Let us test Darwin, teacher says

[Chandrasekhar]

Evolution is a credible theory, only so long as it retains the predictable power of observation and experimentation. It is a law and therefore a fact of microbiology. Mutation exists at the smallest levels of life.

It is not a law and therefore not a fact of macrobiology. Macroevolution remains a theory because it lacks the predictive power that is necessary to rise above being a 'theory'. It has some evidence but is scant at best.

Intelligent design also has much evidence and is therefore a cohesive scientific theory. It does have properties of the power of prediction. Most of the evidence for ID is found in cosmology however; with the exception of consciousness.

I'm having trouble believing that you sincerely mean both of the above quotes.

I am not arguing one way or the other, it remains an opinion as it cannot be tested. I tend to think macroevolution is possible in bounded species adaptation. It is not conclusive the genes change first or is a reaction to the change in the environment.

What exactly are you getting at, here? Are you suggesting that the genes change in response to external stimuli? It is quite conclusive that genes change randomly, and that only those that are beneficial in the context of the external stimuli are passed on.

In other words, humans could be in a state of sliding to the lower end of the scale after an initial dominance at the top of the food chain. Perhaps we have arrived at the peak because of our ability to change the environment rather than adapt to it. We can now make it warm when it is cold, drive instead of walk, and swim under water with lungs.

I don't see how this is relevent. I maintain that there is no "peak" at all.

Since we can now change our environment it may become impossible to prove, at least with humans. We must have a record that is longer than civilization itself (unless something pops up) for the total theory to evolve into a biological law.

So, do you maintain that we can't assume that the sun has been rising in the east and setting in the west since before civilization began recording that fact?

We do know abiogenesis is more than likely a red herring and carries with it blind belief in unfounded faith. It is therefore, philosophy/religion as it cannot be subjected to scientific methodology.

We know nothing of the sort. You've already been part of a debate about abiogenesis here on the forums, and your arguments were frankly terrible. I fail to see how you can convince yourself with those arguments, let alone anyone else.

That does not mean we should not continue to test for the 'how' life had its beginning, it just means it lacks enough indicators for being cohesive enough to apply the definition 'theory' to this speculation of materialism.

What, so now evolution isn't even a theory? In that case, I disagree with whatever definition you're using for the word "theory."

Consciousness is the monkey wrench in the theory of materialism. It defies all known laws and theories of biological spacial 'concreteness' of how it should be and function.

I'll admit that it's a wild card in many theories of society, but it has no application whatsoever in evolutionary theory.

It is etherial and has no spacial dimension. It is the single defining tool to measure and define everything in the totality.

True enough. I still don't see how it supports your arguments.

 

[Bluemofia]

Instead of wasting my time with lines out of a bad movie, why dont you actually contribute by throwing down some proof. Gravity, is aduh, a no brainer, an obvious one. Evolution is something more delicate and meaningfull, it is not be wasted on simply beleiving becuase point a coincidentally meets with point b and the peices seem to fit. Gravity, bah, I'll take my cahnces and leave it for granted, evolution?not so much.

Proof: Mosquitoes evolving and splitting up into different species in the London subway. Fruit Flies evolving and splitting up into different species in the Arizona desert.

It is not a law and therefore not a fact of macrobiology. Macroevolution remains a theory because it lacks the predictive power that is necessary to rise above being a 'theory'. It has some evidence but is scant at best.

Laws aren't the only things that predict things. Atomic Theory and Germ Theory predict things. I don't see them becoming laws anytime soon. Theory of Relativity is pretty much undisputedly correct. Why is it still Theory of Relativity, not Law of Relativity?

Predictive power: Predicts that creatures will evolve, and be different as time goes on. And thus they are different in the past.

In other words, humans could be in a state of sliding to the lower end of the scale after an initial dominance at the top of the food chain. Perhaps we have arrived at the peak because of our ability to change the environment rather than adapt to it. We can now make it warm when it is cold, drive instead of walk, and swim under water with lungs.

Since we can now change our environment it may become impossible to prove, at least with humans. We must have a record that is longer than civilization itself (unless something pops up) for the total theory to evolve into a biological law.

Evolution happens to humans. Not all humans survive to reproduce, some die in childhood. This just makes evolution slower on humans. And besides, we've found many many early human ancestors.

We do know abiogenesis is more than likely a red herring and carries with it blind belief in unfounded faith. It is therefore, philosophy/religion as it cannot be subjected to scientific methodology.

Evolution doesn't need Abiogenesis to be correct. It just needs to have life to exist and change over time, and have time pass to be correct.

That does not mean we should not continue to test for the 'how' life had its beginning, it just means it lacks enough indicators for being cohesive enough to apply the definition 'theory' to this speculation of materialism.

Abiogenesis has pretty good evidence. If you consider how viruses self assemble their parts within a cell without using a cell's machinery, that's pretty close to abiogenesis, and it's happening on a daily basis.

Intelligent design also has much evidence and is therefore a cohesive scientific theory. It does have properties of the power of prediction. Most of the evidence for ID is found in cosmology however; with the exception of consciousness.

What evidence? What it's saying, is that life couldn't have come on its own because we don't like understand it, so God something intelligent has to have created it.

And for cosmology; try me. What's your proof there?

Consciousness is the monkey wrench in the theory of materialism. It defies all known laws and theories of biological spacial 'concreteness' of how it should be and function.

It is etherial and has no spacial dimension. It is the single defining tool to measure and define everything in the totality.

That's very nice, but how does this relate to Evolution? We are talking about TOE, not TOM.

 

[beingofone]

Antilogic:

More correctly, you have a hypothesis. After you run several experiments and find you cannot falsify it (i. e. prove it wrong), several other scientists start double-checking your work and doing their own experiments based on the parameters you gave. If that all checks out and other explanations are ruled out, leaving your hypothesis as the correct case, then it becomes a theory.

The problem with evolution is, it cannot be falsified.

It claims that the millions of years necessary to the end product are beyond the grasp of our abilities.It retreats into the mystical religious realm when put to the tests.

examples:

The first fallacy is that life can spontaneously animate from organic material. Years of heavily financed effort by thousands of scientists all over the world to create even the most basic elemental life, they are still batting an embarrassing zero.

“Here also we are required to admit as a general principle what is contrary to experience.”
-- Dawson

Contrary to what we experience and observe is a "theory"? Experience is what you have left when all the grand concepts have evaporated.

The second fallacy is the gap that separates vegetable and animal life. One deoxidizes and accumulates, the other oxidizes and expends. The animal never, in its simplest forms, assumes the functions of the plant. This gap can be filled up only by an appeal to our ignorance. Lacking one undeniable example of this bridging, this theory, is again, appealing to something other than common sense .

A rose, is a rose, is a rose. A=A.

Third, between any species of animal or plant and any other species. No case has been ascertained in which individuals of one species have transgressed the limits between it and other species.

Thomas H. Morgan, who won a Nobel Prize for work on heredity:
“Within the period of human history, we do not know of a single instance of the transformation of one species into another if we apply the most rigid and extreme tests used to distinguish wild species.”

Every scientist in related fields is well aware of this fact, but few have the intestinal fortitude to address it in public.

The Piltdown man and Haeckel’s drawings notwithstanding - it shows that the theory of Darwin will eventually, die of extinction; because fraud is the best floater of this "theory".

When all is said and done; there is nothing left to test, as far as macro - or - do you want supersized french fries with that?

You can't just "write" a theory--before something becomes a theory, it must have evidence behind it. And new theories or new versions must take into account and explain all the previous data. Theories have the weight of evidence behind them.

Table 1: Evidence for the fine-tuning of the universe

Over thirty parameters of the universe have been identified that must be carefully fixed in value for any kind of conceivable life (not just life as we know it) to exist at any time in the history of the universe. Some examples of these are given in Table 1.

1. strong nuclear force constant
if larger: no hydrogen; nuclei essential for life would be unstable
if smaller: no elements other than hydrogen
2. weak nuclear force constant
if larger: too much hydrogen converted to helium in big bang, hence too much heavy element material made by star burning; no expulsion of heavy elements from stars
if smaller: too little helium produced from big bang, hence too little heavy element material made by star burning; no expulsion of heavy elements from stars
3. gravitational force constant
if larger: stars would be too hot and would burn up quickly and unevenly|
if smaller: stars would be so cool that nuclear fusion would not ignite, thus no heavy element production
4. electromagnetic force constant
if larger: insufficient chemical bonding; elements more massive than boron would be unstable to fission
if smaller: insufficient chemical bonding
5. ratio of electromagnetic force constant to gravitational force constant
if larger: no stars less than 1.4 solar masses, hence short and uneven stellar burning
if smaller: no stars more than 0.8 solar masses, hence no heavy element production
6. ratio of electron to proton mass
if larger: insufficient chemical bonding
if smaller: insufficient chemical bonding
7. ratio of number of protons to number of electrons
if larger: electromagnetism dominates gravity preventing galaxy, star, and planet formation
if smaller: electromagnetism dominates gravity preventing galaxy, star, and planet formation
8. expansion rate of the universe
if larger: no galaxy formation
if smaller: universe collapses prior to star formation
9. entropy level of the universe
if larger: no star condensation within the proto-galaxies
if smaller: no proto-galaxy formation
10. mass density of the universe
if larger: too much deuterium from big bang, hence stars burn too rapidly
if smaller: insufficient helium from big bang, hence too few heavy elements forming
11. velocity of light
if larger: stars would be too luminous
if smaller: stars would not be luminous enough
12. age of the universe
if older: no solar-type stars in a stable burning phase in the right part of the galaxy
if younger: solar-type stars in a stable burning phase would not yet have formed
13. initial uniformity of radiation
if smoother: stars, star clusters, and galaxies would not have formed
if coarser: universe by now would be mostly black holes and empty space
14. average distance between galaxies
if larger: insufficient gas would be infused into our galaxy to sustain star formation for a long enough time
if smaller: the sun’s orbit would be too radically disturbed,
15. galaxy cluster type
if too rich: galaxy collisions and mergers would disrupt solar orbit
if too sparse: insufficient infusion of gas to sustain star formation for a long enough time
16. average distance between stars
if larger: heavy element density too thin for rocky planets to form
if smaller: planetary orbits would become destabilized
17. fine structure constant (a number used to describe the fine structure splitting of spectral lines)
if larger: no stars more than 0.7 solar masses
if smaller: no stars less than 1.8 solar masses
if larger than 0.06: matter is unstable in large magnetic fields
18. decay rate of the proton
if greater: life would be exterminated by the release of radiation
if smaller: insufficient matter in the universe for life
19. 12C to 16O nuclear energy level ratio
if larger: insufficient oxygen
if smaller: insufficient carbon
20. ground state energy level for 4He
if larger: insufficient carbon and oxygen
if smaller: insufficient carbon and oxygen
21. decay rate of 8Be
if slower: heavy element fusion would generate catastrophic explosions in all the stars
if faster: no element production beyond beryllium and, hence, no life chemistry possible
22. mass excess of the neutron over the proton
if greater: neutron decay would leave too few neutrons to form the heavy elements essential for life
if smaller: proton decay would cause all stars to rapidly collapse into neutron stars or black holes
23. initial excess of nucleons over anti-nucleons
if greater: too much radiation for planets to form
if smaller: not enough matter for galaxies or stars to form
24. polarity of the water molecule
if greater: heat of fusion and vaporization would be too great for life to exist
if smaller: heat of fusion and vaporization would be too small for life; liquid water would be too inferior of solvent for life chemistry to proceed; ice would not float, leading to a runaway freeze-up
25. supernovae eruptions
if too close: radiation would exterminate life on the planet
if too far: not enough heavy element ashes for the formation of rocky planets
if too infrequent: not enough heavy element ashes for the formation of rocky planets
if too frequent: life on the planet would be exterminated
if too soon: not enough heavy element ashes for the formation of rocky planets
if too late: life on the planet would be exterminated by radiation
26. white dwarf binaries
if too few: insufficient flourine produced for life chemistry to proceed
if too many: disruption of planetary orbits from stellar density; life on the planet would be exterminated
if too soon: not enough heavy elements made for efficient flourine production
if too late: flourine made too late for incorporation in protoplanet
27. ratio of the mass of exotic matter to ordinary matter
if smaller: galaxies would not form
if larger: universe would collapse before solar type stars can form
28. number of effective dimensions in the early universe
if smaller: quantum mechanics, gravity, and relativity could not coexist and life would be impossible
if larger: quantum mechanics, gravity, and relativity could not coexist and life would be impossible
29. number of effective dimensions in the present universe
if smaller: electron, planet, and star orbits would become unstable
if larger: electron, planet, and star orbits would become unstable
30. mass of the neutrino
if smaller: galaxy clusters, galaxies, and stars will not form
if larger: galaxy clusters and galaxies will be too dense
31. big bang ripples
if smaller: galaxies will not form; universe expands too rapidly
if larger: galaxies will be too dense; black holes will dominate; universe collapses too quickly
32. size of the relativistic dilation factor
if smaller: certain essential life chemistry reactions will not function properly
if larger: certain essential life chemistry reactions will not function properly
33. uncertainty magnitude in the Heisenberg uncertainty principle
if smaller: oxygen transport to body cells would be too small; certain life-essential elements would be unstable
if larger: oxygen transport to body cells would be too great; certain life-essential elements would be unstable
34. cosmological constant
if too large: universe will expand too quickly for solar type stars too form

Table 2: Evidence for the fine-tuning of the galaxy-sun-earth-moon system for life support

It is not just the universe that bears evidence for design. The sun and the earth also reveal such evidence. Some sample parameters sensitive for the support of life are listed in Table 2.

The following parameters of a planet, its moon, its star, and its galaxy must have values falling within narrowly defined ranges for life of any kind to exist. Characteristics #2 and #3 have been repeated from Table 4 since they apply to both the universe and the galaxy.

1. galaxy size
if too large: infusion of gas and stars would disturb sun’s orbit and ignite too many galactic eruptions.
if too small: insufficient infusion of gas to sustain star formation for long enough time.
2. galaxy type
if too elliptical: star formation would cease before sufficient heavy element build-up for life chemistry.
if too irregular: radiation exposure on occasion would be too severe and heavy elements for life chemistry would not be available.
3. galaxy location
if too close to a rich galaxy cluster: galaxy would be gravitationally disrupted
if too close to very large galaxy(ies): galaxy would be gravitationally disrupted.
4. supernovae eruptions
if too close: life on the planet would be exterminated by radiation
if too far: not enough heavy element ashes would exist for the formation of rocky planets.
if too infrequent: not enough heavy element ashes present for the formation of rocky planets.
if too frequent: life on the planet would be exterminated.
if too soon: not enough heavy element ashes would exist for the formation of rocky planets.
if too late: life on the planet would be exterminated by radiation.
5. white dwarf binaries
if too few: insufficient flourine would be produced for life chemistry to proceed.
if too many: planetary orbits disrupted by stellar density; life on planet would be exterminated.
if too soon: not enough heavy elements would be made for efficient flourine production.
if too late: flourine would be made too late for incorporation in protoplanet.
6. proximity of solar nebula to a supernova eruption
if farther: insufficient heavy elements for life would be absorbed.
if closer: nebula would be blown apart.
7. timing of solar nebula formation relative to supernova eruption
if earlier: nebula would be blown apart.
if later:: nebula would not absorb enough heavy elements.
8. parent star distance from center of galaxy
if farther: quantity of heavy elements would be insufficient to make rocky planets.
if closer: galactic radiation would be too great; stellar density would disturb planetary orbits
9. parent star distance from closest spiral arm
if farther: quantity of heavy elements would be insufficient to make rocky planets.
if closer: radiation from other stars would be too great; stellar density would disturb planetary orbits.
10. z-axis heights of star’s orbit
if too large: exposure to harmful radiation from galactic core would be too great.
11. number of stars in the planetary system
if more than one: tidal interactions would disrupt planetary orbits.
if less than one: heat produced would be insufficient for life.
12. parent star birth date
if more recent: star would not yet have reached stable burning phase; stellar system would contain too many heavy elements.
if less recent: stellar system would not contain enough heavy elements.
13. parent star age
if older: luminosity of star would change too quickly.
if younger: luminosity of star would change too quickly.
14. parent star mass
if greater: luminosity of star would change too quickly; star would burn too rapidly.
if less: luminosity of star would change too slowly; range of planet distances for life would be too narrow; tidal forces would disrupt the life planet’s rotational period; uv radiation would be inadequate for plants to make sugars and oxygen.
15. parent star metallicity
if too small: insufficient heavy elements for life chemistry would exist.
if too large: radioactivity would be too intense for life; life would be poisoned by heavy element concentrations.
16. parent star color
if redder: photosynthetic response would be insufficient.
if bluer: photosynthetic response would be insufficient.
17. H3+ production
if too small: simple molecules essential to planet formation and life chemistry will not form.
if too large: planets will form at wrong time and place for life.
18. parent star luminosity relative to speciation
if increases too soon: runaway green house effect would develop.
if increases too late: runaway glaciation would develop.
19. surface gravity (escape velocity)
if stronger: planet’s atmosphere would retain too much ammonia and methane.
if weaker: planet’s atmosphere would lose too much water.
20. distance from parent star
if farther: planet would be too cool for a stable water cycle.
if closer: planet would be too warm for a stable water cycle.
21. inclination of orbit
if too great: temperature differences on the planet would be too extreme.
22. orbital eccentricity
if too great: seasonal temperature differences would be too extreme.
23. axial tilt
if greater: surface temperature differences would be too great.
if less: surface temperature differences would be too great.
24. rate of change of axial tilt
if greater: climatic changes would be too extreme; surface temperature differences would become too extreme.
25. rotation period
if longer: diurnal temperature differences would be too great.
if shorter: atmospheric wind velocities would be too great.
26. rate of change in rotation period
if longer: surface temperature range necessary for life would not be sustained.
if shorter: surface temperature range necessary for life would not be sustained.
27. age
if too young: planet would rotate too rapidly.
if too old: planet would rotate too slowly.
28. magnetic field
if stronger: electromagnetic storms would be too severe.
if weaker: ozone shield would be inadequately protected from hard stellar and solar radiation.
29. thickness of crust
if thicker: too much oxygen would be transferred from the atmosphere to the crust.
if thinner: volcanic and tectonic activity would be too great.
30. albedo (ratio of reflected light to total amount falling on surface)
if greater: runaway glaciation would develop.
if less: runaway greenhouse effect would develop.
31. asteroidal and cometary collision rate
if greater: too many species would become extinct.
if less: crust would be too depleted of materials essential for life.
32. mass of body colliding with primordial earth
if smaller: Earth’s atmosphere would be too thick; moon would be too small.
if greater: Earth’s orbit and form would be too greatly disturbed.
33. timing of body colliding with primordial earth.
if earlier: Earth’s atmosphere would be too thick; moon would be too small.
if later: sun would be too luminous at epoch for advanced life.
34. oxygen to nitrogen ratio in atmosphere
if larger: advanced life functions would proceed too quickly.
if smaller: advanced life functions would proceed too slowly.
35. carbon dioxide level in atmosphere
if greater: runaway greenhouse effect would develop.
if less: plants would be unable to maintain efficient photosynthesis.
36. water vapor level in atmosphere
if greater: runaway greenhouse effect would develop.
if less: rainfall would be too meager for advanced life on the land.
37. atmospheric electric discharge rate
if greater: too much fire destruction would occur.
if less: too little nitrogen would be fixed in the atmosphere.
38. ozone level in atmosphere
if greater: surface temperatures would be too low.
if less: surface temperatures would be too high; there would be too much uv radiation at the surface.
39. oxygen quantity in atmosphere
if greater: plants and hydrocarbons would burn up too easily.
if less: advanced animals would have too little to breathe.
40. seismic activity
if greater: too many life-forms would be destroyed.
if less: nutrients on ocean floors from river runoff would not be recycled to continents through tectonics.
41. oceans-to-continents ratio
if greater: diversity and complexity of life-forms would be limited.
if smaller: diversity and complexity of life-forms would be limited.
42. rate of change in oceans-to-continents ratio
if smaller: advanced life will lack the needed land mass area.
if greater: advanced life would be destroyed by the radical changes.
43. global distribution of continents (for Earth)
if too much in the southern hemisphere: seasonal differences would be too severe for advanced life.
44.

frequency and extent of ice ages
if smaller: insufficient fertile, wide, and well-watered valleys produced for diverse and advanced life forms; insufficient mineral concentrations occur for diverse and advanced life.
if greater: planet inevitably experiences runaway freezing.
45. soil mineralization
if too nutrient poor: diversity and complexity of life-forms would be limited.
if too nutrient rich: diversity and complexity of life-forms would be limited.
46. gravitational interaction with a moon
if greater: tidal effects on the oceans, atmosphere, and rotational period would be too severe.
if less: orbital obliquity changes would cause climatic instabilities; movement of nutrients and life from the oceans to the continents and vice versa would be insufficient; magnetic field would be too weak.
47. Jupiter distance
if greater: too many asteroid and comet collisions would occur on Earth.
if less: Earth’s orbit would become unstable.
48. Jupiter mass
if greater: Earth’s orbit would become unstable.
if less: too many asteroid and comet collisions would occur on Earth.
49. drift in major planet distances
if greater: Earth’s orbit would become unstable.
if less: too many asteroid and comet collisions would occur on Earth.
50. major planet eccentricities
if greater: orbit of life supportable planet would be pulled out of life support zone.
51. major planet orbital instabilities
if greater: orbit of life supportable planet would be pulled out of life support zone.
52. atmospheric pressure
if too small: liquid water will evaporate too easily and condense too infrequently.
if too large: liquid water will not evaporate easily enough for land life; insufficient sunlight reaches planetary surface; insufficient uv radiation reaches planetary surface.
53. atmospheric transparency
if smaller: insufficient range of wavelengths of solar radiation reaches planetary surface
if greater: too broad a range of wavelengths of solar radiation reaches planetary surface.
54. chlorine quantity in atmosphere
if smaller: erosion rates, acidity of rivers, lakes, and soils, and certain metabolic rates would be insufficient for most life forms.
if greater: erosion rates, acidity of rivers, lakes, and soils, and certain metabolic rates would be too high for most life forms.
55. iron quantity in oceans and soils
if smaller: quantity and diversity of life would be too limited for support of advanced life;
if very small, no life would be possible.
if larger: iron poisoning of at least advanced life would result.
56. tropospheric ozone quantity
if smaller: insufficient cleansing of biochemical smogs would result.
if larger: respiratory failure of advanced animals, reduced crop yields, and destruction of ozone-sensitive species would result.
57. stratospheric ozone quantity
if smaller: too much uv radiation reaches planet’s surface causing skin cancers and reduced plant growth.
if larger: too little uv radiation reaches planet’s surface causing reduced plant growth and insufficient vitamin production for animals.
58. mesospheric ozone quantity
if smaller: circulation and chemistry of mesospheric gases so disturbed as to upset relative abundances of life essential gases in lower atmosphere.
if greater: circulation and chemistry of mesospheric gases so disturbed as to upset relative abundances of life essential gases in lower atmosphere.
59. quantity and extent of forest and grass fires
if smaller: growth inhibitors in the soils would accumulate; soil nitrification would be insufficient; insufficient charcoal production for adequate soil water retention and absorption of certain growth inhibitors.
if greater: too many plant and animal life forms would be destroyed
60. quantity of soil sulfur
if smaller: plants will become deficient in certain proteins and die.
if larger: plants will die from sulfur toxins; acidity of water and soil will become too great for life; nitrogen cycles will be disturbed.
61. quantity of sulfur in the life planet’s core
if smaller: solid core formation begins too soon causing it to grow too rapidly —disrupts magnetic field.
if larger: sold inner core never forms—disrupts magnetic field.
62. quantity of sea salt aerosols
if smaller: insufficient cloud formation and thus inadequate water cycle; disrupts atmospheric temperature balances.
if larger: too much and too rapid cloud formation over the oceans disrupting the climate; disrupts atmospheric temperature balances.
63. volcanic activity
if lower: insufficient amounts of carbon dioxide and water vapor would be returned to the atmosphere; soil mineralization would become too degraded for life.
if higher: advanced life, at least, would be destroyed.
64. rate of decline in tectonic activity
if slower: advanced life can never survive on the planet.
if faster: advanced life can never survive on the planet.
65. rate of decline in volcanic activity
if slower: advanced life can never survive on the planet.
if faster: advanced life can never survive on the planet.
66. biomass to minicomet infall ratio
if smaller: greenhouse gases accumulate, triggering runaway surface temperature increase.
if larger: greenhouse gases decline, triggering a runaway freezing.

Table 3: An Estimate of the Probability for Attaining the Necessary Parameters for Life Support

PARAM. NUM.


PARAMETER


PROBABILITY OF GALAXY, STAR, PLANET, PARAMETER OR MOON FALLING IN REQUIRED RANGE BY CHANCE (WITHOUT DIVINE DESIGN)
1 galaxy size 0.1
2 galaxy type 0.1
3 galaxy location 0.1
4 star location relative to galactic center 0.2
5 star distance from closest spiral arm 0.1
6 z-axis extremes of star's orbit 0.1
7 proximity of solar nebula to a supernova eruption 0.01
8 timing of solar nebula formation relative to supernova eruption 0.01
9 number of stars in system 0.2
10 star birth date 0.2
11 star age 0.4
12 star metallicity 0.05
13 star orbital eccentricity 0.1
14 star's distance from galactic plane 0.1
15 star mass 0.001
16 star luminosity relative to speciation 0.0001
17 star color 0.4
18 H3+ production 0.1
19 supernovae rates & locations 0.01
20 white dwarf binary types, rates, & locations 0.01
21 planetary distance from star 0.001
22 inclination of planetary orbit 0.5
23 axis tilt of planet 0.3
24 rate of change of axial tilt 0.01
25 planetary rotation period 0.1
26 rate of change in planetary rotation period 0.05
27 planetary orbit eccentricity 0.3
28 surface gravity (escape velocity) 0.001
29 tidal force 0.1
30 magnetic field 0.01
31 albedo 0.1
32 density 0.1
33 thickness of crust 0.01
34 oceans-to-continents ratio 0.2
35 rate of change in oceans to continents ratio 0.1
36 global distribution of continents 0.3
37 frequency & extent of ice ages 0.1
38 asteroidal & cometary collision rate 0.1
39 change in asteroidal & cometary collision rates 0.1
40 mass of body colliding with primordial earth 0.002
41 timing of body colliding with primordial earth 0.05
42 rate of change in ast. & comet collision rate 0.1
43 position & mass of Jupiter relative to Earth 0.01
44 major planet eccentricities 0.1
45 major planet orbital instabilities 0.1
46 drift and rate of drift in major planet distances 0.1
47 atmospheric transparency 0.01
48 atmospheric pressure 0.1
49 atmospheric electric discharge rate 0.1
50 atmospheric temperature gradient 0.01
51 carbon dioxide level in atmosphere 0.01
52 oxygen quantity in atmosphere 0.01
53 chlorine quantity in atmosphere 0.1
54 iron quantity in oceans 0.1
55 tropospheric ozone quantity 0.01
56 stratospheric ozone quantity 0.01
57 mesospheric ozone quantity 0.01
58 water vapor level in atmosphere 0.01
59 oxygen to nitrogen ratio in atmosphere 0.1
60 quantity of greenhouse gases in atmosphere 0.01
61 quantity of forest & grass fires 0.01
62 quantity of sea salt aerosols 0.1
63 soil mineralization 0.1
64 quantity of decomposer bacteria in soil 0.01
65 quantity of mycorrhizal fungi in soil 0.01
66 quantity of nitrifying microbes in soil 0.01
67 quantity of soil sulfur 0.1
68 quantity of sulfur in the life planet's core 0.1
69 tectonic activity 0.1
70 rate of decline in tectonic activity 0.1
71 volcanic activity 0.1
72 rate of decline in volcanic activity 0.1
73 viscosity at Earth core boundaries 0.01
74 biomass to minicomet infall ratio 0.01
75 regularity of minicometary infall 0.1

Dependency Factors Estimate: 100,000,000,000.

Longevity Requirements Estimate: .00001

Probability for occurrence of all 75 parameters: approx. 10 -99

Maximum possible number of planets in universe: approx. 10 22

Much less than 1 chance in a hundred thousand trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion exists that even one such planet would occur anywhere in the universe.

-- Hugh Ross, © 1998, Reasons To Believe

 

[Bluemofia]

That's based on the assumption that life exactly like ours to evolve.

And also, if the fine tuning was any different, we won't be here to observe it be different, won't we? So what about the possibility that there are a multitude of universes, each with different laws? And next, how would it stop evolution? We've got life, so it follows TOE. How it comes is irrelevant.

 

[Bluemofia]

The problem with evolution is, it cannot be falsified.

Yeah it can. A half frog, half cow can easily do so. Or a creature being created right then and there.

It claims that the millions of years necessary to the end product are beyond the grasp of our abilities.It retreats into the mystical religious realm when put to the tests.

What about the times when it succeeds? Such as nylon eating bacteria, anti-biotic resistant bacteria, etc.

The first fallacy is that life can spontaneously animate from organic material. Years of heavily financed effort by thousands of scientists all over the world to create even the most basic elemental life, they are still batting an embarrassing zero.

Abiogenesis, not evolution. Not required for evolution. Besides, viral particles put themselves togeather without needing a cell's enzymes to do so.

“Here also we are required to admit as a general principle what is contrary to experience.”
-- Dawson

Contrary to what we experience and observe is a "theory"? Experience is what you have left when all the grand concepts have evaporated.

Evolution is not something we do during our lunch break. It happens over a period of hundreds generations. But it can happen faster or slower, depending on the selective pressures.

The second fallacy is the gap that separates vegetable and animal life. One deoxidizes and accumulates, the other oxidizes and expends. The animal never, in its simplest forms, assumes the functions of the plant. This gap can be filled up only by an appeal to our ignorance. Lacking one undeniable example of this bridging, this theory, is again, appealing to something other than common sense .

??? That's because they seperated early on. A plant makes its own food. An animal can easily take advantage of a plant, so it won't have to expend energy making its own food. Besides, the earliest kind of cell didn't need to make its own food. It just absorbed the surrounding nutrients from the rich chemical soup.

Third, between any species of animal or plant and any other species. No case has been ascertained in which individuals of one species have transgressed the limits between it and other species.

Thomas H. Morgan, who won a Nobel Prize for work on heredity:
“Within the period of human history, we do not know of a single instance of the transformation of one species into another if we apply the most rigid and extreme tests used to distinguish wild species.”

Every scientist in related fields is well aware of this fact, but few have the intestinal fortitude to address it in public.

Wait, you are saying that one species can not turn into another? Because this has happened in the wild. Fruit flies and mosquitoes have been observed to do so.

 

[Chandrasekhar]

The problem with evolution is, it cannot be falsified.

Are you trying to say that ID can be falsified?

It claims that the millions of years necessary to the end product are beyond the grasp of our abilities.It retreats into the mystical religious realm when put to the tests.

What tests!? If evidence against abiogenesis is so abundent, why not give us a little scrap?

examples:

The first fallacy is that life can spontaneously animate from organic material. Years of heavily financed effort by thousands of scientists all over the world to create even the most basic elemental life, they are still batting an embarrassing zero.

Not true. There are some not at all recent experiments in which the conditions of the early Earth were replicated, and the building blocks of life emerged. It's no stretch of the imagination to see that those building blocks would eventually mix in the right way, given a couple billions of years to do so.

Contrary to what we experience and observe is a "theory"? Experience is what you have left when all the grand concepts have evaporated.

Empty words.

The second fallacy is the gap that separates vegetable and animal life. One deoxidizes and accumulates, the other oxidizes and expends. The animal never, in its simplest forms, assumes the functions of the plant. This gap can be filled up only by an appeal to our ignorance. Lacking one undeniable example of this bridging, this theory, is again, appealing to something other than common sense .

You really don't have any idea what you're talking about, do you? Of course there aren't any creatures that are both animal and plant. "If you chase two rabbits, you will lose them both." It's the height of inefficiency to try to persue both strategies.

Third, between any species of animal or plant and any other species. No case has been ascertained in which individuals of one species have transgressed the limits between it and other species.

Thomas H. Morgan, who won a Nobel Prize for work on heredity:
“Within the period of human history, we do not know of a single instance of the transformation of one species into another if we apply the most rigid and extreme tests used to distinguish wild species.”

Have you considered that this might be because macroevolution works on a timeline beyond the, say, few decades that we've been looking for it?

Every scientist in related fields is well aware of this fact, but few have the intestinal fortitude to address it in public.

No, scientists don't challenge it because there aren't any legitimate challenges to it. All you're presenting is rhetoric and fallacy.

The Piltdown man and Haeckel’s drawings notwithstanding - it shows that the theory of Darwin will eventually, die of extinction; because fraud is the best floater of this "theory".

Again, you call it "the theory of Darwin." Perhaps calling it the theory of every educated biologist today would be more accurate.

When all is said and done; there is nothing left to test, as far as macro - or - do you want supersized french fries with that?




-- Hugh Ross, © 1998, Reasons To Believe

This proves nothing. That list is just a list of the properties of the universe and of our specific situation. For all you know, different conditions would lead to a different definition of life. Let me try to make this simple for you- if there's no life, there's no one there to question why there's no life. If there is life, then there are creatures that exist to question why there is life. Therefore, we shouldn't be surprised at all that we live in a universe where there is life.

 

[beingofone]

warpus:

It demostrates that there are intelligent agents in the Universe, nothing more.

More than what?

You just provided a way for us to test the hypothesis: "Warpus is able to intelligently design things"

Exactly; and that irrefutable evidence tells us what about the nature of the universe?

Now how about providing a way for us to test the hypothesis: "An intelligent agent designed the Universe" ?

First things first.

If we are discussing the source of the universe, we must, of necessity, describe its properties.

If we fail to establish the properties of the essence of the thing we wish to examine - how in the world do you know what to look for?

You have a theory. This theory is: "An intelligent agent designed the Universe" and possibly: "An intelligent agent designed life on this planet"

Clue posted by Warpus:

It demostrates that there are intelligent agents in the Universe

Now, if these were scientific theories, there should be ways for us to test predictions that these theories make to see if they are true. So, what are these predictions and how do we test them?

I just gave you an experiment to test and falsify the properties of the universe - finish that experiment and we can go to the next one.



Bluemofia:

Laws aren't the only things that predict things. Atomic Theory and Germ Theory predict things. I don't see them becoming laws anytime soon. Theory of Relativity is pretty much undisputedly correct. Why is it still Theory of Relativity, not Law of Relativity?

Because; you can make predictions and then test the hypothesis. A law is formed from a theory when the predictions become axioms.

Relativity is not subject to the universal as we cannot decipher the "who" - consciosness is tricky like that.

Predictive power: Predicts that creatures will evolve, and be different as time goes on. And thus they are different in the past.

No; evolution is claiming the predictive power of our origins, not our future.

Evolution happens to humans. Not all humans survive to reproduce, some die in childhood. This just makes evolution slower on humans. And besides, we've found many many early human ancestors.

I do not doubt that humans evolve.

Evolution doesn't need Abiogenesis to be correct. It just needs to have life to exist and change over time, and have time pass to be correct.

Then; ID is credible.

Abiogenesis has pretty good evidence. If you consider how viruses self assemble their parts within a cell without using a cell's machinery, that's pretty close to abiogenesis, and it's happening on a daily basis.

No; abiogenesis has absolutely zero evidence. The very act of creating amino acids is its own demise.

Virus mutation is not 'close to' life beginning.

That would be like saying because a ship made of steel can float, therefore; steel can float.

That's very nice, but how does this relate to Evolution? We are talking about TOE, not TOM.

And what is the tool you are using to talk about the TOE?


Chandrasekhar:

What exactly are you getting at, here? Are you suggesting that the genes change in response to external stimuli? It is quite conclusive that genes change randomly, and that only those that are beneficial in the context of the external stimuli are passed on.

Conclusive that genes change randomly?

Care to provide evidence? How about a single example?

So, do you maintain that we can't assume that the sun has been rising in the east and setting in the west since before civilization began recording that fact?

Well; you can see the sun rise, could you tell me the last time you saw a rock spring legs and scream "I am alive"?

Have you ever taken a plant for a walk?

BO1:
Consciousness is the monkey wrench in the theory of materialism. It defies all known laws and theories of biological spacial 'concreteness' of how it should be and function.

Chandrasekhar:
I'll admit that it's a wild card in many theories of society, but it has no application whatsoever in evolutionary theory.

I usually am conscious when discussing life - in fact - isn`t your consciousness involved in the application?

BO1:
It is etherial and has no spacial dimension. It is the single defining tool to measure and define everything in the totality.

Chandrasekhar:
True enough. I still don't see how it supports your arguments.

Oh of course; consciousness has nothing at all to do with biology or life; right?

 

[Chandrasekhar]

Conclusive that genes change randomly?

Care to provide evidence? How about a single example?

It depends on what your definition of "random" is, I suppose. I could just as easily ask you to prove that rolled dice give you random results.

Well; you can see the sun rise, could you tell me the last time you saw a rock spring legs and scream "I am alive"?

Why would I? The ideal conditions for abiogenesis have long since passed.

Have you ever taken a plant for a walk?

Why would a plant need to walk? Walking wouldn't help it propogate its genes, so it doesn't walk. Evolution, you see.

I usually am conscious when discussing life - in fact - isn`t your consciousness involved in the application?

It's useful to be conscious when discussing anything, yes, but that doesn't mean that consciousness lets us throw aside all the laws of how the universe can and does behave.

Oh of course; consciousness has nothing at all to do with biology or life; right?

Right. Consciousness is a philosophical matter. It cannot be measured or quantified, and it doesn't have any effects that we can measure, either. Therefore, it is quite irrelevent in a discussion about evolutionary theory.

 

[Bluemofia]

Because; you can make predictions and then test the hypothesis. A law is formed from a theory when the predictions become axioms.

So it's not commonly accepted that Germs cause disease?

Relativity is not subject to the universal as we cannot decipher the "who" - consciosness is tricky like that.

Why does there need a "who" in relativity?

No; evolution is claiming the predictive power of our origins, not our future.

Then bacteria just accidently happen to become antibiotic resistant, and they just happen to be able to digest nylon?

I do not doubt that humans evolve.

Didn't sound like it in that earlier post.

Then; ID is credible.

It is not credible, because it proposes something (also known as God) created life, and macroevolution is impossible due to irreducable complexity and other stuff.

No; abiogenesis has absolutely zero evidence. The very act of creating amino acids is its own demise.

Amino acids have been found in nebule clouds and comets...

Virus mutation is not 'close to' life beginning.

That would be like saying because a ship made of steel can float, therefore; steel can float.

It can self replicate. Besides, the Viruses do not need to use the Host Cell's parts to assemble viruses. They put themselves togeather, after the Host manufactures them with its enzymes. (which DNA can self replicate with only 6 pairs, but slowly.)

And what is the tool you are using to talk about the TOE?

Umm, evidence from biology?

 

[beingofone]

That's based on the assumption that life exactly like ours to evolve.

Since when is reality "an assumptiom"?

And also, if the fine tuning was any different, we won't be here to observe it be different, won't we? So what about the possibility that there are a multitude of universes, each with different laws? And next, how would it stop evolution? We've got life, so it follows TOE. How it comes is irrelevant.

The ID is credible.

beingofone
The problem with evolution is, it cannot be falsified.

Yeah it can. A half frog, half cow can easily do so. Or a creature being created right then and there.

Do you have a magic box?

What about the times when it succeeds? Such as nylon eating bacteria, anti-biotic resistant bacteria, etc.

I am not going to keep repeating myself, look at the above posts of mine.

Abiogenesis, not evolution. Not required for evolution. Besides, viral particles put themselves togeather without needing a cell's enzymes to do so.

The ID is credible and therefore; science.

Evolution is not something we do during our lunch break. It happens over a period of hundreds generations. But it can happen faster or slower, depending on the selective pressures.

Yup; it has never been observed that a plant becomes a fish - ever.

??? That's because they seperated early on. A plant makes its own food. An animal can easily take advantage of a plant, so it won't have to expend energy making its own food. Besides, the earliest kind of cell didn't need to make its own food. It just absorbed the surrounding nutrients from the rich chemical soup.

I do not need a lesson in the theory - make an argument please.

How did a plant become an animal? Give an example - otherwise - its all grand fantasy.

Wait, you are saying that one species can not turn into another? Because this has happened in the wild. Fruit flies and mosquitoes have been observed to do so.

Nope; they mutated. One kind of fruit fly lived in apples, anither lived in pears - still fruit flies and I already know we can adapt.

Are you trying to say that ID can be falsified?

What tests!? If evidence against abiogenesis is so abundent, why not give us a little scrap?

I already did, scroll up and read. Repeating myself on the very same page is not my bag.

Not true. There are some not at all recent experiments in which the conditions of the early Earth were replicated, and the building blocks of life emerged. It's no stretch of the imagination to see that those building blocks would eventually mix in the right way, given a couple billions of years to do so.

Yes I know; amino acids were formed in a self contained, pressurized system.

The conditions for the formation of the amino acids is the environment of its own demise.

Empty words.

I do not have the faith to be an atheist.

You really don't have any idea what you're talking about, do you?

Oh - I can tell you are just here to teach me huh?

Of course there aren't any creatures that are both animal and plant. "If you chase two rabbits, you will lose them both." It's the height of inefficiency to try to persue both strategies.

Kinda like evolution would be? Never mind. You will miss the irony.

Okay; let me spell it out junior. If it is the height of inefficiency to "chase two rabbits, you will lose them both."

What does that tell you? Now think real hard before you respond wise cracker.

Have you considered that this might be because macroevolution works on a timeline beyond the, say, few decades that we've been looking for it?

Well; since I spelled it out - of which you completely ignored - I think I will not bother responding to your inane babble since you do not pay attention at all and are just defending your blind beliefs.

Pay attention or don`t bother. Either you keep up with a conversation and use your head or we have nothing to talk about.

No, scientists don't challenge it because there aren't any legitimate challenges to it. All you're presenting is rhetoric and fallacy.

I just made legit challenges - what do you not understand?

Oh I see - you are a fundy - and your religion is evolution. Yup - another blind believer.

Again, you call it "the theory of Darwin." Perhaps calling it the theory of every educated biologist today would be more accurate.

You are just a wise cracker

Happy holli...- uh - happy jolly ... - uh - merry Chris.. - uh - happy celebration of natural selection in this heart warming season to you.

This proves nothing. That list is just a list of the properties of the universe and of our specific situation. For all you know, different conditions would lead to a different definition of life. Let me try to make this simple for you- if there's no life, there's no one there to question why there's no life. If there is life, then there are creatures that exist to question why there is life. Therefore, we shouldn't be surprised at all that we live in a universe where there is life.

Just like an atheist to make an argument for God and be oblivious to it.

Was that simple enough for you - or do you need me to explain it?

 

[Chandrasekhar]

If you're just going to resort to base attacks and simple lies, I have nothing more to say to you, aside from this: The battle against ID was won before it was started. More and more people across the world are opening their eyes and realizing how ridiculous your claims are. Argue however much you want to; you cannot win.

 

[beingofone]

Chandrasekhar,

Put a sock in it bigmouth - you want to AD HOM me into oblivion and then run crying like a little girl when the tables are turned.

If you don`t like AD HOM`S - don`t use em.

What do you not understand?

 

[Bluemofia]

Since when is reality "an assumptiom"?

That's saying that we do not know of any other life, so thus no other life can exist.

The ID is credible.

A supernatural force is not science. Something that can not be observed or tested is not science.

Do you have a magic box?

Those examples are examples to falsify evolution. We have not seen anything like those, so thus evolution has not been falsified.

I am not going to keep repeating myself, look at the above posts of mine.

Yup; it has never been observed that a plant becomes a fish - ever.

Exactly why Evolution holds true.

I do not need a lesson in the theory - make an argument please.

How did a plant become an animal? Give an example - otherwise - its all grand fantasy.

Other way around. Animal and plant precursors became plants when Chloroplasts became their symbiotes with endosymbiosis. And the ones that had no Chloroplast endosymbiotes became animals.

Nope; they mutated. One kind of fruit fly lived in apples, anither lived in pears - still fruit flies and I already know we can adapt.

Well, that's your macro evolution for you. They now can not interbreed, and they are genetically different from each other enough to be different species.

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

-- Hugh Ross, © 1998, Reasons To Believe

This is equivalent to throwing a dice a hundred thousand trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion times, recording the outcomes and stating: the chance this sequence of hundred thousand trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion throws came out this way is so small, surely an intellegent being steered the outcome. While is merely a look at complete randomness.

This still is and always has been the weakest defence for ID.

 

[beingofone]

beingofone
Since when is reality "an assumptiom"?

Bluemofia:
That's saying that we do not know of any other life, so thus no other life can exist.

Why should we begin the study of an imaginary life form when we have plenty right here?

A supernatural force is not science. Something that can not be observed or tested is not science.

It can be both observed and tested.

Simple; if designer is true therefore, pattern in biology and cosmology.

(snips)Behe points to strongly positive grounds for inferring design from the presence of irreducibly complex machines and circuits. This testable evidence is so powerful, so nearly ubiquitous, that it is often overlooked.

Go out and find irreducibly complex machines, then find out, where possible, their causal history. Again and again one will find that the irreducibly complex machines (mousetraps, motors, etc.) were designed by intelligent agents. Indeed, every time we know the causal history of an irreducibly complex system, it always turns out to have been the product of an intelligent cause.

Miller has conceded that Behe's irreducible complexity argument is testable.

The most decisive way to falsify our argument as a whole would be to find a distant and very different environment, which, while quite hostile to life, nevertheless offers a superior platform for making as many diverse scientific discoveries as does our local environment. The opposite of this would have the same effect—finding an extremely habitable and inhabited place that was a lousy platform for observation.

-- Jay Richards and Jonathan Witt

Intelligen Design Testable

Those examples are examples to falsify evolution. We have not seen anything like those, so thus evolution has not been falsified.

I do not see how.

1)If evolution is true therefore, mutation of epic scale and proportion.

2)If cause and effect in evolution is true, appearence of all possible species, including reptilian/mammal.

3)If evolution is true, lack of uniform species in individual classifications.

In other words; we should see all kinds of hybrids that is void of symmetrical conformity. Phylum categories notwithstanding.

beingofone:
Yup; it has never been observed that a plant becomes a fish - ever.

Bluemofia:
Exactly why Evolution holds true.

Why the double standard?

You expect one theory to be observed and tested.

Now you say that evolution is exempt from observation and testability.

Which is it - do we hold both theories to observation and experimentation or not?

Design would be clearly seen in all possible worlds as it is the razors edge of existence itself.

beingofone
I do not need a lesson in the theory - make an argument please.

How did a plant become an animal? Give an example - otherwise - its all grand fantasy.

Bluemofia:
Other way around. Animal and plant precursors became plants when Chloroplasts became their symbiotes with endosymbiosis. And the ones that had no Chloroplast endosymbiotes became animals.

Explain this please; did they arise together or separate?

beingofone
Nope; they mutated. One kind of fruit fly lived in apples, anither lived in pears - still fruit flies and I already know we can adapt.

Bluemofia:
Well, that's your macro evolution for you. They now can not interbreed, and they are genetically different from each other enough to be different species.

Macroevolution is used to refer to any evolutionary change at or above the level of species.

-- John Wilkins, Macroevolution

Macroevolution means evolution on the grand scale, and it is mainly studied in the fossil record. It is contrasted with microevolution, the study of evolution over short time periods, such as that of a human lifetime or less. Microevolution therefore refers to changes in gene frequency within a population .... Macroevolutionary events events are much more likely to take millions of years. Macroevolution refers to things like the trends in horse evolution ... or the origin of major groups, or mass extinctions, or the Cambrian explosion .... Speciation is the traditional dividing line between micro- and macroevolution.

-- Evolution, Mark Ridley


Show me a fruitfly that has turned into a butterfly. All of the postulates (note, not theory) of macroevolution are not observable nor is there any hard evidence.

It is a soft theory at its very best as we cannot test the postulate.


Ziggy Stardust:

This is equivalent to throwing a dice a hundred thousand trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion times, recording the outcomes and stating: the chance this sequence of hundred thousand trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion throws came out this way is so small, surely an intellegent being steered the outcome. While is merely a look at complete randomness.

If you completely disregard the result it is.

That is saying :"The odds of me being able to comprehend the scale and magnitude of why I exist and its immense complexity is impossible to conceive and yet; I am absolutely certain, under all conditions, of the result of the conclusion of which is random cause and effect."

It is also saying: "I am beyond the definition of possibilities and therefore; I am able to comprehend the nature and function of the totality of the universe."

Or this: "The possibilities of my existence is broad, confused, doubtful, dubious, equivocal, evasive, general, ill-defined, imprecise, indeterminable, indeterminate, indistinct, inexact, inexhaustible, infinite, innumerable, intangible, loose, obscure, shadowy, uncertain, unclear, undefined, undependable, undetermined, unfixed, unknown, unlimited, unsettled, unspecific, unsure, and vague.

But I know without doubt the cause is random."

This still is and always has been the weakest defence for ID.

The universe is; bottomless, boundless, countless, endless, illimitable, immeasurable, immense, incomprehensible, indefinite, inexhaustible, innumerable, measureless, never-ending, no strings, numberless, unbounded, uncalculable, undefined, unending, unfathomable, unlimited, untold, vast, wide open.

But without doubt, it is random and resulted in perfect symmetry for me to see the pattern of blind cause and effect.


If it is random, how could you possibly deduce it to be so? That is a logical impossibility.

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

I never stated existance was random, I said throwing dice is random. I used the example because it also atributes characteristics to the throwing of a dice with which it doesn't have. Just like Hugh Ross does.

See, if there's a favourable set of results (Earth) from throwing a dice and you try the experiment a trillion billion times (other planets) chances are, you are going to get that favourable result.

 

[Erik Mesoy]

Damned multiquote:

beingofone:
Yup; it has never been observed that a plant becomes a fish - ever.

Bluemofia:
Exactly why Evolution holds true.

Why the double standard?

You expect one theory to be observed and tested.

Now you say that evolution is exempt from observation and testability.

Which is it - do we hold both theories to observation and experimentation or not?

Design would be clearly seen in all possible worlds as it is the razors edge of existence itself.

Evolution predicts further speciation between plants and fish, not convergence to one species, so you have misunderstood if you call this a double standard. It is in fact one of the predictions of evolutionary theory: Plants and fish will not suddenly start breeding, just as the theory of gravity states that rocks will not suddenly start falling upwards. The theory of evolution is being held to observation when plants and fish are not interbreeding.

Check post #117. Also, I think this argument needs a new thread and both sides should define the terms they're using, such as "Intelligent Design".

 

[beingofone]

I never stated existance was random, I said throwing dice is random. I used the example because it also attibutes characteristics to the throwing of a dice which it doesn't have. Just like Hugh Ross does.

This is equivalent to throwing a dice a hundred thousand trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion times, recording the outcomes and stating: the chance this sequence of hundred thousand trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion throws came out this way is so small, surely an intellegent being steered the outcome. While is merely a look at complete randomness.

What do you mean please?


Erik Mesoy:

Evolution predicts further speciation between plants and fish, not convergence to one species, so you have misunderstood if you call this a double standard.

Link?

It is in fact one of the predictions of evolutionary theory: Plants and fish will not suddenly start breeding, just as the theory of gravity states that rocks will not suddenly start falling upwards. The theory of evolution is being held to observation when plants and fish are not interbreeding.

The theory of ID is being held to observation when plants and fish are not interbreeding.

How then did they separate?

What was the magnitude of abiogenesis?

Check post #117. Also, I think this argument needs a new thread and both sides should define the terms they're using, such as "Intelligent Design".

The results of mutation of dominate genes regarding post #117 simply means it becomes mysteriously unavailable to testing.

How fortunate that evolution cannot prove its postulate but ID is held to a 'higher' standard.

That does not pass the smell test.

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

What do you mean please?

The statement is:

The chance of Earth being formed like it is is incredibly small, but still, the Earth is there. Because it (the chance, not Earth) is so incredibly small, it (Earth) must have been ID-ed.

The diceroll example:
The chance of the results of a set of a trillion dicethrows to be exacly like the ones I just recorded are so incredibly small, but still those results were thrown, it must be ID-ed.

It doesn't really matter what the alternative is. Earth is here. The results are known. In the case of the dicethrow you are looking at randomness, what alternative explenation of existance there is is not important. You must judge a theory and it's validation on it's own merits.

Therefor I do not believe the incredible small chance explenation to be proof of ID, neither is it proof for any intelligence in dicerolls. Arguing chances backwards in time is also not very helpfull since the chance of Earth happening is 1.

 

[beingofone]

See, if there's a favourable set of results (Earth) from throwing a dice and you try the experiment a trillion billion times (other planets) chances are, you are going to get that favourable result.

If the scale of randomness is of such magnitude as to be incalculable, we can therefore deduce a universal constant of symmetrical predictability?

That does not logically follow. It is in fact a logical absurdity that math remains a constant in a constant state of flux/momentum.