to illustrate the concept, the mouse trap, was countered by critics including biology professor John McDonald, who produced examples of how he considered the mousetrap to be "easy to reduce", eventually to a single part.[5] Critics consider that most, or all, of the examples were based on misunderstandings of the workings of the biological systems in question, and consider the low quality of these examples excellent evidence for the argument from ignorance. Irreducible complexity is generally dismissed by the majority of the scientific community;[2] it is often referred to as pseudoscience.[6]'

Yay!

quote:

Well if you are going to compare the universe to art I would compare it to a great peace of art like the Mono Lisa, not a piece of toast.
Smile

The Mona Lisa is overrated.

quote:

You need multiple types of stars in order to create enough heavy material to build a planet.
Our universe requires multiple plaints to shield asteroids
Life depends on the formation of the galaxy.

I believe that the overriding question was: Why did God design other solar systems, other planets? If life was designed to live on this perfect planet, in a perfect solar system, then why is the rest of the universe necessary?

quote:

Secondly this has to my knowledge not ever been observed to happen. If it happened before, should it still be going on today?

Apple Maggot
Galapagos Finches
Fruit Flies
Bacteria
Viruses
Fungi
Protazoa
Humanity

quote:

Actually it is not a religion verse science debate it is mainly a science verse science debate. I believe in intelligent design not creationism.

Actually I believe that ID is classified as a theological argument using scientific evidence rather than a scientific theory. This is because it hinges on the claim that there is a God, albeit that we have again dragged the God of the Gaps out of the cupboard, and this basis claim is not verified by a posteriori (or a priori) evidence. Wikipedia says so.

quote:

So they are still earth based life. The study was saying that no life on earth would be able to form on earth.

Wait, I don't think we're quite on the same level. Your study says (and correct me if I'm wrong) that if Earth was a few thousand miles closer to the sun, no life at all would be able to form? Or is it that no life as we know it would be able to form?

Because I'm arguing that life could form, but it would be more like those extremophiles than anything else we know about.

quote:

Random chance cant be tested any more than God can be tested.

Not true. Throw a pair of dice and you've demonstrated random chance. What can you throw to demonstrate God? I think throwing a Bible is considered blasphemy, but it wouldn't do anything anyways.

quote:

These paintings highlight the point of complexity. Basically the more complex something is the greater chance that it was designed.

Art is not just about complexity. It's more about composition than anything. I hope you're not going to tell me a Mondrian painting wasn't designed, and they're about as non-complex as you can get.

quote:

Secondly those paintings still have a designer, of sorts.

And this is going into semantics. It all depends on what you call an artist.

quote:

Well if you are going to compare the universe to art I would compare it to a great peace of art like the Mono Lisa, not a piece of toast.

I'd rather not compare the universe to anything, but you have an annoying tendency to want to compare things. You say the universe is more like the Mona Lisa in terms of complexity, I say the universe is like a piece of toast with what looks like a face on it in terms of it happening randomly. We'll never understand each other at this rate.

quote:

I will ignore your horrible spelling and just ask you to be more specific.

Sorry I was rushing out the door.

Here are some specific examples.
You need multiple types of stars in order to create enough heavy material to build a planet.
Our universe requires multiple plaints to shield asteroids
Life depends on the formation of the galaxy.

quote:

You missed the point of my entire post: Small changes in DNA often do not show drastic effects on the overall being. They can, theoretically, combine to form a "trigger" to lead to a large mutation

I have several responses. First of all the idea that small changes combine to make a big change would still leave transitional creatures in the fossil record which we do not find in sufficient quality or number. Secondly this has to my knowledge not ever been observed to happen. If it happened before, should it still be going on today?

quote:

You also have to understand that the failed mutations, in the grand scheme of things, die out very quickly, likely before they can pass on thier mutated DNA.

Yes failed mutation die out that is exactly my point. You see if most mutations are detrimental how would a creature be able to evolve while depending on mutations? Too many bad mutations would occur to ever let it evolve, so you get a one step forward two steps back situation.

quote:

We're not talking about "Dinosaurs suddenly evolved feathers and became birds!" here.

Again the more gradual the evolution the more transitional creatures you would expect to find.

quote:

Extremophiles are generally found in hostile environments here on Earth.

So they are still earth based life. The study was saying that no life on earth would be able to form on earth.

quote:

It can be tested. God can't.

Random chance cant be tested any more than God can be tested.

quote:

Clearly you haven't been here. If I didn't know better, I'd think some of those paintings were created by human artists. Heck, I've seen stuff just like it in art museums. Nope, this is all done by elephants.

Interesting. I have a few things to point out. These paintings highlight the point of complexity. Basically the more complex something is the greater chance that it was designed. If I had one of those elephants paintings, and I also had the Mono Lisa and asked someone to bet on which one had been painted by the elephant they would not say that the Mono Lisa was painted by the elephant.

Secondly those paintings still have a designer, of sorts. The paintings did not come about by chance they came from elephants, with some level of training and art supplies.

quote:

Haha. I'm talking the Virgin Mary on a piece of toast, not fine art.

Well if you are going to compare the universe to art I would compare it to a great peace of art like the Mono Lisa, not a piece of toast.

quote:

Ahh... the religion vs science debate.
It goes nowhere fast.

Actually it is not a religion verse science debate it is mainly a science verse science debate. I believe in intelligent design not creationism.

quote:

Originally posted by realworlder:
Ahh... the religion vs science debate.
It goes nowhere fast.

THANK YOU FOR YOUR DETAILED AND CONSTRUCTIVE CONTRIBUTION TO THIS THREAD!

Ahh... the religion vs science debate.
It goes nowhere fast.

quote:

Where are those bacteria found?

Extremophiles are generally found in hostile environments here on Earth. For instance, there are unicellular organisms that thrive in temperatures of up to 121 degrees Celsius (249 degrees Fahrenheit). There are also ones that can survive in high pressure environments and areas with high pH levels or large amounts of heavy metals or salt. Pretty nasty places where most life can't survive at all.

quote:

And since when is random chance more scientific then God?

It can be tested. God can't.

quote:

I don’t know many elephants who can paint pictures do you?

Clearly you haven't been here. If I didn't know better, I'd think some of those paintings were created by human artists. Heck, I've seen stuff just like it in art museums. Nope, this is all done by elephants.

quote:

Startling new information has just come in, the Mono Lisa was formed by nature through random chance!

Haha. I'm talking the Virgin Mary on a piece of toast, not fine art.

quote:

Originally posted by Nephilem:

quote:

Ah but there IS a connection between micro and macro evolution!

Example:
Small imperceptable changes to DNA can occur over a long period of time, building to a major change that gives a certain creature a distinct advantage, or difference, over others. Or the populations could be isolated, setting each genetic path seperate from the other for long periods of time. The nature of DNA is such that small changes, in the right combination, can radically change an organism.

Ah yes the wonderful world of small changes over vast periods of time. Sounds great doesn’t it. Alright let’s look at this. If there was a large progression of small changes we should be able to see thousand of links between species. But we don’t. Science has only been able to produce a small handful of missing links. Not only that but that small handful is reduced by the finding of frauds and the remaining examples have been increasingly criticized as not really being transitional species.
Because of the problems with finding the missing links, evolutionists came up with the idea of short spurts of evolution that caused rapid changes. The obvious problem with this is that you don’t have massive positive mutations in a small amount of time. That would go out side the bounds of the DNA’s capabilities to adapt. Also mutations are almost always negative, so it is highly doubtful that you would have enough positive mutations to out way the negative mutations in a short period of time.

You missed the point of my entire post: Small changes in DNA often do not show drastic effects on the overall being. They can, theoretically, combine to form a "trigger" to lead to a large mutation

You also have to understand that the failed mutations, in the grand scheme of things, die out very quickly, likely before they can pass on thier mutated DNA. Therefore they are likely to be individual cases that die out quickly and are not represented in the fossil record.

We're not talking about "Dinosaurs suddenly evolved feathers and became birds!" here. We're saying that a certain dinosaur (probably a warm-blooded one, perhaps one adapted to flight) evolved feathers. These feathers aided not only in environmental protection, but also, eventually, lead to greater aerodynamic ability. This later lead to an increased ability to fly, giving it an edge over it's other non-feathered relatives, on top of the environental perks. Thus bird evolved, and due to a variety of niches and isolated populations, you have the whole group of avians we see today.
This is an example. It would be really rough for me to explain the whole of modern evolutionary theory to you, but right now it's obvious that you aren't well schooled in up to date concepts.

quote:

If there was only the earth and the sun we would not exist that is why. Life as we know it can only be supported in a location that meats a certain number of requirements and you knead more than one plait to meat that requirement.

I will ignore your horrible spelling and just ask you to be more specific.

quote:

Ah but there IS a connection between micro and macro evolution!

Example:
Small imperceptable changes to DNA can occur over a long period of time, building to a major change that gives a certain creature a distinct advantage, or difference, over others. Or the populations could be isolated, setting each genetic path seperate from the other for long periods of time. The nature of DNA is such that small changes, in the right combination, can radically change an organism.

Ah yes the wonderful world of small changes over vast periods of time. Sounds great doesn’t it. Alright let’s look at this. If there was a large progression of small changes we should be able to see thousand of links between species. But we don’t. Science has only been able to produce a small handful of missing links. Not only that but that small handful is reduced by the finding of frauds and the remaining examples have been increasingly criticized as not really being transitional species.
Because of the problems with finding the missing links, evolutionists came up with the idea of short spurts of evolution that caused rapid changes. The obvious problem with this is that you don’t have massive positive mutations in a small amount of time. That would go out side the bounds of the DNA’s capabilities to adapt. Also mutations are almost always negative, so it is highly doubtful that you would have enough positive mutations to out way the negative mutations in a short period of time.

quote:

But that says nothing about other life configurations (remember those bacteria I mentioned?).

Where are those bacteria found?

quote:

It's impossible to explain to anyone else.

That doesn’t really help me but I guess I will have to go with it.

quote:

. The way my mind works essentially prohibits me from believing that we're but ants in a giant ant farm.

Well so does my mind, but I don’t believe that we are nothing but ants in an ant farm.

Anyway I would think that you belief system would put us closer to ants because according to you we are on the same level as animals.

quote:

Anything that calls upon the supernatural to explain the natural is nonscientific and unbelievable to me.

And since when is random chance more scientific then God?

quote:

A painting could also be the work of a five-year-old or an elephant.

That would depend upon how good the painting is, and I don’t know many elephants who can paint pictures do you?

quote:

Or nature itself, perhaps.

Startling new information has just come in, the Mono Lisa was formed by nature through random chance!

quote:

For some reason I don't believe this

Why does that not surprise me? Come on I didn’t respond for two days because I was busy big deal.

quote:

Okay, let me make my question less specific... why is there anything but the sun and the earth? Why create everything else? Unless of course it wasn't created. Why create something with no purpose? sounds like a waste of time and talent. Why would God allow the universe to expand? That also makes no sense.

If there was only the earth and the sun we would not exist that is why. Life as we know it can only be supported in a location that meats a certain number of requirements and you knead more than one plait to meat that requirement.

Why couldn’t he allow the universe to expand? It is the natural course of action that the universe takes.

quote:

Sorry I did not respond sooner I have been unusually busy.

For some reason I don't believe this...whatever.

quote:

You asked about all planets so I was giving you an answer that reflected the importance of some planets. Not all planets have a purpose, or if they do we don’t know what that purpose is now. The universe is still expanding and so more stars and plaits continue to from, they don’t have to all have a purpose, and a lot of the universe is the product of an expanding universe.

Okay, let me make my question less specific... why is there anything but the sun and the earth? Why create everything else? Unless of course it wasn't created. Why create something with no purpose? sounds like a waste of time and talent. Why would God allow the universe to expand? That also makes no sense.

Please don't answer with something like "We aren't suppossed to know"

quote:

They run test models; test the reaction of increased heat and its effect on life.

Correction: they test the effect on Earth-based life. These tests prove that life as we know it cannot survive in substantially hotter environments. But that says nothing about other life configurations (remember those bacteria I mentioned?).

quote:

Why do you find it highly improbable? I am just curious as to how you reached that conclusion.

It's impossible to explain to anyone else. I am a very logical and rational person. I look for scientific explanations in everything. God is illogical, irrational, and unexplainable. The way my mind works essentially prohibits me from believing that we're but ants in a giant ant farm. That and I don't really need the belief in a higher being to keep me happy.

quote:

So then the question becomes which one has fewer problems, which one fits the scientific observations better.

And I have found that evolution is the one that fits that definition. Again, my logical mind gets in the way. Anything that calls upon the supernatural to explain the natural is nonscientific and unbelievable to me.

quote:

Anything that points to design also points to a designer. In the example that you gave the painting pointed to an artist.

A painting could also be the work of a five-year-old or an elephant. Or nature itself, perhaps. Think of it this way: if you find a rock in the forest that looks somewhat like Elvis, do you assume it was chiseled by someone specifically to make it look like Elvis?

quote:

Originally posted by Nephilem:

Because there is not a connection between micro evolution and micro evolution. The theory of evolution drew a connection between the two before there was knowledge about how mutations worked, and before the secrets of DNA were unlocked. Know our expanded knowledge leads to questions about the evolutionary theory. For example a creature can experience changes say a third arm but they will only change within the bounds of there DNA. So if they don’t have the DNA for a wing, or tail or whatever in there DNA that type of mutation will not occur.

Ah but there IS a connection between micro and macro evolution!

Example:
Small imperceptable changes to DNA can occur over a long period of time, building to a major change that gives a certain creature a distinct advantage, or difference, over others. Or the populations could be isolated, setting each genetic path seperate from the other for long periods of time. The nature of DNA is such that small changes, in the right combination, can radically change an organism.

I have respect for the position that there is some sentient creator to our universe. But claiming that that creator is DIRECTLY forcing evolution is a stretch, given the clear fossil record and plausible scientific theories to back it up.

You however, are operating on the presumption of God. In order to truely form a solid opinion, you have to embrace and understand an atheistic view. THEN you can start looking for evidence of God in the works. You will find it. But trying to fit your old religious beliefs into modern science is working from ignorance. You're mearly accomodating for new information without really discovering any yourself.

Sorry I did not respond sooner I have been unusually busy.

quote:

What the hell? I did NOT ask you just about the planets in our solar system. I asked you about ALL planets. Since you didn't answer my question the first time can you please answer it now?

You asked about all planets so I was giving you an answer that reflected the importance of some planets. Not all planets have a purpose, or if they do we don’t know what that purpose is now. The universe is still expanding and so more stars and plaits continue to from, they don’t have to all have a purpose, and a lot of the universe is the product of an expanding universe.

quote:

How do you know?

They run test models; test the reaction of increased heat and its effect on life. I really don’t know myself; I am saying what I have heard.

quote:

That seems highly improbable to me.

Why do you find it highly improbable? I am just curious as to how you reached that conclusion.

quote:

So, I looked at the universe with the preconceived notion that there was a designer, and it still didn't hold up. How about that?

You looked at the evidence but what evidence did you look at? I have moved away from creation to intelligent design myself, but I think that intelligent design, while it still has problems, has fewer problems than evolution.
You looked at the evidence but what evidence did you look at? I have moved away from creation to intelligent design myself, but I think that intelligent design, while it still has problems, has fewer problems than evolution. I think that that is the key. They are both theory’s that have some credibility. So then the question becomes which one has fewer problems, which one fits the scientific observations better.

The following are points that were brought up on another post that are being moved here.

quote:

But if there are variations in species what is to say that all the animals now aren't just a variation of a single species.

Because there is not a connection between micro evolution and micro evolution. The theory of evolution drew a connection between the two before there was knowledge about how mutations worked, and before the secrets of DNA were unlocked. Know our expanded knowledge leads to questions about the evolutionary theory. For example a creature can experience changes say a third arm but they will only change within the bounds of there DNA. So if they don’t have the DNA for a wing, or tail or whatever in there DNA that type of mutation will not occur.

quote:

What? I don't consider what evidence?

Anything that points to design also points to a designer. In the example that you gave the painting pointed to an artist.

quote:

Anyways, I'd like to see a source for that theory, so I can look up on it more.

Okay I will get you the source as soon as I take the time to find it, probably some time today.

Neph asked this about me on another thread:

quote:

See what the evidence would say to someone that did not come with the preconceived idea that there is no designer.

I was brought up Lutheran, believing that God created the universe. That's what my parents taught me, that's what I learned in Sunday School, and, most importantly, that's what was in the Bible. As I got older, I began to doubt that very much. Well, creationism, at least.

I moved from there to pure intelligent design, even as my belief in God waned. I was very interested in the way things worked, and at first glance, things seemed to have been designed by some higher power. However, the more I read about stuff, the more it seemed that things weren't really designed, or at least not intelligently. Too many things seemed too random, too...weird. Either God had a sense of humor (and that was most certainly not the case, according to my pastors) or things were more coincidental than I was being told.

I suppose it could be said that my belief in a random universe grew as my belief in God disappeared, but I will remind you that I was a firm believer in ID while somewhat of an agnostic (I actually called myself a deist, since I believed God, or whoever, had little to do with the universe outside of designing/guiding it).

So, I looked at the universe with the preconceived notion that there was a designer, and it still didn't hold up. How about that?

god made adam and eve. then adam and eve made some other dudes and so on and so on

quote:

Originally posted by Shade:
Or Creationism vs the Big Bang, or anything else you folks can think of. Where, why and how did life originate?

I just want to draw attention ot LTR's question.