Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
4 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 0/13 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   paper against evolution, for intelligent design
sweetstuff383
Inactive Member


Message 1 of 100 (71956)
12-09-2003 7:49 PM


I am a sophmore at a private school and i am in the process of writing a paper against evolution and in support of intelligent design. I would love to converse with any evolutionists or intelligent design believers who would be willing to try and prove their position to me, which will give me a good feel for what kind of arguments to refute, and which to enforce. thanks! ~ashley

Replies to this message:
 Message 2 by Rei, posted 12-09-2003 8:09 PM sweetstuff383 has replied
 Message 3 by Loudmouth, posted 12-09-2003 8:12 PM sweetstuff383 has replied
 Message 4 by NosyNed, posted 12-09-2003 8:22 PM sweetstuff383 has replied
 Message 13 by NosyNed, posted 12-10-2003 1:53 AM sweetstuff383 has not replied

  
Rei
Member (Idle past 7013 days)
Posts: 1546
From: Iowa City, IA
Joined: 09-03-2003


Message 2 of 100 (71961)
12-09-2003 8:09 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by sweetstuff383
12-09-2003 7:49 PM


Hi, sweetstuff I'm glad you dropped by. Just a warning here - people here love to debate, so be careful what you ask for! If you don't know something, or you need people to back off and give you some time to think about your responses or read up on new information, just say so, and we will let ya
I'll start you off with what I wrote to another student who posted today, concerning the age of the earth (a good starting point):
Also, for references, probably the two best sites you can visit are TalkOrigins (evolutionist) and TrueOrigins (creationist). Be sure, on a given point, to visit both of their comments on the issue, so you know what is poorly defended and what is well defended.
Missing Isotopes: Why are they missing? Of course God could create the earth making it look old, but is he one big cosmic prankster?
Stellar age limit: It is perfectly possible for stars to live far longer than ~14 billion years. And yet, not a star in the universe is older than that - even though many of them currently out there *will* live longer than that. Is God pulling a joke on us?
Distant Stars: Why would God create parts of the universe and make them billions of light years away, but create light "en route" (including star deaths that would place the star's death before he actually created the universe) to make people think that the universe was old? Is he a prankster?
Fossil ordering. Why are there *never* crustaceans lower than trilobytes? Why are there never grasses lower than the top few layers? Why are sharks and mammals sorted so that they generally trend to larger the higher up you get, but other lines taking the opposite path? The entire fossil record (literally millions upon millions of fossils) is sorted consistantly without regard to size, shape, and habitat - only with regard to *layer*. It is consistant to the extent that the initial explanation (proposed back when all scientists were creationist) was that there had been "multiple creations", each one made to look like the previous one with slight changes. Why would God make it look that way?
Impossible layers: How would a flood deposit footprints, delicate egg cases, age-old coral reefs and their entire delicately balanced ecosystems, chalk, salt, etc? More tricks from God?
Isochron dating: Learn about isochron dating, and be prepared to explain why isochron dating, along with mixing tests, ensures that there was not simply a ton of daughter product in the original. Is God trying trick us somehow?
Radioisotope confirmation: Why do multiple methods *almost always* confirm each other? Thousands of samples are dated annually, and the method keeps coming back with consistant results (permian dates as permian, precambrian dates as precambrian, etc). We have all sorts of isotopes with different half lives, but *they return the same value* almost always (with known exceptions). Why would they do this? If the answer is "radioisotopes all decayed faster in the past", do realize that this would reduce the planet to molten slag. Is this some cosmic joke?
Just mull over that for a bit, and we can discuss whatever you want about it, or we can move on to the fossils themselves. The age of the earth is important, because evolution could not occur quickly enough in a young earth. Likewise, an old earth would falsify a literal reading of the genesis account.
------------------
"Illuminant light,
illuminate me."
[This message has been edited by Rei, 12-09-2003]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by sweetstuff383, posted 12-09-2003 7:49 PM sweetstuff383 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 5 by sweetstuff383, posted 12-09-2003 8:23 PM Rei has replied

  
Loudmouth
Inactive Member


Message 3 of 100 (71962)
12-09-2003 8:12 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by sweetstuff383
12-09-2003 7:49 PM


One argument for Intelligent Design (ID) is the argument if Irreducible Complexity (IC). The argument states that certain systems in organisms have a level of complexity and interdependency that can not be explained by small evolutionary steps. I will attempt to refute this by referencing the bones that make up the middle ear.
Now, in the human ear three bones transmit sound waves from the tympanum (ear drum) to the cochlea of the inner ear. Without these bones humans would be deaf. However, fossils have been found that are intermediate between the hearing system that humans have and the simpler hearing that reptiles have. Here is an example of the fossils that were found:
As you can see, our middle ear bones were originally jaw bones and their shift into the middle ear gave mammals a more sensitive hearing system. In fact, in human embryological development, the same phenomena is observed.
Therefore, IC systems can be shown to evolve in steps contrary to the arguments made by many ID proponents. An argument from IC can then be seen as an argument from personal incredulity, in other words "I don't believe it happened that way because it doesn't seem possible to me." A lot of people thought it was impossible that the Earth moved about the Sun, but their personal bias does not affect the actual evidence.
More information on these fossils can be found at talkorigins.org. This is just a very brief discussion on the jawbone to ear ossicle transitionals, I can bring up more stuff if you would like.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by sweetstuff383, posted 12-09-2003 7:49 PM sweetstuff383 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 6 by sweetstuff383, posted 12-09-2003 8:28 PM Loudmouth has replied

  
NosyNed
Member
Posts: 8996
From: Canada
Joined: 04-04-2003


Message 4 of 100 (71965)
12-09-2003 8:22 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by sweetstuff383
12-09-2003 7:49 PM


Supporters of ID
Unfortunately, the supporters of ID seem to be a bit thin on the ground. They stop trying to answer questions after a bit. I'm not expert on ID (or anything else for that matter ) but I'm interested in the topic.
Correct me if I'm wrong, sweetstuff383, but it is my understanding that most, if not all proponents, of ID also support evolution. They even support neo-darwinian evolution as an explanation for a great deal of the development of life. Where they part company from the great majority of scientists is in suggesting that life could not have arisen in the first place and/or that there are a few specific things that could not have evolved by the neo-darwinian mechanisms.
So if you are supporting ID you may not be arguing with much of evolutionary theory at all, just some bits of it.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by sweetstuff383, posted 12-09-2003 7:49 PM sweetstuff383 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 7 by sweetstuff383, posted 12-09-2003 8:34 PM NosyNed has replied

  
sweetstuff383
Inactive Member


Message 5 of 100 (71966)
12-09-2003 8:23 PM
Reply to: Message 2 by Rei
12-09-2003 8:09 PM


in response to all of your 'is God just a prankster' arguments, He has created everything for a certain reason, although we as humans may not be able to understand just what that reason was, or the reason does not make sense to us. This does not mean, however, that God is trying to trick us into thinking something. God does not tempt, as the Bible says, only satan does. So all of these apparent arguments for an old earth and factoids which would lead one to suppose that the earth is old, are not road blocks or tricks put up by God, but are merely things which we as humans cannot comprehend.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 2 by Rei, posted 12-09-2003 8:09 PM Rei has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 8 by Rei, posted 12-09-2003 8:34 PM sweetstuff383 has not replied
 Message 14 by NosyNed, posted 12-10-2003 1:58 AM sweetstuff383 has not replied
 Message 26 by gene90, posted 12-11-2003 3:29 PM sweetstuff383 has not replied

  
sweetstuff383
Inactive Member


Message 6 of 100 (71967)
12-09-2003 8:28 PM
Reply to: Message 3 by Loudmouth
12-09-2003 8:12 PM


im not sure i yet understand your ear evolution example, but i will look over it again and if i have any comments i'll post them soon. But since you brought up irreducible complexity, how would you explain the evolution of an organism such as the eye, which does not function if one part is missing? or how about the blood clotting process, or protein synthesis, where if one step is missing, the entire process falls apart?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 3 by Loudmouth, posted 12-09-2003 8:12 PM Loudmouth has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 9 by Rei, posted 12-09-2003 8:47 PM sweetstuff383 has not replied
 Message 11 by MrHambre, posted 12-09-2003 9:55 PM sweetstuff383 has not replied
 Message 12 by Chiroptera, posted 12-09-2003 10:34 PM sweetstuff383 has not replied
 Message 20 by Loudmouth, posted 12-10-2003 6:10 PM sweetstuff383 has not replied

  
sweetstuff383
Inactive Member


Message 7 of 100 (71969)
12-09-2003 8:34 PM
Reply to: Message 4 by NosyNed
12-09-2003 8:22 PM


Re: Supporters of ID
i believe that you are wrong, nosyned. while some proponents of ID may believe in evolution, most are creationists, like myself. all the ID theory states is that the creator was not necessarily God, but was some intelligent designer.
[This message has been edited by sweetstuff383, 12-09-2003]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 4 by NosyNed, posted 12-09-2003 8:22 PM NosyNed has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 10 by NosyNed, posted 12-09-2003 8:48 PM sweetstuff383 has not replied

  
Rei
Member (Idle past 7013 days)
Posts: 1546
From: Iowa City, IA
Joined: 09-03-2003


Message 8 of 100 (71970)
12-09-2003 8:34 PM
Reply to: Message 5 by sweetstuff383
12-09-2003 8:23 PM


quote:
God does not tempt, as the Bible says, only satan does.
Actually, God tempts quite a few people in the bible, and tricks quite a few people; for example, read in Numbers 22 about how God told Balaam to go somewhere, and when Balaam went there, God got mad at him for going there and put an angel in his path. However, he made the angel invisible, so Balaam would get mad at his donkey for not going in the right way when the donkey saw the angel. Then, the angel could chastize him for being mean to his donkey.
quote:
So all of these apparent arguments for an old earth and factoids which would lead one to suppose that the earth is old, are not road blocks or tricks put up by God, but are merely things which we as humans cannot comprehend.
But why would God purposefully deceive us? We're not just talking about one measurement of the universe: we're talking about every measurement of the universe. Why did God choose to hide *exactly* the right radioisotopes so as to make the earth look ancient? Why did he put light en-route from distant stars showing them dying before he created the universe? Why would he sort out the fossils so as to put smooth gradients, and always put them in exact layers, everywhere on earth - *and* match up their radioisotopes to look ancient? Why would he match up radioisotopes and non-radiogenic elements in just the precise manner to throw off isochrons? Why on earth would he attempt to trick us with *every last measurement* of reality that we do?
If only Satan tricks, than Satan created the heavens and the Earth - all of it. He created billions of stars, and billions of fossils. He managed the flood, and he created every isotope in every rock on the planet. He staged microwave echoes across the entire universe. He balanced the radioisotopes in the sun, he created the vaccum of space itself. In short, if your argument is correct, Satan created the universe. Do you really want to go down this line of argument?
------------------
"Illuminant light,
illuminate me."
[This message has been edited by Rei, 12-09-2003]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 5 by sweetstuff383, posted 12-09-2003 8:23 PM sweetstuff383 has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 48 by Servus Dei, posted 12-13-2003 6:51 PM Rei has not replied

  
Rei
Member (Idle past 7013 days)
Posts: 1546
From: Iowa City, IA
Joined: 09-03-2003


Message 9 of 100 (71973)
12-09-2003 8:47 PM
Reply to: Message 6 by sweetstuff383
12-09-2003 8:28 PM


quote:
But since you brought up irreducible complexity, how would you explain the evolution of an organism such as the eye, which does not function if one part is missing?
This is known as an "irreducible complexity" argument. Irreducible complexity arguments fail because of "intermediates". For example, humans living in modern society. We farm with gasoline-powered equipment; we are reliant on gas and electricity to ship this food to cities. Gasoline and electricity take complex processes to make that require a sizable number of people's efforts - and even more when you consider all of the people needed to manufacture all of the parts and raw materials. Using the "irreducible complexity", one could argue that humans have to have always existed as they do now, because if someone took away modern technology, we'd all starve, and there's no way we could have created all of our modern technology at once; and yet, it exists. How? Because we passed through intermediate stages.
The specific example of the eye was actually brought up by darwin himself. Intermediates have been shown mathematically (see Nilsson and Pelger, who actually modelled the visual quality of everything ranging from a simple cluster of light-sensitive cells to a fully formed human eye), and through study of other species eyes. There actually *exists*, in the real world, every significant intermediate step of eye development, from an eyespot, to an eyespot with a transparent sheath, to a concave pit with a transparent sheath, to a thickened sheath that forms a partial lens... (etc). In fact, some animals with strong natural selection for vision in certain attributes have further evolved than us. Our nerves actually connect on the *front* of our rods and cones, partially obstructing the vision, something that squids have no problem with. Several birds have two focal points in each eye. Note that no animal on the planet has telescopic vision, however. Why? Because there is no smooth evolutionary gradient to telescopic vision.
quote:
or how about the blood clotting process
What about the blood clotting process do you see as not having a smooth natural selection gradient in the development of it?
quote:
or protein synthesis,
Name your protein. Proteins actually are easily modified, in both small and large ways, by mutation and selection. In fact, one feature that plays out often is the fact that genes get copied to other portions of the DNA strand, and the copy mutates faster than the original - thus, keeping the original protein while adding a new one. This is not just speculation, by the way - it's frequently observed in the lab.
------------------
"Illuminant light,
illuminate me."
[This message has been edited by Rei, 12-09-2003]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 6 by sweetstuff383, posted 12-09-2003 8:28 PM sweetstuff383 has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 16 by Matt Tucker, posted 12-10-2003 5:27 PM Rei has not replied

  
NosyNed
Member
Posts: 8996
From: Canada
Joined: 04-04-2003


Message 10 of 100 (71974)
12-09-2003 8:48 PM
Reply to: Message 7 by sweetstuff383
12-09-2003 8:34 PM


Supporters of ID are Creationists?
By creationist do you mean young earth creationists who only think evolution happened much, much faster than any scientists do? Or do you rather mean that they are creationists because they think God created the universe. (which suggests some significant percentage of scientists are that kind of creationists too).
Could you list a few of the more influential of the proponents of ID that are both young earthers and do not think any evolution happened (other than hyperevolution for a millenium or so after the flood).
added by edit
While you at it could you list some of the "most" that are creationists of the YEC type?
The names that come to mind to do with the ID idea are Behe, Demski, Johnston and Denton. I think they are all old earthers who agree that evolution has happened but they think, to varying degrees that the ToE needs to be modified or replaced. That is not what most people call "creationism" is it?
[This message has been edited by NosyNed, 12-09-2003]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 7 by sweetstuff383, posted 12-09-2003 8:34 PM sweetstuff383 has not replied

  
MrHambre
Member (Idle past 1393 days)
Posts: 1495
From: Framingham, MA, USA
Joined: 06-23-2003


Message 11 of 100 (71994)
12-09-2003 9:55 PM
Reply to: Message 6 by sweetstuff383
12-09-2003 8:28 PM


too smart for capital letters
sweetstuff383 writes:
how would you explain the evolution of an organism such as the eye
That sucker's going to WinAce.
------------------
The dark nursery of evolution is very dark indeed.
Brad McFall

This message is a reply to:
 Message 6 by sweetstuff383, posted 12-09-2003 8:28 PM sweetstuff383 has not replied

  
Chiroptera
Inactive Member


Message 12 of 100 (72002)
12-09-2003 10:34 PM
Reply to: Message 6 by sweetstuff383
12-09-2003 8:28 PM


how would you explain the evolution of an organism such as the eye, which does not function if one part is missing?
Actually, Darwin himself thought up a scenario that explains how the eye may have evolved. This link explains a bit how the eye may have evolved. It is nice because it provides a direct link to Darwin's Origin of the Species, right where he first gives his scenario.
The important thing about irreducible complexity is that systems that are irreducibly complex may still have evolved from simpler systems; here is a link to talkdesign which has some resources refuting the intelligent design movement. Here is a link to an article about the evolution of blood clotting.
The second point is that the eye is not even irreducibly complex to begin with; for example, the lens is unnecessary - the nautilus has a simple eye without a lens - the pin hole camera principle works just fine. See the first link above.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 6 by sweetstuff383, posted 12-09-2003 8:28 PM sweetstuff383 has not replied

  
NosyNed
Member
Posts: 8996
From: Canada
Joined: 04-04-2003


Message 13 of 100 (72024)
12-10-2003 1:53 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by sweetstuff383
12-09-2003 7:49 PM


ID is Evolution?
To back up to where we started.
If ID is true do we still have evolution or not? Isn't ID simple an acceptance of evolution with a different mechanism added to the neo_darwinian mechanism?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by sweetstuff383, posted 12-09-2003 7:49 PM sweetstuff383 has not replied

  
NosyNed
Member
Posts: 8996
From: Canada
Joined: 04-04-2003


Message 14 of 100 (72025)
12-10-2003 1:58 AM
Reply to: Message 5 by sweetstuff383
12-09-2003 8:23 PM


Prankster or mysterious
In any case, whatever God's motivation for it is, there is still the overwhelming abundance of evidence for an old earth and the occurance of an evolutionary process.
So you would, in the end, be completely happy with all of science is in front of every statment about what we take as being the best available explanation for anything we put the phrase "God has made it appear that...."?
In other words you agree that God has made it appear that the earth is 4.5 billion years old. And to satisfy some older interpretation of the Bible; "God has made it appear that the Earth revolves around the Sun". And to satisfy others; "God has made it appear that germs are the cause of some human diseases."
If this was inserted into a preface to all texts of biology would you be happy?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 5 by sweetstuff383, posted 12-09-2003 8:23 PM sweetstuff383 has not replied

  
FliesOnly
Member (Idle past 4145 days)
Posts: 797
From: Michigan
Joined: 12-01-2003


Message 15 of 100 (72096)
12-10-2003 12:54 PM


Hello sweetstuff383:
I have a suggestion for you, if it is not too late to change the focus of your paper. When I was a student I took a class entitled Environmental Law. The course was an almost 50/50 split between biology majors and business majors. As you can probably guess, whenever a situation arose in which the environment was pitted against business interests, the biology majors sided with the environmentalists while the business majors came down in favor of the busuness interests (not always of course...but more often than not). However, the Instructor (who was one of the best I have ever had) would not let us off so easy. Instead, he would require the we argue our position from the other point of view. Talk about a great way to truly learn about the topic.
Why don't you try the same approach? Why not write a paper in support of the Theory of Evolution? Based on the threads you have written, it appears to me that you are already biased against the ToE, and (being creationist yourself) have probably heard many of the common arguements against the concept of evolution, so I doubt if your paper will be very objective. However, if you require yourself to learn and understand a viewpoint that is in direct opposition to your own beliefs, a much more thorough investigation will be needed on your part. And who knows, you might actually learn a little something about science along the way ()

Replies to this message:
 Message 17 by sweetstuff383, posted 12-10-2003 5:40 PM FliesOnly has replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024