Intellegent Design

I am going to read "a Brief History of Time" by Stephen Hawking, which apparently ends up giving almost irrefutable evidence for Intelligent design (a mathematical proof, with the only assumption being the laws of general relativity (which have a lot of evidence)) and shows that time had a beginning which would discredit the "with enough time and enough matter" argument. I will have to read it before I can seriously comment, though.

Quote:

---

The main problem with intelligent design is that this universe is NOT perfect.

---

Many Christians argue that this is only the case because of the fall of mankind. (sin)

Quote:

---

If this universe follows mathematical law, then all laws of probability apply. When the laws of probability are applied, everything becomes uncertain. The fact that uncertainties exist disprove an orderly universe. Of course, when probability is applied all laws become false, as there exists a possibility of something different happening. All things are uncertain.

---

I don't think rigorous mathematical proofs have any uncertainties except in those assumptions placed on them. If what I've heard is correct about the book, then all you can argue is that general relativity is not true, which is a very weak argument.

Quote:

---

NO. LIES. HERESY! You do NOT have that number! The odds of you having that number are astronomical! There's a one in a QUADRILLION* chance of you getting the number in front of you. Clearly GOD created that number.

---

The probability of the evolution occuring so far has been narrowed to less than 1/10^2XX. (not a large number and this was even using favorable (to evolution happening) constraints and it is getting smaller and smaller as we learn more) The "we are here aren't we" argument is a very weak argument for evolution happening.
Since you typed the above statement, you obviously don't understand the concepts of intelligent design. If God (or Gods) exist and decided to make a world like the one we live in, there is no probability whatsoever involved. Furthermore, each time the probabilty of evolution or equivalent is shown to be less then previously thought, the probability of intelligent design goes up. Even if evolution had 1% chance of happening, it still would be easily outweighed by the other 99%. Believe in the <.000000001% if you wish, but I personally do not like that probability.

We wouldn't be here to wonder about it if it didn't happen. You can't go back and say OH, that was nearly impossible! Roll a 10 sided die 300 times if you must, the die isn't going to disappear in a puff of logic because the sequence you rolled was almost impossible. It was possible and it did happen.

I was going to post the EXACT arguments Doomgaze posted, but I'm not sure how true they are. Though they seem true.

http://www.creationtheory.org/index.php is a good site which gives rather convincing (and sometimes harsh) arguments countering most of the pseudo-science that a lot of creationists use. It deals a lot with probability and the "evolution is just too unlikely" sorts of arguments which people have mentioned in this thread. Probability is something that is very counter-intuitive.

[qq=DeBlayde]The speed of rotation of this planet around the axis seems to be slowing. a few years ago, an atomic clock (accurate to 1/10000th of a second) had to be set one second back because of this effect (this isn't somebody's idea, this was a researched and published thing). now IF this is a trend that has been happening for a long time, then 65 million years ago, the world would have been spinning so fast as to be unable to support life.[/qq]

I grew 6 inches during my teenage years. Looking at those six years, I apparently grow at a rate of approximately one inch per year. Therefore, IF this is a trend, by the time I'm 80 years old, I will be almost 11 feet tall.

Solution: Not everything is not a trend. To quote my 10th grade physics teacher: Extrapolation is dangerous.

Quote:

---

We wouldn't be here to wonder about it if it didn't happen. You can't go back and say OH, that was nearly impossible! Roll a 10 sided die 300 times if you must, the die isn't going to disappear in a puff of logic because the sequence you rolled was almost impossible. It was possible and it did happen.

---

Exactly my point, if I ask you how we got here, you say "we're here aren't we" that in itself is absolutely no help to the theory of evolution. That only comes if you believe evolution already, it is a circular argument.

As to Dr Unne's website, this guy is horribly biased and does things that he says we do. First of all, evolution is a theory which is unproven and even has little evidence for it's truth. (you can post a link on this if you want) This is not an argument of science against
creation (whatever you want to think), this is an argument of creation against evolution.

Quote:

---

"I can list examples of incompetent scientists, therefore all scientists are incompetent, and all of science is worthless".

---

He says creationist say this and then uses this fallacy the other way around by attacking creationists who quite possibly have not formed their arguments/models perfectly. One thing I've noticed (and I'm not a biologist) is that almost all his arguments are based on the existence of this theoretical molecule that can reproduce itself chemically and make a cell. (if I misunderstood that part please correct me) I just want to say something about argument, an Ad Hominem argument is an argument that uses people to prove your beliefs. This is what he attempts to use. He basically says.
1. The creationists models are wrong.
Therefore
Creation is wrong.
This is fallacious even if he could prove #1. (which is impossible of course)

Now on to new earth/old earth. I think it is quite possible that time dilation could make the earth seem (to us) to be billions of years old, but this is not the main argument I care about anyways.

Quote:

---

Extrapolation is dangerous

---

Also commonly used in evolutionary theory, but I won't count that against evolution so as not to make an Ad Hominem argument.

Quote:

---

We wouldn't be here to wonder about it if it didn't happen. You can't go back and say OH, that was nearly impossible! Roll a 10 sided die 300 times if you must, the die isn't going to disappear in a puff of logic because the sequence you rolled was almost impossible. It was possible and it did happen.

---

If the mathematical proof and it's premises are true, then intelligent design has a 100% (the integer) chance of happening. Therefore the dice argument is irrelevant.

Quote:

---

It was possible and it did happen.

---

Sorry, but I couldn't help but cringe at this statement. You just said evolution was not a theory.

This is the only thing the site managed to prove. That the amino acid arguments do not show that evolution is impossible, but we already knew that. It didn't even sucessfully stop those arguments from discrediting evolution, because all it could prove is that those models are not necessarily good representations.

So is gravity, but it seems to be working fairly well for me.

Quote:

---

So is gravity, but it seems to be working fairly well for me.

---

Evolution is a poorly supported one and cannot be tested for truth, (unlike gravity) but I will allow you guys to argue this point. General relativity on the other hand, has about as much proof as gravity. (the principles of gravity are called the law of universal gravitation and Evolution is called the theory of evolution)

Most of Newton's theories have beem disproven, actually :)

Anyway. Basically, the arguement against evolution is that Yes, microevolution exists, but I am incapable of comprehending the vastness of time, so macroevolution does not exist. Besides, even if you were somehow able to disprove evolution, it wouldn't make the fairy tale about an invisible man creating mankind any more true.

Quote:

---

Anyway. Basically, the arguement against evolution is that Yes, microevolution exists, but I am incapable of comprehending the vastness of time, so macroevolution does not exist. Besides, even if you were somehow able to disprove evolution, it wouldn't make the fairy tale about an invisible man creating mankind any more true.

---

I hate to break this to you Doomgaze, if Hawking's argument is what I've heard, it would prove creation. (as I've said with the assumption of general relativity which has been tested extensively and will continue to be) Saying, microevolution is the same thing as macroevolution just on a smaller scale is what we creationists disagree with. Small changes are one thing, changing into an entire different species is another. As one evolutionist so perfectly put it, "if colds can evolve, so can we", I am not going to assume that even most of the people in support of evolution are like that, but it still is an argument similar to the micro-evolution implies macro-evolution argument. Personally, I think the enough time and macro-evolution will happen by a series of micro-evolutions argument is very weak because has not been observed (we haven't seen any partly evolved beings, which we would see if it was that slow) as a result, evolution is simply based on faith not science. Last thing, the principles of evolution are based on things evolving (getting better), would you come up with some examples of good mutations or are we supposedly at the top of the evolutionary chain.

Quote:

---

Most of Newton's theories have beem disproven, actually

---

Not Gravity though, that is why it remains a law. (it has been tested, so it is a law until proven otherwise.) Most likely if gravity is found to not be true in all cases, the law will just be modified, because it has made it through all the tests so far.

I can't say I'm familiar with the details of Hawking's work, but I have read some of it. He's a physicist, you know - I'm not sure why you're trying to twist his work to fit an issue of biology... Are you saying it somehow proves creationism because it says time has a beginning? I don't quite understand. The origins of the universe have nothing to do with evolution.

"Small changes are one thing, changing into an entire different species is another. "
No. No it is not. If you personally can't comprehend the sum effects of change over long periods of time, that's your own problem.

""if colds can evolve, so can we""
Indeed.

"Personally, I think the enough time and macro-evolution will happen by a series of micro-evolutions argument is very weak because has not been observed"
It's quite possible, and this is just a conjecture, that you are not several million years old.

"(we haven't seen any partly evolved beings, which we would see if it was that slow) "
What do you mean, "partly evolved"? There's not some ideal state that all creatures aspire to. If you mean "in the process of evolving" that would be pretty much every creature on Earth. Vestigial organs, for example - these are loose ends very slowly being tied up.

"evolution is simply based on faith not science."
No, there's plenty of evidence. I might suggest you read a middle school textbook. Make sure it's not from a southern state, just in case. Once you actually understand the theory of evolution (that is, the theory about how the fact of evolution proceeds) perhaps you can read some more advanced materials.

"the principles of evolution are based on things evolving (getting better) would you come up with some examples of good mutations or are we supposedly at the top of the evolutionary chain."
No, not really. See, "better" is not an absolute. Is the intelligence to build weapons to kill people who disagree with your God "better"? Maybe. Sickle cell anemia makes you more resistant to malaria. Is that better? Depends if you live in the rainforest or not, doesn't it?


EDIT: Many of his theories do not hold up at a quantum level. Quantum physics isn't really my forte, so I don't know if gravity is included in that.

Quote:

---

I can't say I'm familiar with the details of Hawking's work, but I have read some of it. He's a physicist, you know - I'm not sure why you're trying to twist his work to fit an issue of biology... Are you saying it somehow proves creationism because it says time has a beginning? I don't quite understand. The origins of the universe have nothing to do with evolution.

---

Well, actually, the origins of the universe in what the topic is about. What I have heard is that the book proves 1. Time had a beginning. 2. Matter had a beginning 3. A causal being outside of time created (I think this is meant to be Time and Matter, but I really have to read the book before I can use it properly in this argument.) The only reason this thread is relevant to evolution is because evolutionists are the main group which attempts to come up with a theory different than creation.

Quote:

---

Sickle cell anemia makes you more resistant to malaria. Is that better?

---

Not really, because it causes many more problems then it resolves. (I knew you would mention it though) I don't think anyone would really want to have sickle cell anemia just to be resistant to malaria.

Quote:

---

EDIT: Many of his theories do not hold up at a quantum level. Quantum physics isn't really my forte, so I don't know if gravity is included in that.

---

I know that, though, like you, I am not sure about gravity and Quantum mechanics. If it does not hold at the quantum level, they probably changed the law to not include it.(but I am pretty sure it still works at the quantum level because it would probably stop being called the law of universal gravitation otherwise)

Quote:

---

What do you mean, "partly evolved"? There's not some ideal state that all creatures aspire to. If you mean "in the process of evolving" that would be pretty much every creature on Earth. Vestigial organs, for example - these are loose ends very slowly being tied up.

---

I mean like a being which is half human-half ape or equivalent.

Quote:

---

No. No it is not. If you personally can't comprehend the sum effects of change over long periods of time, that's your own problem.

---

even if it took a billion years for one species to evolve to the next species, there should be some evidence that can be viewed in creatures.

Before I begin, I'd like to start by saying I'm agnostic. I don't know whether or not there is a god or gods, I have seen no evidence pointing either way, and I have no business making an argument as to whether there is or isn't.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DeBlayde

another interesting note: The speed of rotation of this planet around the axis seems to be slowing. a few years ago, an atomic clock (accurate to 1/10000th of a second) had to be set one second back because of this effect (this isn't somebody's idea, this was a researched and published thing). now IF this is a trend that has been happening for a long time, then 65 million years ago, the world would have been spinning so fast as to be unable to support life.

---

That's drag caused by the moon. When the planet was new, yeah, days were indeed shorter. They were about 14 hours long 3 billion years ago, if I recall correctly.

The slowdown would continue until the same side of the earth always faced the moon, except the sun isn't going to last that long - it's only got another 5.7 billion years left or so.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Auronheart

I don't think rigorous mathematical proofs have any uncertainties except in those assumptions placed on them. If what I've heard is correct about the book, then all you can argue is that general relativity is not true, which is a very weak argument.

---

Until you factor quantum physics. Under quantum physics, as I am led to understand it, everything involves probability and uncertainty; under quantum physics, literally anything is possible, though most of it is extraordinarily unlikely.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Doomgaze

EDIT: Many of his theories do not hold up at a quantum level. Quantum physics isn't really my forte, so I don't know if gravity is included in that.

---

You're right there. Gravity breaks at the quantum level. One of the biggest problems in physics is how to marry quantum mechanics and relativity.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Auronheart

What I have heard is that the book proves 1. Time had a beginning. 2. Matter had a beginning 3. A causal being outside of time created (I think this is meant to be Time and Matter, but I really have to read the book before I can use it properly in this argument.) The only reason this thread is relevant to evolution is because evolutionists are the main group which attempts to come up with a theory different than creation.

---

That theory's been around in scientific circles for a long time - the big bang theory specifically states that there was a beginning to time, matter, and space itself. It's not a perfect theory either - otherwise it would explain why it seems that the universe's expansion is accellerating rather then decelerating, among other things, but it's a good start with plenty of evidence, both mathmatical and observational.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Auronheart

even if it took a billion years for one species to evolve to the next species, there should be some evidence that can be viewed in creatures.

---

And most of that evidence lies in DNA. For instance, the fact that human and chimpanzee DNA is 95-99% identical. (I can't remember the exact figure.)

Anyway, evolution probably isn't exactly how things happened. But it's the best guess we've got, and is therefore worth investigating. By investigating the best guesses we have, we get closer to the truth.

My biggest problem with evolution is that if it's true then not only did it somehow manage to form a human being, it manage do to it TWICE. Two things evolved from random processes that were so similar and they happened to be able to get together and have offspring. That more than doubles the probability factor.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by eestlinc

How exactly has evolution been proven to be impossible? How would you go about even trying to prove something like that?

---

Anything with odds greater than 10 to the 50th power is considered effectively impossile.

Apparently, in a billion year time period, considering the absolute best chances possible, the chance that the ocean would turn out in favor of creating life is about 10 to the power of 130.

It's 10 to the 160th power to 1 that, after the ocean (Which has an indefined origin, which I may as well point out right now) will create 1 of thousands of necessary amino acids required for a bacteria over the course of a 5 billion year time period.

Ultimately, considering our physics and considering the alloted amount of time evolution had to take place, the odds are 10 to the 340 millionth power to 1.

When 10 to the 50th is considered impossible, generally.

--------------------

Of course, this is all Creationist theory and creationist science. I don't really understand why Unne called it a pseudo-science. But my sources are fairly sound, as far as I can tell.

But anyway, that's why I said that the odds of evolution are proven to be far more unlikely that "impossible." And, to be honest, I don't hear evolutionists giving themselves greater odds, ever.
It seems that they just keep trying to study and increase their odds. Which is why I suggest that we drop the idea of evolution and try to think of some other way that the world and it's many creatures could be created (Scientifically).

Otherwise, if I may add, this argument seems to be going nowhere. Everything's been said. Evolution is unlikely and God is a bizarre, from a scientific standpoint, goofy idea to consider.

Er, that is, besides the the useless math.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by theundeadhero

My biggest problem with evolution is that if it's true then not only did it somehow manage to form a human being, it manage do to it TWICE. Two things evolved from random processes that were so similar and they happened to be able to get together and have offspring. That more than doubles the probability factor.

---

It's a lot more likely that humans evolved gradually from chimpanzees, to the point where there were two separate strands of beings, one which were chimpanzees, one which were what are now called humans. Humans didn't just suddenly turn up one day, there was a very slow progression until one day they were significantly different enough from chimpanzees to be considered their own species. As with every other species that has been formed.

Besides, as has already been pointed out, probability is irrelevant where evolution is concerned.

Not to mention that he or some creationist pulled that number out of thin air.

"Of course, this is all Creationist theory and creationist science. I don't really understand why Unne called it a pseudo-science. But my sources are fairly sound, as far as I can tell."

No, there would need to be science for it to be a scientific theory, or science at all. Inserting miracles negates any possibility of it being taken seriously.

"Evolution is unlikely"
The theory of how evolution occurs may be questionable, as it is an imperfect and possibly even incorrect model. Abiogenesis certainly is questionable, as any evidence of how life started on this planet is most likely long since gone (note that this has nothing to do with evolution). The FACT of evolution, that life has progressed from simpler forms to more complex ones, is not seriously doubted by anyone but religous zealots and people ignorant of science.


EDIT: This addresses your probability, not that it has much to do with evolution