[quote]lothario1132 wrote:
All we can say in a scientific way is that the order exists… we can’t draw the conclusion that there is an intelligent personality behind it. And really, why would we assign a personality to a force of nature to begin with? What would be the point? Is there an agenda being served here that has more to do with religion, and not necessarily a scientific truth?
[/quote]
Unlike xvim, you seem to understand the issue, so here is my point.
So let me ask you, if this is true and; “All we can say in a scientific way is that the order exists… we can’t draw the conclusion that”, then isn’t assigning this order to an evolutionary system still drawing a conclusion? Yes, it is.
I agree that it is scientific to state the fact: there is order from chaos in nature. But any further explanation beyond WHY there is order is an unfounded speculative conclusion. If you are honest you will agree that is accurate.
Now what I want you to understand is that the chaos to order phenomenon is occurring within a system (nature). And you cannot accurately know if that is inherent properties of those cells or molecules involved unless you can remove these substances from the system to see if they will behave similarly.
For example, within earth’s atmosphere all things fall at a rate proportional to their mass. So we say that is an inherent property of the thing falling. Yet, when we take these same objects, lets say a brick and a feather, and place them outside their normal system into a vacuum (where all air has been removed) we find that these items fall at the same rate regardless of mass.
So we find out that the behavior of a brick and a feather falling to earth is not its mass (or its inherent property) but the atmosphere or system in which they are contained.
So my point is that you cannot know that molecules can go from chaos to order as an inherent property until you can take them out of their system to test that. So you don’t know if it’s the system that dictates the behavior or if it is inherent in all matter. If it’s inherent in all matter then you have a better case for evolution. But if, like the feather and brick, it is dictated by the system they reside in, then it is a better case for ID.
I realize this discussion gets out of hand because where do you stop? How big a system are we talking about? (i.e. world, universe, galaxy, etc)
I’m sure I have lost xvim and others on this, but I think you have the gray matter to get it.
[quote]Lorisco wrote:
So let me ask you, if this is true and; “All we can say in a scientific way is that the order exists… we can’t draw the conclusion that”, then isn’t assigning this order to an evolutionary system still drawing a conclusion? Yes, it is. [/quote]
Not quite. Evolution is not a conclusion, it is the expression of a scientific process – order from chaos – like the expression of gravitation resulting in an object appearing to fall. It is just another way of nature. There is no scientific conclusion at why the evolution happens. Like I said before, if you want to say that God did it, that’s perfectly fine. However, that is religion and not science. You are never going to be able to use science to draw any conclusions about anything supernatural, because science is literally unable to do so. ID cannot ever be science because it relies on the supernatural.
If the problem here is you don’t think that evolution happens, then I would like to direct you to the beginning of this thread and start reading. There have been numerous posts regarding this, and I would hate to waste your time by repeating everything.
Let me just add: We are at the point in our knowledge now where we are fine-tuning the “hows” of the evolutionary process, because pure random gene mutation cannot account for all the changes which have occurred throughout the millenia. Here’s some cool hows for your consideration:
Gene transfer (from organelles to nucleus and vice-versa):
This last one creeped me out. It’s kind of like your offspring ending up as half-cat/half-human because you spent a lot of time around felines. Freaky, huh? And it’s real. Our DNA is not some selective thing… it’s like a book which just takes pages from other books and gives them away to other books. Sometimes it changes the story just a little bit, sometimes a lot, sometimes it kills the book. But when you’re talking about many many generations, and quadrillions of bacteria (like the freshwater lake example in the last link), sooner or later, the gene transfer is going to succeed. Do not underestimate the power of the force.
Of course I agree… this is what I’ve been saying since page one. We can’t say why, that’s not the job of science. Say it was God, invisible alien leprechauns, just the way it is, whatever. I think this is weird that you have taken a contrary position to me in this thread, and then wrote this paragraph above. Are you seeing the light?
[quote]Now what I want you to understand is that the chaos to order phenomenon is occurring within a system (nature). And you cannot accurately know if that is inherent properties of those cells or molecules involved unless you can remove these substances from the system to see if they will behave similarly.
For example, within earth’s atmosphere all things fall at a rate proportional to their mass. So we say that is an inherent property of the thing falling. Yet, when we take these same objects, lets say a brick and a feather, and place them outside their normal system into a vacuum (where all air has been removed) we find that these items fall at the same rate regardless of mass.
So we find out that the behavior of a brick and a feather falling to earth is not its mass (or its inherent property) but the atmosphere or system in which they are contained.
So my point is that you cannot know that molecules can go from chaos to order as an inherent property until you can take them out of their system to test that. So you don’t know if it’s the system that dictates the behavior or if it is inherent in all matter. If it’s inherent in all matter then you have a better case for evolution. But if, like the feather and brick, it is dictated by the system they reside in, then it is a better case for ID.
I realize this discussion gets out of hand because where do you stop? How big a system are we talking about? (i.e. world, universe, galaxy, etc)
I’m sure I have lost xvim and others on this, but I think you have the gray matter to get it.
[/quote]
Okay, so you’re speculating that the order to chaos is a property of our planet, rather than a normality in the universe? So we fly out to Alpha Centauri and try the M-U again? Hmm… I’m sorry, but that’s really reaching. And what does that say about ID anyway? Oh… maybe that our planet is double-special because this is the only place where order happens? I don’t know man, that’s kinda crazy.
I’m wondering right now if you think that evolution is wrong because your religious leaders have told you so, or because you don’t believe the science discoveries, the fossil record, the many many experiments, the observations in medicine, botany, marine biology, microbiology, molecular biology, etc., etc. So what is it? Are you one of those “I’m not a monkey” people?
…the science discoveries, the fossil record, the many many experiments, the observations in medicine, botany, marine biology, microbiology, molecular biology, etc., etc. So what is it? Are you one of those “I’m not a monkey” people? [/quote]
Sorry, pard. You’re talking speciation here, not macroevolution and not “something from nothing”. All of the above (in your post) is (or should be if you want to be accurate) referring to speciation and adaptation.
[quote]Lorisco wrote:
Unlike xvim, you seem to understand the issue, so here is my point.
I’m sure I have lost xvim and others on this, but I think you have the gray matter to get it.
[/quote]
At first I almost felt insulted by these unwarrented personal attacks. Upon reflection I just find them amusing considering the source.
The transition from order to chaos is observable outside of the confines of our system, the orbits of the planets, the behaviour of magnetic fields, the behaviour of particles/elements is systematic and predictable. Whether individual cells or organisms behave differently in systems outside of the confines of the earth is irrelevant, it would be nice to know if cells would behave similarly in a different system, the fact that they behave the way they do in this system, the one in which they evolved is in no way indicative of their ‘design’ it’s simply indicative that they are what they are and behave the way they behave.
You can choose to infer that the order you see in this system must be the result of an outside control but why? You choose to ascribe some complex external creator but you end up just creating another dilema. If your position is that for order to exist it must be created then it begs the question that the creator is an ordered being that must also have some external ordered creator. So either the progression from order to chaos is in fact a natural occurance or there is some infinitely regressing chain of semi-omnimpotent beings who seem to enjoy creating flawed, sometimes unstable systems so that they can have a personal relationship with human beings.
…the science discoveries, the fossil record, the many many experiments, the observations in medicine, botany, marine biology, microbiology, molecular biology, etc., etc. So what is it? Are you one of those “I’m not a monkey” people?
Sorry, pard. You’re talking speciation here, not macroevolution and not “something from nothing”. All of the above (in your post) is (or should be if you want to be accurate) referring to speciation and adaptation.[/quote]
Look at the context. I had switched from abiogenesis to general evolution, which is what Lorisco finds issue with, just like you. As I recall, you and push don’t even find the idea of species arising from each other palatable. Maybe I could direct the question to you as well?
[quote]throttle132 wrote:
For the record, I’m not one of those monkey people.
[/quote]
LOL So you don’t mind being a descendant of a monkey? Is there a line to draw somewhere though?
“Well okay, we share 99% of our DNA with chimpanzees, I’m kinda busted there… but there’s NO WAY I’m a descendant of a tiny mammal who evolved after the dinosaurs were felled by that meteor a few millionty years ago!! NO WAY!!!”
Just curious. Where do you draw the line, and why? I mean, why draw a line to begin with?
Modred has answered the questions posited about the possible origin of the universe and matter, of course he rightfully ignored the loaded questions that presupose a false answer. The fact that you don’t want to make any attempt to understand the answers doesn’t mean they weren’t answered. I don’t think you’re too stupid to understand I think you’re just choosing ignorance because the answers conflict with your faith. You’re not asking the questions hoping for real answers, because you’ve been given real answers and in each case your response to those answers has been to deny their validity because they conflict with your dogma. No smoke screens, no obfuscations, real answers that you patently dismiss without understanding.
Every question about the mechanics of evolution and why evolution is a valid scientific theory have also been answerded ad nauseum. Again, the answers conflict with your particular faith so you dismiss them or pretend they haven’t been presented dozens of times in this thread. When backed into a corner with scientific facts and solid logical arguments you respond with a hodge podge of logical fallacies and scripture. Honestly, slamming a ball peen hammer into my skull repeatedly would be more productive than talking to you about this topic.
Fortunately you’re in the minority and most Christians don’t have so much trouble reconciling science with their faith. You do realize that the majority of ‘evolutionists’ (again what does that mean exactly?) are also people who believe in God? Evolution makes no claims about god, it’s not some atheist plot, it’s a theory developed in large part, by scientists who are also christian. Gallileo didn’t propose the concept of a helio centric solar system because he was an atheist or ‘hated the idea of God,’ he did it because he observed the natural world and based on his observation he was forced to draw certain conclusions, they just happened to conflict with the current popular dogma. Unfortunately for him, he was in the minority at the time, fortunately for open minded, reasonable, thinking Christians, you are in the minority now.
4 months since this thread started and still nothing but religious dogma and denial of observable phenomena in the natural world.
