For those that believe in the Theory of Evolution, what explanation can be given for the Cambrian Explosion? If, in fact the Cambrian Explosion cannot be explained with Darwinism/Evolution, what other conclusion can/must be drawn?
[quote]honest_lifter wrote:
For those that believe in the Theory of Evolution, what explanation can be given for the Cambrian Explosion? If, in fact the Cambrian Explosion cannot be explained with Darwinism/Evolution, what other conclusion can/must be drawn?
[/quote]
Darwinism does not / evolution.
A quick Wikipedia search gives several theories on the subject.
How is it proof of ‘Intelligent Design’?
[quote]RATTLEHEAD wrote:
How is it proof of ‘Intelligent Design’?
[/quote]
It doesn’t.
[quote]smh_23 wrote:
[quote]RATTLEHEAD wrote:
How is it proof of ‘Intelligent Design’?
[/quote]
It doesn’t.
[/quote]
I agree it doesn’t. What gives intelligent design theories probability is the tremendous mathematical improbability of accident. However, the only viable counter claim to it, is the many worlds hypothesis, which I don’t believe is a strong objection in the end. Yes, it’s mathematically possible, in that a model can be created in which it could maybe possibly happen, but there is not a single solitary shred of evidence of any chance of actuality. Science requires evidence. Further, it’s the mathematical probability is much smaller than that of intelligent design.
It of course helps if one understands what the intelligent design theory actually is claiming, versus most ad hoc bro-philosophy interpretations of it.
However, the Cambrian explosion is no more a slam dunk for Intelligent Design then any other event in the universe.
By claiming intelligent design for everything we can’t prove today, we risk missing out on a lot of knowledge in the long run.
[quote]pat wrote:
[quote]smh_23 wrote:
[quote]RATTLEHEAD wrote:
How is it proof of ‘Intelligent Design’?
[/quote]
It doesn’t.
[/quote]
I agree it doesn’t. What gives intelligent design theories probability is the tremendous mathematical improbability of accident. However, the only viable counter claim to it, is the many worlds hypothesis, which I don’t believe is a strong objection in the end. Yes, it’s mathematically possible, in that a model can be created in which it could maybe possibly happen, but there is not a single solitary shred of evidence of any chance of actuality. Science requires evidence. Further, it’s the mathematical probability is much smaller than that of intelligent design.
It of course helps if one understands what the intelligent design theory actually is claiming, versus most ad hoc bro-philosophy interpretations of it.
However, the Cambrian explosion is no more a slam dunk for Intelligent Design then any other event in the universe. [/quote]
So you consider multi-worlds improbable based on an infinitely small chance of our universe happening by accident, of which there is no proof- but accept intelligent design over it when there is no objective scientific proof of god either?
I guess if you’re going to choose unproven theories that is as good a method as any.
If were going to do that then I’m going with multiverse based on slight differences in the mass of each universe which results in a change in the rate of the passage of time. They do all exist in the same space AND time just at different rates of time and we are only able to observe the one in which we exist. Like existing through a polarized lens.
Why? Cuz I said so.
[quote]pat wrote:
[quote]smh_23 wrote:
[quote]RATTLEHEAD wrote:
How is it proof of ‘Intelligent Design’?
[/quote]
It doesn’t.
[/quote]
I agree it doesn’t. What gives intelligent design theories probability is the tremendous mathematical improbability of accident. However, the only viable counter claim to it, is the many worlds hypothesis, which I don’t believe is a strong objection in the end. Yes, it’s mathematically possible, in that a model can be created in which it could maybe possibly happen, but there is not a single solitary shred of evidence of any chance of actuality. Science requires evidence. Further, it’s the mathematical probability is much smaller than that of intelligent design.
It of course helps if one understands what the intelligent design theory actually is claiming, versus most ad hoc bro-philosophy interpretations of it.
However, the Cambrian explosion is no more a slam dunk for Intelligent Design then any other event in the universe. [/quote]
The questions are these:
-
What are the odds that things–the particulars of physical constants and parameters, the happenstances of evolutionary history–turned out so well for us, without “god?”
-
What are the odds that “god” caused things to turn out so well for us?
-
Which set of odds is likelier?
The problem is that a probability can be ascribed to neither 1 nor 2, and you will never prove that either is more likely–much less more true–than the other.
Also, puddle thinking.
[quote]espenl wrote:
By claiming intelligent design for everything we can’t prove today, we risk missing out on a lot of knowledge in the long run. [/quote]
How so? I would argue the exact opposite. Imagine, individuals using their entire life’s work in searching for the ‘transitional species’ that would explain Darwin’s ‘Natural Selection’ and then finding none, nada. There have been none of these ‘transitional species’ found, and over 150 years have been spent by many a people all over the world. That time could have been better spent investigating the species.
Claiming Intelligent Design for things does not mean we stop researching. Humans will never stop researching… that is in their nature. If we point the ship in the right direction though, we will make much more progress and fewer dead ends.
[quote]smh_23 wrote:
[quote]pat wrote:
[quote]smh_23 wrote:
[quote]RATTLEHEAD wrote:
How is it proof of ‘Intelligent Design’?
[/quote]
It doesn’t.
[/quote]
I agree it doesn’t. What gives intelligent design theories probability is the tremendous mathematical improbability of accident. However, the only viable counter claim to it, is the many worlds hypothesis, which I don’t believe is a strong objection in the end. Yes, it’s mathematically possible, in that a model can be created in which it could maybe possibly happen, but there is not a single solitary shred of evidence of any chance of actuality. Science requires evidence. Further, it’s the mathematical probability is much smaller than that of intelligent design.
It of course helps if one understands what the intelligent design theory actually is claiming, versus most ad hoc bro-philosophy interpretations of it.
However, the Cambrian explosion is no more a slam dunk for Intelligent Design then any other event in the universe. [/quote]
The questions are these:
-
What are the odds that things–the particulars of physical constants and parameters, the happenstances of evolutionary history–turned out so well for us, without “god?”
-
What are the odds that “god” caused things to turn out so well for us?
-
Which set of odds is likelier?
The problem is that a probability can be ascribed to neither 1 nor 2, and you will never prove that either is more likely–much less more true–than the other.[/quote]
Here is the thing: if there is a God, action is needed on our part. If there isn’t, then nothing is required. The problem people have is the reality is just staring them in the face and they don’t want to accept it. Life was designed, the cell structure, the ‘cambrian explosion’ of species, and complexity of design indicate an intelligent designer, but an alarming number of people don’t want to admit that.
[quote]honest_lifter wrote:
For those that believe in the Theory of Evolution, what explanation can be given for the Cambrian Explosion? If, in fact the Cambrian Explosion cannot be explained with Darwinism/Evolution, what other conclusion can/must be drawn?
[/quote]
It means we don’t have all the answers yet.
For a long time we couldn’t reconcile features of Mercury’s orbit with Newtonian mechanics. Did that mean intelligent orbital tinkering? No, we had to wait for Einstein to find the solution.
It’s ok to say “we don’t know yet.” It’s not rational to say “we don’t know yet so it must be this.”
[quote]honest_lifter wrote:
[quote]espenl wrote:
By claiming intelligent design for everything we can’t prove today, we risk missing out on a lot of knowledge in the long run. [/quote]
How so? I would argue the exact opposite. Imagine, individuals using their entire life’s work in searching for the ‘transitional species’ that would explain Darwin’s ‘Natural Selection’ and then finding none, nada. There have been none of these ‘transitional species’ found, and over 150 years have been spent by many a people all over the world. That time could have been better spent investigating the species.
Claiming Intelligent Design for things does not mean we stop researching. Humans will never stop researching… that is in their nature. If we point the ship in the right direction though, we will make much more progress and fewer dead ends.[/quote]
What exactly is a transitional species?
[quote]SkyzykS wrote:
[quote]pat wrote:
[quote]smh_23 wrote:
[quote]RATTLEHEAD wrote:
How is it proof of ‘Intelligent Design’?
[/quote]
It doesn’t.
[/quote]
I agree it doesn’t. What gives intelligent design theories probability is the tremendous mathematical improbability of accident. However, the only viable counter claim to it, is the many worlds hypothesis, which I don’t believe is a strong objection in the end. Yes, it’s mathematically possible, in that a model can be created in which it could maybe possibly happen, but there is not a single solitary shred of evidence of any chance of actuality. Science requires evidence. Further, it’s the mathematical probability is much smaller than that of intelligent design.
It of course helps if one understands what the intelligent design theory actually is claiming, versus most ad hoc bro-philosophy interpretations of it.
However, the Cambrian explosion is no more a slam dunk for Intelligent Design then any other event in the universe. [/quote]
So you consider multi-worlds improbable based on an infinitely small chance of our universe happening by accident, of which there is no proof- but accept intelligent design over it when there is no objective scientific proof of god either?
I guess if you’re going to choose unproven theories that is as good a method as any.
If were going to do that then I’m going with multiverse based on slight differences in the mass of each universe which results in a change in the rate of the passage of time. They do all exist in the same space AND time just at different rates of time and we are only able to observe the one in which we exist. Like existing through a polarized lens.
Why? Cuz I said so.
[/quote]
What do you refer to as ‘proof’?
[quote]honest_lifter wrote:
[quote]smh_23 wrote:
[quote]pat wrote:
[quote]smh_23 wrote:
[quote]RATTLEHEAD wrote:
How is it proof of ‘Intelligent Design’?
[/quote]
It doesn’t.
[/quote]
I agree it doesn’t. What gives intelligent design theories probability is the tremendous mathematical improbability of accident. However, the only viable counter claim to it, is the many worlds hypothesis, which I don’t believe is a strong objection in the end. Yes, it’s mathematically possible, in that a model can be created in which it could maybe possibly happen, but there is not a single solitary shred of evidence of any chance of actuality. Science requires evidence. Further, it’s the mathematical probability is much smaller than that of intelligent design.
It of course helps if one understands what the intelligent design theory actually is claiming, versus most ad hoc bro-philosophy interpretations of it.
However, the Cambrian explosion is no more a slam dunk for Intelligent Design then any other event in the universe. [/quote]
The questions are these:
-
What are the odds that things–the particulars of physical constants and parameters, the happenstances of evolutionary history–turned out so well for us, without “god?”
-
What are the odds that “god” caused things to turn out so well for us?
-
Which set of odds is likelier?
The problem is that a probability can be ascribed to neither 1 nor 2, and you will never prove that either is more likely–much less more true–than the other.[/quote]
Here is the thing: if there is a God, action is needed on our part. If there isn’t, then nothing is required. The problem people have is the reality is just staring them in the face and they don’t want to accept it. Life was designed, the cell structure, the ‘cambrian explosion’ of species, and complexity of design indicate an intelligent designer, but an alarming number of people don’t want to admit that.
[/quote]
Why would god require an “action” from us?
Why is it alarming that the most educated people in the world don’t believe what you do?
Reality tells me that god may or may not exist. I see no proof whatsoever so the null hypothesis holds sway for now. Can you read my thoughts and tell that I simply don’t want to admit that god exists?
[quote]honest_lifter wrote:
Easter Island Heads: Created
[/quote]
Easter Island Heads don’t reproduce therefore they can’t evolve.
[quote]darsemnos wrote:
[quote]honest_lifter wrote:
[quote]smh_23 wrote:
[quote]pat wrote:
[quote]smh_23 wrote:
[quote]RATTLEHEAD wrote:
How is it proof of ‘Intelligent Design’?
[/quote]
It doesn’t.
[/quote]
I agree it doesn’t. What gives intelligent design theories probability is the tremendous mathematical improbability of accident. However, the only viable counter claim to it, is the many worlds hypothesis, which I don’t believe is a strong objection in the end. Yes, it’s mathematically possible, in that a model can be created in which it could maybe possibly happen, but there is not a single solitary shred of evidence of any chance of actuality. Science requires evidence. Further, it’s the mathematical probability is much smaller than that of intelligent design.
It of course helps if one understands what the intelligent design theory actually is claiming, versus most ad hoc bro-philosophy interpretations of it.
However, the Cambrian explosion is no more a slam dunk for Intelligent Design then any other event in the universe. [/quote]
The questions are these:
-
What are the odds that things–the particulars of physical constants and parameters, the happenstances of evolutionary history–turned out so well for us, without “god?”
-
What are the odds that “god” caused things to turn out so well for us?
-
Which set of odds is likelier?
The problem is that a probability can be ascribed to neither 1 nor 2, and you will never prove that either is more likely–much less more true–than the other.[/quote]
Here is the thing: if there is a God, action is needed on our part. If there isn’t, then nothing is required. The problem people have is the reality is just staring them in the face and they don’t want to accept it. Life was designed, the cell structure, the ‘cambrian explosion’ of species, and complexity of design indicate an intelligent designer, but an alarming number of people don’t want to admit that.
[/quote]
I see no proof whatsoever so the null hypothesis holds sway for now.
[/quote]
I had to Google this term. However, can you please explain how you are using this here? We have proof. It is walking around us. Growing around us. People look at hieroglyphics and think, ‘who wrote that?’. Yet, when we see moving, talking, creatures, we dismiss it as not proof. It is intrinsically proof, just like the hieroglyphics, no?