28 Dec 05
Originally posted by KellyJayThe point is that food supplies and environmental conditions, among other things, are what make speciation more likely instead of less likely. Natural selection is the point, things mutate randomly and the ones who gain an advantage will survive or reproduce more.
I'll look forward to your spread sheet and the formula that you use.
I would say that 80% is quite low, since we are attempting to look
at life, there are more than a coin flip of variables at play, food
supply, environmental, bad mutations and so on. You’re not going to
be able to put them all in which is good for you since it would only
decrease your ...[text shortened]... n additional 20% of the failures
to pass no matter what, than that is what you require.
Kelly
28 Dec 05
Originally posted by KellyJayI'm writing it at present - taking up a bit of time since I'm making it a little more complex than the original stated idea... bear with me.
I'll look forward to your spread sheet and the formula that you use.
I would say that 80% is quite low, since we are attempting to look
at life, there are more than a coin flip of variables at play, food
supply, environmental, bad mutations and so on. You’re not going to
be able to put them all in which is good for you since it would only
decrease your ...[text shortened]... n additional 20% of the failures
to pass no matter what, than that is what you require.
Kelly
28 Dec 05
Originally posted by UmbrageOfSnowI see, what were the conditions that were present when life came from
The point is that food supplies and environmental conditions, among other things, are what make speciation more likely instead of less likely. Natural selection is the point, things mutate randomly and the ones who gain an advantage will survive or reproduce more.
non-life, and how did those conditions improved over time keeping
the process going? What was the food supply, what was the
atmoisphere like, where did life begin, on land, the air, water, and on
and on? From the descriptions of an early planet I have always heard
about, the conditions were on the harsh side. The conditions you are
about to tell me about, are they matters of fact or beliefs rooted in
your logic or someone else’s.
Kelly
28 Dec 05
1 edit
Originally posted by KellyJayNot really. How would you disprove ID?
That cannot be right, ID sort of fits that doesn't it?
Kelly
EDIT: Scientific theories have to be 'falsifiable'; i.e. they have to make predictions about observations which, if observed to be outside the normal bounds of experimental error, would disprove the theory.
28 Dec 05
Originally posted by lucifershammerAbsolutely. The problem is that without describing what exactly we are looking for, anything that currently lacks are satisfactory natural explaination can be chalked up as "intelligent design." In a sense, it's very much like "god of the gaps," where every gap in our current knowledge is fill by a god. The key difference is simply that ID removes the word god and replaces it with intelligent designer. As Judge Jones III ruled after listening to ID's chief advocate, Michael Behe, the difference between ID and creationism is only semantic.
Not really. How would you disprove ID?
EDIT: Scientific theories have to be 'falsifiable'; i.e. they have to make predictions about observations which, if observed to be outside the normal bounds of experimental error, would disprove the theory.
28 Dec 05
Originally posted by telerionDo you think a falsifiable theory can incorporate supernatural elements into it?
Absolutely. The problem is that without describing what exactly we are looking for, anything that currently lacks are satisfactory natural explaination can be chalked up as "intelligent design." In a sense, it's very much like "god of the gaps," where every gap in our current knowledge is fill by a god. The key difference is simply that ID removes the wo ...[text shortened]... chief advocate, Michael Behe, the difference between ID and creationism is only semantic.
28 Dec 05
Originally posted by telerionReplace the word ID with Theory of Evolution and you get the same problem. Evolutionism is not a satisfactory explanation either, but that's what it does, fill the gaps. Why do that teach such crap if they are not willing to allow equally reasonable explanations?
Absolutely. The problem is that without describing what exactly we are looking for, anything that currently lacks are satisfactory natural explaination can be chalked up as "intelligent design." In a sense, it's very much like "god of the gaps," where every gap in our current knowledge is fill by a god. The key difference is simply that ID removes the wo ...[text shortened]... chief advocate, Michael Behe, the difference between ID and creationism is only semantic.
28 Dec 05
Originally posted by ColettiIf the TOE was "complete" and some scientist managed to create "life from non-life", IDers would till say "It was designed like that"
Replace the word ID with Theory of Evolution and you get the same problem. Evolutionism is not a satisfactory explanation either, but that's what it does, fill the gaps. Why do that teach such crap if they are not willing to allow equally reasonable explanations?
28 Dec 05
Originally posted by ColettiEvolutionary (genetic) adaptation has been shown. Speciation has been shown. The pre-cursors to life have been created in the lab, in conditions not too dissimilar to those found on early earth. Furthermore, with these conditions in place it's statistcally almost impossible for life to not evolve. It all adds up to a situation where life can be explained without resorting to the need for a 'divine creator'.
Life from non-life is just the beginning of the dogma of TOE.
ID is not science because (a) it starts at the end point, with an agenda to prove, not at the start point that science does, with a hypothesis based on observable phenomena to try and dis-prove, (b) ID misuses statistics and misquotes evolutionary theory in order to try and disprove another plausible viewpoint, and is therefore not objective.