This is a spinoff thread from the current abortion thread.  I didn't want to completely hijack that thread to discuss intelligent design, so here it is.  ID is an interesting topic.

Following are the initial posts by Pmoney and myself on the subject.  Please add your thoughts as well.

Pmoney wrote: 1.) I am talking beyond the scientific method. Not all things can be explained in a methodical fashion, but they still happen.  Use logic.  What are the odds that life would evolve from lifeless amino acids in an organic soup to form complex humans? Starting with the simplest single-cell organisms, the chances that beneficial mutations would occur, nonetheless thousands upon thousands of beneficial mutations, is slim to none.  Then, for propagation of that mutated species, two organisms of the mutated type would have to exist to reproduce, unless asexual reproduction occurred, in which case, how did gender differences develop? EDIT: What exact flaws in the application of the scientific theory are you talking about anyway? That brief statement merits an explanation. 2.) Accepting intelligent design implies the existence of a very wise and powerful being. This then brings in the morality aspect, because it does exist, and it then falls under the assumption that our design was facilitated by that wise and powerful being who must have incorporated that characteristic into our design.

(1)  ID theory essentially boils down to one of the two following statements:  (A) "Life/the world/the universe is so immensely complex that the chances of it occurring randomly are exceedingly unlikely, and therefore there must have been a guiding hand", or (B) "there are some things that science just can't explain, and therefore there must be a guiding hand".  You present a combination of the two.

As to (A) - the fundamental flawed application of science/logic is that just because something is really really unlikely doesn't make it impossible.  By that theory, we should arrest every lottery-winner for cheating, since the chances of winning fairly are tiny.

This theory is the result of confusing inferential statistics with probability statistics.  In experimental/inferential statistics, you can usually infer some outside influence if a result will only occur randomly 5% of the time.  But inferential statistics can only be applied in an experimental setting, which certainly does not exist here.  The correct application is probability statistics, which allows for no inference of causality at all.  The probability of being dealt five winning poker hands in a row is tiny - but is bound to happen eventually.

People also forget the power of compound probability.  Let's say that nature rolls a die (so to speak) to determine if life will randomly occur today.  Let's say that the chance of life occurring on any given "roll" is 0.0000001 (I realize that the probability is much much less, but I don't have a calculator capable of handling a million zeros - work with me here).  Let us say that one "roll" occurs every minute.  That means that after 1 million minutes (11.5 days), the chance of life NOT having occurred randomly is 0.999999^1,000,000 = roughly 37%.  IOW, there is a 63% chance that life DID occur randomly in less than two weeks.  Of course, we don't know how often a "roll" occurred, or what the chances of success was on any given roll, but we do know that life COULD have occurred randomly, and we do know that nature had a long time and many many tries to get it right.

EDIT - as Pmoney points out below, I suck at zeros and nines.  The correct number is 0.9999999^1,000,000 = roughly 90%, giving us a roughly 10% chance of life during those trials.

Further - let's assume that we knew a lot more than we do, and we concluded that, all said, there was only a 0.01% total chance of life off by the time it did.  Here we apply the movie analogy:  Every movie you watch depicts a very unlikely event.  Somebody gets shot at a thousand times and doesn't get hit, or somehow manages to sink the final basket.  Why is it always like that in the movies?  Because if it went otherwise, THEY WOULDN'T HAVE MADE THE MOVIE.  If the guy gets shot and dies in the first scene, they don't make the movie.  Just like that, "life" is the movie that got made.  We know that we exist (Bishop Berkeley aside), and we know that it is POSSIBLE that life occurred randomly.  The logical conclusion is therefore that life occurred randomly.  Similarly, we know that it is possible to win the lottery (however unlikely).  If I win the lottery, I will therefore not conclude divine intervention, but logically conclude that I just got lucky.

To conclude that there must have been a helping hand, just because an extremely unlikely series of events has occurred, is not logical or scientific.  It is a leap of faith.

As to (B), regarding what science cannot explain, and as with your bi-gender note.  This is even simpler.  Just because science cannot explain something YET does not mean that science simply cannot explain it.  This theory was popular in the dark ages and earlier ages, and led to fine conclusions like flat earth and Thor with his hammer.  Pointing out apparent inconsistencies or flaws in a particular scientific theory is not evidence of a helping hand.

(2)  Even if we accept ID, we do not have to accept a "wise and powerful being" in the way you imply.  A 5-year-old might make an ant farm for a science project.  This would be intelligent design.  Does that make the kid wise and powerful?  Maybe, but ...

... that does not carry a moral imperative.  The kid built the habitat for the heck of it, and to impress his friends.  Could not the same be said for the Creator?  In Job, Heinlein posits a world where deities are squabbling children who play games with the lives of men.  This theme is also applied in most older religions - Norse, Greek/Roman, Hindu, Chinese - heck, all of them.

I see no reason to believe that simply because a being is more powerful than me, that this being must also have some set of moral standards.  There is absolutely no foundation for an assertion that the Creator "must" have imbued us with some set morals.

Further, we run into this epistemological issue.  Even if we assume that the Creator did set some moral standards, how do we know what they are?  Religions around the world disagree on what God has told us to do.  So even if God does have a plan, it doesn't matter since we don't know what it is. 

In addition, I challenge anybody to find a single moral rule that has existed in every human culture.  If there were some "moral bone" hard-wired into our being, wouldn't we all agree on those bones?  The continued strife throughout human history is de facto evidence that this "standard" morality does not exist, or at least is not known to us.

This was Pmoney's response:

Pmoney wrote: Alright, thanks to all those who kept this argument on a respectable level, avoiding the personal attacks that often plague the forums. Anywho, this is directed to Clark Kent (whose post can be seen above). Read it first, and this will make a whole lot more sense. 1.) The intelligent design theory doesn't only boil down to those to arguments.  Some argue that our ability to reason, love, and be self-aware point to a creator.  Some claim a revelation or a feeling, which they can't exactly explain, points to a creator. However, the most effective and convincing reason seems to be the unbelievable complexity of the universe in which we live.  It was this (largely the discoveries from DNA) that changed the mind of the famous atheist, Antony Flew (article about it http://ic.net/~erasmus/RAZ233.HTM - http://ic.net/~erasmus/RAZ233.HTM ).  1.) (A) I know that unlikelihood does not make something impossible, but considering the unbelievably low chances, it is more logical to assume otherwise, which is why the majority of people in the world believe in some god.  The chances of winning the lottery are very small, but compared to the chances of the random generation of life, (to the human degree of complexity nonetheless) winning the lottery looks promising.  Winning the lottery wouldn't be cheating in any case either; it is not cheating, it is just getting lucky with odds that are good in comparison to the random generation of life which has odds that are exponentially smaller.  As to the confusion of inferential/probability statistics, inferential statistics are not void; there exists no alternative for a testing ground - the universe has to be the experimental basis for all information obtained.  What/who exactly dictates that inferential statistics would be void in the case of studying the universe? In addition, the individual parts that factor into the creation of life are testable to a degree, and those parts would have had to occur in steps (i.e. cells couldn't form in the vacuum of space, or an organism couldn't form without the basic amino acids). Thus, inferring, or making some conclusions is not out of the question. Scientists, experimenting to create basic amino acids, were never able to form lasting amino acids under better than ideal conditions that would have existed on earth millions of years ago.  Any that they were able to form fell apart immediately, due to the law of entropy, that without energy put into the system, things fall apart and break down.  "People also forget the power of compound probability."  As you said it, people do often forget this.  Not only is the probability "much less" as you admitted, but multiple steps would have to occur - all with extremely low probabilities into the millions, possibly billions or more zeros.  The multiplicative effect of thousands/millions of steps to create life makes the probability effectively zero (more on this later).  Your example if so oversimplified and weighted to your point that it cannot even begin to illustrate the actual statistic (it seems a little fuzzy too). If there is a 0.0000001 or 1/10,000,000 chance as in your example, the desired result only occurs 1 in 10,000,000 times.  That is not 67% with 1,000,000 trials. It has to be less than 1% because the one desired result may not have even occurred after 1,000,000 trials when there is a 1 in 10,000,000 chance. A movie is hardly an authoritative source to consult for an analogy.  Again, the example cannot begin to illustrate the complexity of the creation of life.  Movies are fiction and the odds are defied to the viewers’ delight – the creation of life is just not an applicable complement to that analogy. To conclude that there is a helping hand in creation is logical because science has shown the astonishing improbability. Let’s look at what is necessary for the creation of the simplest of single-celled organisms.  First of all, I am assuming that you would believe that a “big bang” type theory is responsible for the creation of the universe.  If this is so, a star would have to form with orbiting bodies around it. One of these would have to have the right elements and atmospheric components to support life in addition to being the right distance from the sun to avoid burning or freezing.  The chances of this occurring are not bad, considering the millions and millions of galaxies, but it is still probably at least a few thousand zeros.  Then, the “basic building blocks of life” would need to form. Have you ever seen the formula for an amino acid? Here is a basic overview http://www.johnkyrk.com/aminoacid.html - http://www.johnkyrk.com/aminoacid.html . As you can see, amino acids are not simple structures, all parts to create just one would have had to exist in a common place and something would have had to cause them to bond.  If it stays together, it is practically worthless without many of the other amino acids which form proteins.  If all elements were present, and something such as lightening were to somehow combine the elements to form random structures, some amino acids may form. They would then have to form chains to create proteins.  The proteins would then have to randomly organize to form the structure of a cell, complete will a selectively permeable membrane of proteins, the endoplasmic reticulum, mitochondria, the Golgi apparatus, centrioles, lysosomes, vacuoles, possibly chloroplasts (each containing its own membranes (inner and outer) Granum, and stroma), and most importantly, DNA.  All of this would have to randomly form from the random formation of chains of amino acids which create proteins.  All parts would run dependently on the DNA that happen to form a complex string of amino acids in the nuclear envelope which can dictate what is let into and out of the cell, what proteins and amino acids to create, where to move molecules in the cell, and how to self-replicate.  “Food” would then have to be available for it to survive, if the random DNA pattern incorporated in what manner it would obtain “food.”  See http://micro.magnet.fsu.edu/cells/animalcell.html - http://micro.magnet.fsu.edu/cells/animalcell.html   for some additional information.    All of this is dependent on chance.  Now, each one of these steps has a probability of millions of zeros between the decimal point and 1.  This is where the multiplicative properties of probabilities come into play again.  For example, if I were picking marbles out of a bag containing 1 of each red, blue, yellow, and green marbles, the probability that I pick 1 blue is ¼.  If I pick again (assuming I put the marble back so that the events are not dependant), there is again a ¼ chance of picking a blue marble.  Now if I wanted to get these two events to occur in two trials, I multiply ¼ x ¼ which yields 1/16. That means I have a 1 in 16 chance of picking the blue marble twice.  On a larger scale, if the chances of 2 steps in the process to create life were each 1/1,000,000 (it is actually much less), I would multiply 1/1,000,000 by itself giving me a 1 in 1,000,000,000,000 that both steps occur.  Yes, people do often forget the power of compound probability.  Now, having more trials does increase the chances of each event occurring, making the overall scenario more likely, but when dealing with such low probabilities multiplied by thousands, it barely makes a difference.   There is still another factor to throw in – time.  There has not been an infinite amount of time for this to occur.  Our universe has only been around for an estimated 10 billion years or so.  Not only that, but stars have an even shorter life span, maybe a billion years (and that’s pushing it for some).  That means that the probability of the random generation of life is substantially cut down by setting a time frame of a billion years or so for life, as complex as humanity to appear.  When the star burns out, all life will cease to exist in that solar system.   Unless time froze for sextillions of years, the random generation of life is highly, highly unlikely.  As a rational, logical being, it is more logical to assume a guiding hand.  The complexity of our universe is incomprehensible; the formation of a cell is just one part, think of all other discovered laws, theories, elements, subatomic properties, ect… which exist.  It is mind-boggling.   (2) Even if ID is accepted, it does imply moral standards because they exist.  Societies have varied in which moral standards apply, and I challenge you to find one that has had absolutely no moral standards.  It is part of the sense of “fairness” we have.  Why do people often strive for fairness, at least for themselves and often for others?It is part of our being, and no one has yet explained why; I guess it just happened by the random gene patterns that just happen to come together…   The sanctity of life is one moral standard that all societies have given some importance.  What society has had complete disregard for life, allowing killing of anyone for any reason?  Even if it is self-preservation, life has had some importance in every society.   Whew…and that’s all for now.

I believe in ID because the theory of evolution [TOE] defies logic the further you study anatomy and physiology [A&P]. I also believe in God from the Christian perspective, but that is not the debate here.

Here is where ToE breaks down. As I understand it, cells are a collection of one-time single celled organisms that came to work in symbiosis. So you had a random endoplasmic reticulum floating about in a lake, that hooked up with a golgi apparatus, and voilà, they became a cell. Ridiculous.

Take for instance, a single nephron, the basic unit of the kidney. Your blood pressure pushes the blood through a filter so that the only thing left are cells, sugar, and proteins (mostly). The remaining fluid, made up of electrolytes, wastes, and water run a circuitous route through the tubules and certain gates take back up the electrolytes the body needs and concentrates the rest into urine.

Now, the "gates" are highly (perfectly) formed proteins that through their positive and negative charges take a three dimensional form that only allow certain electrolytes and molecules through, or actively transport them through.

On a grander scale, if the blood pressure in the body drops. and the kidneys cannot filter blood, they release renin which activates angiotensin in the lungs, which constricts the veins to increase blood pressure, and signals the kidneys to release aldosterone, which signals the kidneys to take up more sodium, which is followed by water, which increases blood pressure <<whew>>.

This wasn't intended to be an A&P lesson, but a micro and macro look at how complex the body homeostasis systems are.

Now, back to ToE. If through random changes a one celled organism can evolve through sheer luck or mutation, then why can we not find any two-celled organisms anywhere? Or, why doesn't cancer happen in the wild and we find huge piles of tissue in the woods somewhere?

I think that ToE, by definition is possible, but it is ridiculous to think that a fungus [eukaryote] can evolve into muscle cells, skin, bone, nerves, and finally, a skunk [collection of eukaryotes]. Not one of those items can exist in nature without the other. They must be formed concurrently, in a womb (or egg), until they can face our environment.

now i am a catholic and believe the whole catholic deal ( well the world was neccescarily made in 7 day but was created by God). anyway. one has to ask if there was intellegent design of life, who is the  intellegent designer of the intellegent designer of life on Earth. something had to create the something that created life on earth

i don't know if what im saying exactly fits in but its does kind of go along with the issue.

This is a partial response to Pmoney's post above.

First – some basics of probability calculations.  Those of you who find this a bit pedantic, just bear with me.

The chance of hitting a six on any roll of a regular die is 1/6.  The chance of hitting two sixes in a row is 1/6 * 1/6, or (1/6)^2, which is 1/36.  The chance of hitting a six n times in a row is (1/6)^n.  You can see that the probability decreases fast as the number of independent events increases.  The chances of hitting 100 sixes in a row are very small.

Conversely, the chance of NOT hitting a six is 5/6.   The chance of not hitting a six twice in a row is (5/6)^2, which is 25/36.  The chance of rolling the die n times without hitting a six is (5/6)^n.

For easier numbers, the next few calculations will assume a 100-sided die.  The chance of hitting a 1 n times in a row is (1/100)^n, and the chance of NOT hitting a 1 n times in a row is (99/100)^n.

So how many times do you have to roll the 100-sided die before you should expect to see a 1 pop up?  When (99/100)^n drops below 0.50, you would have had a greater than 50% chance of seeing a 1.  That gives us (99/100)^x = 0.50 – solve for x and we get something between 68 and 69.  By the time we have rolled 69 times we would have a better than even chance of hitting our 1-in-100 shot.  As you can see, the chances of your unlikely event occurring increase with the number of attempts.

This also gives us the general formula:  The probability x of an event occurring randomly, where p is the probability of that event occurring on any single attempt (where 0<p<1), and n is the number of attempts, is:  x = 1-[(1-p)^n]

Here is the central point of this:  The limit of f(n), as n approaches infinity, is 1 – no matter what the value of p.  A monkey with a typewriter could reproduce the collected works of Shakespeare, given enough monkeys and enough time.

Conclusion 1:  ANY random event, no matter how unlikely individually, is mathematically certain to occur given enough attempts.

Pmoney suggests that we haven’t had an infinite number of attempts at life, or at least not a big enough number to make it a meaningful likelihood – I say we don’t know that.  We have a pretty good idea at the age of the universe, but not a very good idea as to the number of potential planets.  We also don’t have a good guess at how many “tries per minute” nature has at life.

But more importantly – we don’t know what “life” means.  We know what life as we know it means, but we have no understanding of other potential bases of life.  For all we know, each time nature rolls the die on carbon-based life, it is also rolling the die on nitrogen-based life, helium-based life, and uranium-based life.  We just don’t know.

Conclusion 2:  We do not know the probability of random creation of life.

In addition, we don’t know how many universes there have been.  Seriously.  We know more or less when the universe began – we do not know what happened “before” then.  For all we know, this is universe #532,533,642.  We just don’t know.  So we really don’t know how many tries nature had.  And, of course, all nature really needed was one try – sometimes you win the lottery with your first ticket.

Conclusion 3:  We do not know how many attempts at life have been made.

Corollary:  We do not have any way to meaningfully quantify the likelihood of life occurring randomly.

Further – it is incorrect to apply straight compounding of probabilities in this case, because that does not consider all available information.

What are the chances of rolling three 6’s in a row?  1/216.  What are the chances of rolling three sixes in a row, IF I ALREADY ROLLED TWO SIXES?  Now it is 1/6.  The compound probability essentially gets un-compounded by the additional information.  Having already accomplished two unlikely events, the larger unlikely event is suddenly much less unlikely.

Put it this way:  What are the chances that green one-eyed monsters evolved in the Amazon?  Let’s say 1/1,000,000,000.  What if the person asking you the question happens to be a green one-eyed monster?  Looking at the evidence that green one-eyed monsters exist, that should significantly change your answer.

This is what I was trying to get to with my poorly conceived movie analogy.  Asking “what are the chances of life happening randomly” is the WRONG question – because it fails to acknowledge the obvious:  LIFE EXISTS.  When evaluating probabilities, it is absolutely essential to consider all available information.  It is mathematically incorrect to do otherwise.

With a 52-card deck, deal me two cards.  The chances of those two cards being two aces are about one-half percent.  But if I flash you my cards, and they are both Aces, now what are the chances of having dealt me two aces?  It is an entirely different question – the pre-deal theoretical probability of dealing the aces is now completely irrelevant.

Conclusion 4:  It is incorrect to ask “what are the chances of life evolving randomly”.  The correct question is “given that the conditions required for life to evolve randomly exist, and given that life does exist, what are the chances that life did in fact evolve randomly”.

Moving on – let us assume that we had enough information to correctly calculate the exact probability of life’s random creation.  Let us assume that this probability is astonishingly small.

What does the scientist do with this information?  The scientist first notes that there is no apparent reason to disbelieve random evolution, other than the sheer improbability of it.  Random evolution, while certainly far from proven, is otherwise generally consistent with the accumulated mass of scientific data.  The scientist then considers alternative solutions and causes. 

Perhaps the scientist considers the possibility of a helping hand – some form of divine intervention or intelligent design.

The scientist then evaluates the probability of intelligent design occurring.  In order for ID to have occurred, the following (at least) must be the case:

1.  There must be a “superior” being

2.  This superior being must itself have come into being by some means other than random evolution, or must have “always” existed

3.  This superior being must have the power to create life

4.  This superior being must have actually decided to create life as we know it

5.  This superior being must have gone undetected by modern science

6.  This superior being must be either unable or unwilling to communicate meaningfully with the majority of people

We then assign a probability to each of these cases, and compound that probability.  Of course, we cannot meaningfully do so.

Conclusion 5:  We do not know the probability of the existence of a superior being.

But clearly, if we were to take a stab at some numbers, the objective odds of each of these six conditions are pretty staggering for each of them individually, and when compounded we get staggering^6.  This is particularly true since we would have to suspend several of our laws of physics to accommodate this superior being.

Conclusion 6:  The objective probability of the existence of a non-evolved superior being capable of creating life is staggeringly small.

Having reached this conclusion, we now look at our three options to explain life:  (a) random evolution, (b) ID, and (c) other.  We have no data on (c), and must discard it until we get more information.  (a) and (b) are both staggeringly unlikely, but certainly both possible.  Not enough data exists to determine which is “less” unlikely.  This leads to:

Conclusion 7:  Given a choice between two very improbable conclusions, it is incorrect to conclusively determine that one is correct over the other.

Read that one carefully.  I am saying that it is scientifically incorrect to conclude that ID is the case based simply the improbability of random evolution.  It is equally incorrect to conclude that ID is NOT the case based on the improbability of ID.

Now, there is some cause for preferring random evolution over ID – primarily the fact that random evolution is consistent with our current scientific understanding, whereas ID completely contradicts many of our laws of science.  But we do not now, nor will we ever, have enough data to conclusively dismiss ID.  We may in the future have data that conclusively disproves random evolution, but we do not have that data now.

Conclusion 8:  It is incorrect to conclusively dismiss or accept intelligent design.

One last story on the subject:  I am sitting at my computer typing this up.  Yet, had you stood at my birth, tried to determine the probability of me sitting here today typing this on my computer, you would have had to conclude that the probability was staggeringly small.  The number of random and unlikely events that happened between now that then, that were necessary for this moment to exist, is, well, staggering.  Yet here I am. 

Conclusion 9:  ANY event is staggeringly unlikely.

A quick side note on inferential statistics.  I noted that it is incorrect to employ inferential statistics to this particular field of study, and Pmoney challenged this conclusion.

Inferential statistics (t-tests, z-tests, F-tests, and their various cousins) are based in certain mathematical assumptions about data sampling and the underlying data population.  They exist to show that a sample did or not come from a particular population, or that two samples did or did not come from the same population, and so forth.  Applying them without meeting these sampling criteria renders them mathematically void.  This results in the basic scientific research method, which requires random sampling, confound variable control (by any number of means), independent variable manipulation, and dependant variable measurement.  None of these conditions apply to a probability evaluation of the origins of life.  It is therefore theoretically improper to apply inferential statistics, not to mention practically unfeasible.  Probability and statistics are usually taught in the same class, but they are in fact entirely different concepts. 

I was not implying that inferential statistics have no place in this discussion - inferential statistics may certainly be properly applied to experiments applicable to the origins of life, but it would be wildly incorrect (and I do not believe that Rmoney was suggesting this) to simply use a z-score table (for instance) to conclude whether or not life evolved randomly.

Another quick side note on entropy.  Rmoney notes that amino acids were unable to form without additional energy put into the system.  This is version of a popular creationist argument, applying the Second Law of Thermodynamics.  The Second Law, however, only applies to closed systems, and life is certainly not a closed system.  The Second Law does not apply.

I will follow up with another post regarding the moral imperative resulting from ID.

I am not quoting you guys because it would take up one entire page.

Clark: Okay, after a 1:1 trillion chance of happening, an amino acid pops up from a mix of the right elements. Now, what are the odds of that amino acid continuing through each consecutive 1: 1 trillion chance and becoming a protein? Then each 1: 1 trillion chance and becoming a protein that actually conducts a function, such as a Na+/K+ ATP pump in your heart that makes your heartbeat happen? A mile long protein, formed from the exactly right amino acids that when assembled take a shape that mechanically moves Na+/K+ through the cell membranes. It is only one component in your body, akin to one piece of dust in a sack of Redi-Mix, but you cannot function without it. I do not argue it is possible, just unfathomable.

Hades: That writer you quote should take some A&P. You would be amazed at how many doctors and nurses believe in God. There isn't enough time in infinity to make the machinery of the human body happen by chance and successive chances. If you just look in terms of probability, mixed with your own internal demons that make you question the existence of God because of your plight, then ToE becomes pretty attractive.

goodsmitty wrote: Clark: Okay, after a 1:1 trillion chance of happening, an amino acid pops up from a mix of the right elements. Now, what are the odds of that amino acid continuing through each consecutive 1: 1 trillion chance and becoming a protein? Then each 1: 1 trillion chance and becoming a protein that actually conducts a function, such as a Na+/K+ ATP pump in your heart that makes your heartbeat happen?

The answer is 1: 1 trillion.  Compounding would be incorrect.  Once you have rolled a six, the chance of rolling another six is 1/6.  Compounding is only correct when viewing the process as a whole.  Since we KNOW that some parts of the evolutionary process happened, we have to un-compound those.

But more importantly - if you find it unfathomable that a possible-yet-unlikely event occurred, despite looking at the results, how do you find the existence of a "superior being" any less unfathomable, when the existence of that being goes contrary to our very well established laws of science?

I am not saying the random life was, at the beginning of time, anything short of incredibly unlikely.  What I am saying is that this is not the correct question.

goodsmitty wrote: There isn't enough time in infinity to make the machinery of the human body happen by chance and successive chances.

This is mathematically false.

The limit of f(x)=1-(1-p)^x, as x approaches infinity, is 1, assuming a p>0.  Absolute mathematical certainty.

DBibeau855 wrote: Still doesnt mean it will happen.

That is EXACTLY what it means.  Given enough time and enough tries, every single event that could happen, WILL happen.

And since even the most strident ID believers acknowledge that random life could have occurred, that means, as a mathematical certainty, that eventually it would happen, given enough time.  Only if time stops will it not happen.

Absolute certainty.

Clark Kent wrote: goodsmitty wrote: Clark: Okay, after a 1:1 trillion chance of happening, an amino acid pops up from a mix of the right elements. Now, what are the odds of that amino acid continuing through each consecutive 1: 1 trillion chance and becoming a protein? Then each 1: 1 trillion chance and becoming a protein that actually conducts a function, such as a Na+/K+ ATP pump in your heart that makes your heartbeat happen? The answer is 1: 1 trillion.  Compounding would be incorrect.  Once you have rolled a six, the chance of rolling another six is 1/6.  Compounding is only correct when viewing the process as a whole.  Since we KNOW that some parts of the evolutionary process happened, we have to un-compound those. But more importantly - if you find it unfathomable that a possible-yet-unlikely event occurred, despite looking at the results, how do you find the existence of a "superior being" any less unfathomable, when the existence of that being goes contrary to our very well established laws of science? I am not saying the random life was, at the beginning of time, anything short of incredibly unlikely.  What I am saying is that this is not the correct question.

I do not agree with our probability equation. If the odds of one amino acid forming is 1:1 trillion, you need from one to 27 more (I can't remember if that's the number, but anyway) to form protieins. Then you have proteins miles long made up of exactly the right order of amino acids to form a function. One amino acid doth not a Na+/K+ pump make.

As for a creator, I have enough proof to satisfy me. I saw, with my own two eyes, my wife cured from early kidney failure by a walk to the altar, and our church laying hands on her. Cured. She had an ultrasound prior that showed a huge kidney (hydrosis), the doctor was debating what he would do (stents, etc). She then went for a nuke study on Monday, and her kidney and lab work was completely normal.

I have seen it over and over and over and over in my work as a critical care nurse. He's there, you just have to believe before he reveals himself to you. I never saw him prior to giving in to him as a last resort. I would prefer this not become a debate about my faith, but I'm willing if you want to hear it.

Clark Kent wrote: DBibeau855 wrote: Still doesnt mean it will happen. That is EXACTLY what it means.  Given enough time and enough tries, every single event that could happen, WILL happen. And since even the most strident ID believers acknowledge that random life could have occurred, that means, as a mathematical certainty, that eventually it would happen, given enough time.  Only if time stops will it not happen. Absolute certainty.

While my specialty is not mechanical engineering, I believe that one of the laws of thermodynamics is [that everything moves toward disorder over time]. It would make more sense that the human was created perfect, and through time has become faulty (cancer, etc).

EDIT - to gsmitty

I appreciate your honesty about the incident with your wife, and am glad she was cured.

BUT - those types of incidents have never been replicated or measured in a controlled scientific fashion.  And that means that we can't use that data in a scientific discussion.  ID theory claims to be scientific in nature:  i.e., scientific evidence points to the existence of ID.

Therefore, while this may have cemented your faith, and rightfully so, it provides no scientific evidence to bolster scientific theory of ID.

Arguments for the existence of a supreme being that are founded in science have to play by the rules of science.

DBibeau855 wrote: Hm, so, given enough time, i continual throw my keys on my bed when i go home, one day they will shoot up to the ceiling. I have trouble swallowing that.

If possible, yes.  That's the important part - p must be greater than zero.  If there is even a theoretical possibility that your keys could shoot up, then yes - eventually that would happen.  But not if that were impossible to begin with.

goodsmitty wrote: While my specialty is not mechanical engineering, I believe that one of the laws of thermodynamics is [that everything moves toward disorder over time]. It would make more sense that the human was created perfect, and through time has become faulty (cancer, etc).

Second Law of Thermodynamics.  I addressed this briefly in my second long post.  Commonly recited as "entropy always increases", but more properly stated as "in a closed system, no process is possible the sole result of which is the transfer of energy from a cold body to a warm body."

The Second Law is consistent with all available data.  No incident of any actual violation of the Second Law has been reported.  So yes, it is consistent with ID, but since it is equally consistent with random evolution, it is a bit of a non-issue.

DBibeau855 wrote: Hmmm*stumped* So, this creater, lets call him god, or larry, of whatever. God could have easily spured the first bits of life. Time to a being that has always been, would be most likely infinite, it wouldnt have a concept of haste. So, it could have been a creater that spured the first amino acids.

lol

But yes - certainly the creator could have kickstarted life.  I don't see how that could ever be disproven.

Clark Kent wrote: EDIT - to gsmitty I appreciate your honesty about the incident with your wife, and am glad she was cured. BUT - those types of incidents have never been replicated or measured in a controlled scientific fashion.  And that means that we can't use that data in a scientific discussion.  ID theory claims to be scientific in nature:  i.e., scientific evidence points to the existence of ID. Therefore, while this may have cemented your faith, and rightfully so, it provides no scientific evidence to bolster scientific theory of ID. Arguments for the existence of a supreme being that are founded in science have to play by the rules of science.

Then I concede if those are the rules, because without my own observations I too would believe in ToE. However, since I have already stated that I believe that the composition of a single functional protein developed by chance to the tertiary or quaternary level is highly, highly unlikely, AND based on my own observations of divine intervention, that the data supports a creator, and therefore ID.

As these cannot be reproduced in a lab, they will never change the mind of one single ToE believer. However, I have seen:

1. A man with multiple myeloma (very, very bad cancer) who goes to my church, and I took care of for pneumonia in the ICU, go into remission after our church prayed over him. It is a miracle he lived. Nobody with his state of metastasis does. The doctors were astounded.

2. A man who goes to my church had a tumor on his optic nerve and was going blind. His only option was to remove the tumor, but he was still going to go blind. Same thing-we annointed him and the tumor was GONE a week later. The doctors were astounded.

I can go on, but I don't need to. So yes, without my own observations, I would agree with you and say we came from the cosmic cess pool due to random chance. But I bet if you would believe what I say, and ask Jesus into your life as the answer for your sin, you would see things my way.

If you want to have a purely scientific debate, then again, I concede.

P.S. I do not believe that ID should be taught in school, but creationism should not be scorned by the teachers either. I say we teach what we can prove, but not try to tear down the values that parents have the right to instill in their children in the home.

goodsmitty wrote: Clark Kent wrote: EDIT - to gsmitty I appreciate your honesty about the incident with your wife, and am glad she was cured. BUT - those types of incidents have never been replicated or measured in a controlled scientific fashion.  And that means that we can't use that data in a scientific discussion.  ID theory claims to be scientific in nature:  i.e., scientific evidence points to the existence of ID. Therefore, while this may have cemented your faith, and rightfully so, it provides no scientific evidence to bolster scientific theory of ID. Arguments for the existence of a supreme being that are founded in science have to play by the rules of science. Then I concede if those are the rules, because without my own observations I too would believe in ToE. However, since I have already stated that I believe that the composition of a single functional protein developed by chance to the tertiary or quaternary level is highly, highly unlikely, AND based on my own observations of divine intervention, that the data supports a creator, and therefore ID. As these cannot be reproduced in a lab, they will never change the mind of one single ToE believer. However, I have seen: 1. A man with multiple myeloma (very, very bad cancer) who goes to my church, and I took care of for pneumonia in the ICU, go into remission after our church prayed over him. It is a miracle he lived. Nobody with his state of metastasis does. The doctors were astounded. 2. A man who goes to my church had a tumor on his optic nerve and was going blind. His only option was to remove the tumor, but he was still going to go blind. Same thing-we annointed him and the tumor was GONE a week later. The doctors were astounded. I can go on, but I don't need to. So yes, without my own observations, I would agree with you and say we came from the cosmic cess pool due to random chance. But I bet if you would believe what I say, and ask Jesus into your life as the answer for your sin, you would see things my way. If you want to have a purely scientific debate, then again, I concede. P.S. I do not believe that ID should be taught in school, but creationism should not be scorned by the teachers either. I say we teach what we can prove, but not try to tear down the values that parents have the right to instill in their children in the home.

That's what I've been needing to hear

**Edit** Wow. That also just happened to be my 1000th post! A sign maybe? lol

Ejp414 wrote: ::Coughs:: Look up the Weak Anthropic Principle.

Good point.

One version of this:

WAP: The observed values of all physical and cosmological quantities are not equally probable, but they take on values restricted by the requirement that there exist sites where carbon-based life can evolve and by the requirement that the Universe be old enough for it to have already done so.

goodsmitty wrote: However, since I have already stated that I believe that the composition of a single functional protein developed by chance to the tertiary or quaternary level is highly, highly unlikely, AND based on my own observations of divine intervention, that the data supports a creator, and therefore ID.

And within those parameters, your beliefs appear perfectly rational to me.  You have to act/believe based on information available to you.

My point simply being that ID, like creationism, is ultimately a matter of FAITH and not of science.  That is not to say that faith is bad or wrong - but faith is not science, and science alone supports neither creationism or ID.

Bango wrote: goodsmitty wrote: Clark Kent wrote: EDIT - to gsmitty I appreciate your honesty about the incident with your wife, and am glad she was cured. BUT - those types of incidents have never been replicated or measured in a controlled scientific fashion.  And that means that we can't use that data in a scientific discussion.  ID theory claims to be scientific in nature:  i.e., scientific evidence points to the existence of ID. Therefore, while this may have cemented your faith, and rightfully so, it provides no scientific evidence to bolster scientific theory of ID. Arguments for the existence of a supreme being that are founded in science have to play by the rules of science. Then I concede if those are the rules, because without my own observations I too would believe in ToE. However, since I have already stated that I believe that the composition of a single functional protein developed by chance to the tertiary or quaternary level is highly, highly unlikely, AND based on my own observations of divine intervention, that the data supports a creator, and therefore ID. As these cannot be reproduced in a lab, they will never change the mind of one single ToE believer. However, I have seen: 1. A man with multiple myeloma (very, very bad cancer) who goes to my church, and I took care of for pneumonia in the ICU, go into remission after our church prayed over him. It is a miracle he lived. Nobody with his state of metastasis does. The doctors were astounded. 2. A man who goes to my church had a tumor on his optic nerve and was going blind. His only option was to remove the tumor, but he was still going to go blind. Same thing-we annointed him and the tumor was GONE a week later. The doctors were astounded. I can go on, but I don't need to. So yes, without my own observations, I would agree with you and say we came from the cosmic cess pool due to random chance. But I bet if you would believe what I say, and ask Jesus into your life as the answer for your sin, you would see things my way. If you want to have a purely scientific debate, then again, I concede. P.S. I do not believe that ID should be taught in school, but creationism should not be scorned by the teachers either. I say we teach what we can prove, but not try to tear down the values that parents have the right to instill in their children in the home. That's what I've been needing to hear **Edit** Wow. That also just happened to be my 1000th post! A sign maybe? lol

Believe.

Well, I believe in God, I'm a lutheran

I'm just think "Why not believe in God?"  He's a great guy, gave all he had just to save us from what we did wrong, and all we have to do is admit we're wrong and let Him know we believe in Him...If I'm wrong about this whole "there is a God thing" (which I know I'm not, because of my strong faith) then what have I lost?...nothing; but to not believe in God and end up being wrong-an eternity in Hell...totatly not worth disbelieving

Go ahead and call the Bible a load of bull, but history shows its not the brightest idea, many people have died (and are now slow roasting in Hell) just because they thought God was a joke

Big words and Theories will do you no good in the unquenchable fires of Hell, better stock up on Aquafina

Clark Kent wrote: Rather than let this derail into a discussion of the merits of christianity, let me suggest that the discussion of the scientific merits of intelligent design theory are rather independent of religious beliefs.

It is inevitable. How many forumers do you think can actually argue probability with you? I saw a thread on Fark.com on this issue a while back, and it was incredible. One of the contributors was actually a scientist at NASA who was arguing for ID.

Let me ask you: Do you truly believe that the machinery that makes up the human body happened by a sequence of random events, or are you just debating for the heck of it?

My personal view is that random evolution is the most likely of explanations of which I am aware.  It is perfectly consistent with all other scientific knowledge of which I am aware, and the apparent unlikelihood of it bothers me not at all.

ID and other quasi-religious theories just require too much suspension of disbelief for me.  I obviously cannot rule out god, but with the complete lack of satisfactory evidence for divine intervention I have to go with scientific explanation.

Come on, Junky...   I know you want to...

*puts up dukes*

:)

Clark Kent wrote: My personal view is that random evolution is the most likely of explanations of which I am aware.  It is perfectly consistent with all other scientific knowledge of which I am aware, and the apparent unlikelihood of it bothers me not at all. ID and other quasi-religious theories just require too much suspension of disbelief for me.  I obviously cannot rule out god, but with the complete lack of satisfactory evidence for divine intervention I have to go with scientific explanation.

I am sorry to hear that. I think the reason that ToE is such an easy sell is that everyone outside of the biological sciences are ignorant of the complexities of the body. It is easy to say, the wolf adapted to its warming climate, became a dog, etc.

When you get down to the cellular and sub-cellular level, the machinery is fantastic. The cell wall is a masterpiece of engineering. Each cell type is as different as night and day. The way the body maintains homeostasis is a marvel.

If you look at things from a probability point of view, you can easily say "it could happen". However when you view the body and all of its uncountable little pieces working together in near-perfect synchrony, you realize how improbable it is for it to ever happen randomly.

As for divine intervention, you will never see it, because there is always a possibility it happened by chance. You can always chock it up to chance.

Pick up a college level A&P textbook and look through it. I think that you need to read it all to see how the systems all work together as a whole.

Last note before I go to bed. Have you ever considered that some things happen that leave no imprint that science can quantify? You accept the music coming from your radio, but no one has ever seen a radio wave. But can't you accept the creation of life against ridiculous improbability because you haven't seen the creator.

//hangs head in despair and goes to bed. Hopes Clark is thinking about what he said//

goodsmitty wrote: I am sorry to hear that. I think the reason that ToE is such an easy sell is that everyone outside of the biological sciences are ignorant of the complexities of the body. It is easy to say, the wolf adapted to its warming climate, became a dog, etc.

Actually, most of the serious evolutionary scientists are biologists. 

Evolution is not a simple matter of random events that may or may not occur - evolution is a fact.  You don't get to not believe in evolution.  We see evolution in action every day. 

If you look at things from a probability point of view, you can easily say "it could happen". However when you view the body and all of its uncountable little pieces working together in near-perfect synchrony, you realize how improbable it is for it to ever happen randomly.

On the contrary - at this point, it would be incredibly improbable for it NOT to occur.  Evolution is unavoidable.  It is a logical and mathematical necessity.

To not believe in evolution, you must deny genetics, modern medicine, space travel, computers, modern mathematics, basically every scientific discipline we rely upon today.  Evolution is not a standalone theory - it is interwoven into the fabric of science from a variety of disciplines.

Last note before I go to bed. Have you ever considered that some things happen that leave no imprint that science can quantify?

Sure - but such a thing would not have "existence" in any meaningful sense of the word.  Think Bishop Berkeley.

You accept the music coming from your radio, but no one has ever seen a radio wave.

With our eyes, no - but we can measure it.  Not sure where you are going with this.

But can't you accept the creation of life against ridiculous improbability because you haven't seen the creator.

We can measure radio waves.  We can't (so far) measure the creator.

And if evolution is unlikely, then how much more unlikely is the existence of a creator?

adrenalinejunky wrote: <discussion of eyes, missing links, etc>

First off, the eye is not an issue.  Frequently raised by creationists as "proof" that evolution didn't happen, it just isn't a meaninful argument.  Same goes for "missing links".

The fossil record is actually quite impressive and thorough, even though we obviously do not yet have a complete record (and probably never will).  But we also have to consider DNA evidence, geological evidence, and observed evolution, as well as simple mathematics and genetics.

All of these supposed "holes" in evolutionary theory simply (at best) observe that we aren't done studying - they in no way "disprove" evolution.

Betterdays wrote: Sorry to have to pick your post Goodsmitty (out of the plethora of misinformation in this thread) but I had to pick one. Ding-round 2 goodsmitty wrote: I believe in ID because the theory of evolution [TOE] defies logic the further you study anatomy and physiology.  Planarians...(biology 101)  those little guys pretty much shoot that arguement down. I pick them only because the little cross-eyed buggers are kind of cute but they are a good example of lots of simple multi-cellular microscopic organisms already showing cellular specialzation. From then on its just a matter of increasing complexity and refinement...which is what evolution is all about. Also they nicely crush the evolution of the eye arguement given by someone else...Planarians have very very simple eyes. The evolution of the eye is not apparently unlikely at all. My point entirely-they are formed to do exactly what they are intended for. How does a planarian's eyes make the jump to something more complex. Here is where evolution fails-the missing link. The differences between a planarian's eyes and the next step up, whatever that is, is huge, and there would be no reason for any intermediary steps to exist in nature. Single celled organisms may be able to mutate (yes, that is what happens in the DNA-random mistakes, or whatever you wish to call them), but it defies reason that they could mutate the myriad of steps in order to become multi-celled. Here is where ToE breaks down. As I understand it, cells are a collection of one-time single celled organisms that came to work in symbiosis. So you had a random endoplasmic reticulum floating about in a lake, that hooked up with a golgi apparatus, and voilà, they became a cell. Ridiculous.  HUH? Organelles forming a cell relates to one celled organisms working together how???? That paragraph makes no sense. Not to mention that organelles most likely were never seperate entities (with the notable exception of the Mitocondria which probably was a symbiot) Maybe they are teachin something different today. Scientists are known for that. When I took A&P, and scored a perfect 100% in both quarters, the teaching at the time is that many of the organelles were once simpler organisms that formed a symbtiotic relationship. <snip for space> This wasn't intended to be an A&P lesson, but a micro and macro look at how complex the body homeostasis systems are. All true but irrelevant... since evolution creates complexity. Back to my earlier point, there is reason for the intermediary steps from single celled life to exist in nature while they evolve (mutate) into a highly complex multi-organ system. Now, back to ToE. If through random changes a one celled organism can evolve through sheer luck or mutation, then why can we not find any two-celled organisms anywhere? There are lots of simple multi-cellular creatures.  The reason there aren't many 2-celled creatures is because once you go to more than one cell you jump to simple colonies of single celled creatures working in concert...there is no benefit to stopping at 2. Thank you for making my point. At what point do colonies of SINCLE CELLS make the jump to a multi cellular, multi organ system being? At best, they could form one type of tissue, which would not survive in nature. And now for the part that shows most people here have no real understanding of evolution...the words "Random Mutation", "Luck" and "chance". Evolution is not Random. There is nothing random about it. It's remorselessly not random. Sexual Reproduction creates a huge number of possible DNA recombinations. The environement then mercilessly selects the best choice and so it goes. Within about one quarter of studying it, it became so ridiculous that there was no reason to study it any farther. There is an element of mutation in that DNA often mis-copies itself...most of the time this is bad and isn't passed on but sometimes its good, but that's still not the much ballyhoo'd  "random mutation" Creationists howl about. No Gamma rays creating the Incredible Hulk of Amoebeas were ever required for evolution to occur! I think that ToE, by definition is possible, but it is ridiculous to think that a fungus [eukaryote] can evolve into muscle cells, skin, bone, nerves, and finally, a skunk [collection of eukaryotes]. Not one of those items can exist in nature without the other. They must be formed concurrently, in a womb (or egg), until they can face our environment. This paragraph also just doesn't make any sense at all. Fungus aren't even in the animal kingdom. How did you ever pass biology? Fungus did not evolve into a skunk. My point is, that it is a eukaryote, whatever kingdom it is classified under. It would be much more likely for a fungus to "evolve" into an animal (with trillions of years and all of the steps in between), than say, a germ (prokaryote). If fungi and humans are so different, then why are antifungal meds so harmful to their recipients. You can give antibiotics by the gallon safely because they attack germs. Setting aside the atrocious lack of scientific knowledge in most of these posts...the fundamental issue remains that evolution has nothing to do with religion. Evolution is science defining "How" a process works.  "Intelligent Design" is religion describing "Why" something works. They're separate issues.  Even if you accept Evolution 100% (and I feel its important to differentiate this from the more unproven "Primordeal Soup" creation theory) you can still claim "Intelligent Design." Life is a meta-physical anomoly. In a universe where most everything else tends towards chaos and breaking down, life relentlessly moves towards increasing order and complexity. From a philosophical standpoint, Evolution is actually the best friend the "Intelligent Design" theorist has since life appears to be working towards something...it would stand to reason someone or something had to set the goal...or at the very least set the rules by which things would happen. Evolution isn't random, its perfectly designed to do its job and design denotes intelligence. Personally...I don't know.  It could have been chance which set this all in motion...it might not have been. It's impossible to know. It is not impossible to understand the process which is and has occured though. Evolution isn't a belief, like Clark said you don't have a choice of believing or not. You can understand it or you can be ignorant of it but that's it.  Again apologies to Goodsmitty.

This is why I hate these debates. The "science" sector inevitably look down their collective noses in an air of superiority. ToE is a joke not worth studying. I find it hilarious that since we are starting to unlock the inner workings of the body and able to make incredible medicines by that knowledge, that the ToE crowd somehow see that as justification that ToE is correct. So you begin to understand the inner workings of a fantastic creature and it somehow supports your hypothesis (doesn't meet the criteria of theory in my estimation). That is quite a leap, kind of like the leaps over the missing links.

Have you actually read "origin of the species"? What are your comments about the the last two pages where Darwin states that there must be a creator? If I remember right, he doesn't even press for a theory that all life started from an amino acid; that came along with the big-bang theorists.

For whatever reasons that people have their inner demons and are angry at God, these two theories make an amenable approach at easing their tortured souls <<whew>>.

Now since you appear to have an arrogance problem, and are obviously pretty smart at biology, which I have a decent understanding of at best, I invite you to a friendly debate on any of my other favorite topics, take your choice:

Cardiac physiology

Acid/base and fluid balance

Respiratory disorders

Renal function.

adrenalinejunky wrote: disprove? i thought we were talking odds here. I'm not out to disprove evolution.. I can't disprove evolution, because proof requires testing... and there is no way we can test what happened.

Sorry - I slipped into "disproving evolution" mode from probability mode.  

:)

But if we are going to talk probability - again, you have to consider the single most important piece of evidence:  WE ARE HERE.

I hold in my hand a lottery ticket for yesterday's drawing.  What are the odds that it is a winner?  About a zillion to one against.  Now, I read off the numbers - and they match the winning numbers perfectly.  What now are the odds that it is a winner?  Not 100%, because I may have forged the ticket, or there may have been some other mistake, but suddenly the odds aren't so bad.  Same ticket - different information.

This results from a central point of probability theory:  It is incorrect to apply the a priori probability to an observed fact.

Incredibly improbable events happen all the time - in fact, ANY event is incredibly improbable.  But once they happen, they are no longer improbable - they are certain. 

So, again, the real question is:  "Which provides a better explanation for the observed phenomenon?"  Arguing over the likelihood of the phenomenon is a bit moot, since we are looking at it.

And, simply between the two (evolution vs. ID/creationism), I note that once theory is consistent with the laws of science as we know them, and consistent with virtually all observed data.  The other theory completely contradicts virtually all laws of science, and (depending on the particular version) contradicts observed data.

As a man of science, how could I NOT choose evolution?

"impressive" and "thorough" doesn't really apply when you take some things into consideration.... given the evolutionist timetable, and the present rate of species extinction, that could easily acount for all "missing links" we have found. there is no genetic marker that says "this was a missing link". now, also given the evolutionist timetable, and the rate of evolution (even with punctuated equilibrium) there would have to be an increadibly large number of other links that have gone undiscovered... if the fossils were down there, wouldn't it make sense that we would have found a lot more of them by now? <etc>

Yes, there are holes.  Yes, there are gaps.  Plenty of them.  But the data we have all fits.  Science is an exercise in extrapolation.  The same theoretical approach is being applied to evolution as is applied to other scientific endeavours.  In fact, much of the data is the same.

Much of evolutionary knowledge is genetic in nature.  Does anybody dispute genetic science?  You can't accept genetic science for medicinal purposes, but then say that they are wrong when applying the same data and principles to evolutionary theory.  Much of the knowledge regarding early earth stages is the same knowledge used to predict earthquakes and search for oil.  We accept knowledge about earthquakes and oil without qualms, but we challenge that application of that same data to the origin of species?  Dating technologies have foundations in the same technology that makes nuclear bombs go boom - does anybody doubt that nukes work?

It is impossible to draw a dividing line between "evolution" and "other science" - all branches of science rely on each other, and you can't just declare one of them void.

None of this, of course, will ever disprove ID.  But the evidence supporting evolution truly is impressive if you give it an honest look.  Perfect, no.  Impressive, yes.

goodsmitty wrote: ToE is a joke not worth studying.

Your scientific street cred is plummeting here, smitty.

There are flaws and issues, yes - but to call it a "joke" is inconsistent with scientific principles.

Have you actually read "origin of the species"? What are your comments about the the last two pages where Darwin states that there must be a creator? If I remember right, he doesn't even press for a theory that all life started from an amino acid; that came along with the big-bang theorists.

Darwin's doubts are irrelevant.  It isn't "his" theory to throw away. 

But yes - the amino acid theory is more recent, and to a large extent separate from the post-life evolution of species.

Are you now also going to challenge the Big Bang?  Without divine intervention (of which we have no evidence), the Big Bang, or something like it, is a mathematical certainty.  In order to reject the Big Bang in light of available evidence, you would have to reject relativity, reject nuclear power, reject space travel, reject the Hubble telescope, reject particle accelerators, reject lasers, and modern mathematics in general.

The scientific and mathematical backing for the Big Bang is pretty darn irrefutable, at least until we change the way we view physics.

I invite you to a friendly debate on any of my other favorite topics, take your choice:

Realizing this wasn't addressed to me - what exactly would you "debate" about these topics?  There is not much to debate...  

Clark Kent wrote: goodsmitty wrote: ToE is a joke not worth studying. Your scientific street cred is plummeting here, smitty. There are flaws and issues, yes - but to call it a "joke" is inconsistent with scientific principles. Have you actually read "origin of the species"? What are your comments about the the last two pages where Darwin states that there must be a creator? If I remember right, he doesn't even press for a theory that all life started from an amino acid; that came along with the big-bang theorists. Darwin's doubts are irrelevant.  It isn't "his" theory to throw away.  But yes - the amino acid theory is more recent, and to a large extent separate from the post-life evolution of species. Are you now also going to challenge the Big Bang?  Without divine intervention (of which we have no evidence), the Big Bang, or something like it, is a mathematical certainty.  In order to reject the Big Bang in light of available evidence, you would have to reject relativity, reject nuclear power, reject space travel, reject the Hubble telescope, reject particle accelerators, reject lasers, and modern mathematics in general. The scientific and mathematical backing for the Big Bang is pretty darn irrefutable, at least until we change the way we view physics. I invite you to a friendly debate on any of my other favorite topics, take your choice: Realizing this wasn't addressed to me - what exactly would you "debate" about these topics?  There is not much to debate...

Sorry to let you down. I was in defense mode due to unnecessary sneerage. And the challenge I issued was a warning shot over the port bow. I was top of my class in A&P and nursing, and don't tolerate unnecessary snide remarks any more than I tolerate challenges to my military record during O.S.'s rants. I was rather enjoying mine and your debate before that intrusion. But I meant most of what I said, so let me frame it in a more intellectual manner:

1. ToE is as great a leap of faith as religion. It is the atheist answer to religion. I think I beat the horse dead on its greatest flaw-missing links from workable system to workable system.

2. Since I do not believe ToE, there is no reason for me to buy into the big bang theory. I have read various articles on it, as I am a subscriber to Scientific American, but everything I read from an outside view leads me to believe that science doesn't have a clue about the origin of the universe. Don't they have to prove the existence of anti-matter for the calculations to work? They will believe in anti-matter which leaves no signature, but must exist for the theory to work, but turn their noses at the existence of God, who leaves not signature, but must exist for ID to work. Hmm. It cracks me up that one day a scientist springs his theory, the greatest minds are all abuzz and sneer at anyone who would question the theory's irrefutable evidence, and then next year it is disproven or something better comes along, which leads me to....

If ToE is full of critical flaws, why support it just because it is the best science has to offer? Why not hold out until science can figure it out (sort of an agnostic-type view of science).

So, can I prove ID? No: it involves a creator who prefers not to leave reproducible signatures in our world and fails the scientific method, but leaves his signature in human lives daily. Can I shoot horrific, ghastly holes in ToE, yes, all day long. Why would I dispute the existence of my creator who shows me daily that he exists, even though I cannot reproduce miracles in a laboratory, in favor of the best science has to offer which is critically flawed?

You win-I cannot prove ID.

Let me close with my favorite passage from Moby **edited**, which bears no impact on the argument, but is funny as hell. It comes when Ahab, in a fit of rage for not finding the white whale, throws his sexton to the deck and stomps it to pieces. Ahem:

"Science! Curse thee, vain toy, and cursed be all things that cast man's eyes aloft to that heaven whose live vividness but scorches him, as these old eyes are even now scorched by they light, oh sun.

Level by nature are the glances of man's eyes, not cast from the crown of his head, as if God had meant him to gaze upon his firmament."

I use this regularly when I cannot get a piece of equipment to work properly at work. It makes me laugh. It's important to make yourself laugh.

Hey!

Just a few words I want to throw in here.

(No offense intended!)

Not necessarily regarding ID, but just creation in general, I believe that over time, everything has developed on its own.

But I don't however, believe in the "Big Bang" Theory that is presented today.

I believe that time and space have always been here, no matter how hard that is to believe seeing that you'd have to travel both back in time and forward in time an infinite number of years for that to be possible which in itself seems to be impossible, but I've just come to accept that and not put too much thought into it because you could spend a lifetime doing so and frankly, I have better things to do with my time.

I don't have an answer for how everything got here, I just stick to my belief that everything has always been here.(going back to traveling back in time an infinite number of years, which does in some sense make that possible)

And over time all of that stuff has naturally developed into what you see today, even me and you.

How? I don't know, but seeing that the evolution of man and other creatures on this planet can be shown with scientific proof, it somewhat helps in supporting my belief.

The thing that really makes people question what I think is the whole part of things always being here and the thing about going back in time an infinite number of years.

But if you think about it, time will continue from this very moment for an infinite number of years, time will always pass.

Now with that said, if time can progress an infinite number of years, then why couldn't it regress for an infinite numer of years?

It's hard for me to explain and I don't want to produce too much reading material so I'll just let you think about what I've said and hopefully you can figure it out and understand it, even if you disagree with it.

*Notice how I've refrained from knockin' on the churchies.*

I'm atheist to the end!

I feel this is (((bump))) worthy.

Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind.

Albert Einstein, "Science, Philosophy and Religion: a Symposium", 1941

goodsmitty wrote: ToE...is the atheist answer to religion.

That's just an opinion. 

goodsmitty wrote: I think I beat the horse dead on its greatest flaw-missing links from workable system to workable system.

All you did was make a statement. There are no missing links because there are no "jumps." It's a seemless process. Even a cursory look at the animal kingdom provides examples of your so called "missing-links." How about the African Lungfish?   

goodsmitty wrote:  Don't they have to prove the existence of anti-matter for the calculations to work? They will believe in anti-matter which leaves no signature, but must exist for the theory to work

That's dark matter, completely different from anti-matter...and dark matter is a very controversial theory, untested and unproven. It's little more than hypothesis really. It's a long long way from general acceptance.  

goodsmitty wrote: 2. Since I do not believe ToE, there is no reason for me to buy into the big bang theory. I have read various articles on it, as I am a subscriber to Scientific American, but everything I read from an outside view leads me to believe that science doesn't have a clue about the origin of the universe. Don't they have to prove the existence of anti-matter for the calculations to work?

This proves beyond doubt that you have no real understanding of the Big Bang theory.  Instead of me reciting a physics textbook, I encourage you to read Dr. Hawking's A Brief History of Time.  He does a pretty good job of making astrophysics accessible to those with limited physics background.

The mathematical and physics underpinnings for some type of Big Bang are overwhelming.  As I stated above, in view of the evidence, you would essentially have to reject all of modern physics and mathematics in order to reject the Big Bang.

Physicists are still discussing the specifics of the Bang, but the fundamentals of the origins of the universe are no longer open for discussion.

And neither anti-matter nor dark matter are needed to prove the Big Bang.  Those are both more issues for black holes, which is related, but not fundamental to the Big Bang.  At its core, all you need to prove the Big Bang is a good radiotelescope and an understanding of redshift. 

They will believe in anti-matter which leaves no signature, but must exist for the theory to work, but turn their noses at the existence of God, who leaves not signature, but must exist for ID to work.

Whoever told you that antimatter leaves no signature?  It is quite measurable.  Heck, we can make the stuff.  Dark matter is a bit more theoretical at the moment, but the theory is showing some promise for future use.

If ToE is full of critical flaws, why support it just because it is the best science has to offer? Why not hold out until science can figure it out (sort of an agnostic-type view of science).

First, Evolutionary theory is NOT full of critical flaws.  You have yet to name one, in part because there ARE none - at least not yet.

That said, if we come up with a better theory, we'll dump Evolution in a heartbeat.  Of course.

Can I shoot horrific, ghastly holes in ToE, yes, all day long.

Please do so.  So far you haven't even come close.  Even if there were a "missing link" that would not be a critical flaw - heck, barely even a flaw at all.  Eyeballs?  Not a flaw.

Please show me even a single critical flaw in the fundamental theory of evolution.

Good post, junky.  Let's see...

adrenalinejunky wrote: yes, we are here, but that fact doesn't mean we should jump to conclusions about how we got here. Just because something doesn't directly contradict science (which i'm not conceeding) doesn't make it what happened. the earth could have spontniously formed from a nebula explosion yesterday with our memories strangely being formed into our minds and never really happened... but the fact that we are here doesn't mean we should overlook the insanely long odds of that happening.

True.  Agreed.

are we? we are looking at the result and trying to find the phenomenon that caused it, in which case odds aren't entirely moot. sure the least likely thing could happen, but there is the least chance of that happening...

True - "moot" was overstating my case.  I just want to make sure that we compare apples to apples, and that we ask the correct question.

To go back to my lottery analogy - before the drawing, the odds of winning are astronomically small.  After the drawing, before looking at the ticket, the odds of that ticket being a winner are still astronomically small.

After looking at the ticket, and determined that the numbers match, the odds of it being a winner are essentially 100%.  The question now is "how?"  Did the balls randomly fall?  Did I forge the ticket?  Did I rig the drawing?  Did God intervene?  Those and others are all possible reasons for my ticket.

With that in mind, the correct analysis is not simply to discard any explanation that is individually unlikely - ALL the explanations are individually unlikely, yet we know that we have the ticket, so we cannot discard all of the explanations.  That is the point I am making with the "we are here" note.

Now, what we should do is to compare the relative likelihood of the available options.  The balls falling randomly is astronomically unlikely, but it is consistent with our laws of physics and with all available data, and has no other apparent flaw other than being unlikely.

Me cheating in some fashion is also unlikely, but can be rendered even more unlikely by some police work, for instance.  Simply by investigation and observation we can render this explanation even more unlikely.

Divine intervention would require us to suspend our laws of physics to a greater or lesser extent, and that alone makes this explanation least likely of all, from a scientific point of view.  Why choose the explanation that contradicts all our laws, when there is no other data to support this explanation?  This also must rejected as possible, but unacceptably unlikely.

Therefore we conclude, despite the extreme unlikelihood, that I just won the lottery randomly.

Along those same lines, I consider all available explanations for the origins of life.  For the moment, we will pretend there are only two - random and divine.  Random is extremely unlikely, but consistent with observed data.  Divine is also extremely unlikely, but contradicts laws of physics and is unsupported by observed data.

Therefore I conclude, despite the extreme unlikelihood, that life evolved randomly.

actually thats not true... all this matter had to come from somewhere - that in itself is contradictory with scientific law. ANY origination theory is contradictory to scientific law because of this. all the more reason to believe in something higher than the laws of science.

Excellent point, and ultimately (I believe) the best "logical" argument for the existence of God.

Not exactly accurate, however.  The laws of physics that declare that the matter has to come from someplace tend to break down in extreme situations - black holes, big bangs, that sort of thing.  Moreover, it is not necessarily the case that there was no matter "before" the Big Bang.  Moreover, it is quite consistent with current physics theory (relativity in particular) that there was no "before" the Big Bang - simply because at that instant time was stretched out to infinity.  For the same reason that relativity prohibits travel faster than light, relativity potentially also prohibits the idea of "before" the Big Bang.

I am not aware of any actual inconsistency - but I acknowledge that these explanations are entirely unsatisfactory from a visceral point of view.  And that leads to my principal defense on the "where did it come from" question:  We don't know yet.  But that does not mean that we cannot know, or will not know.

"We don't know" has been used as a argument for the existence of God since the beginning of time.  Where do we go when we die?  To God.  What is thunder?  God bowling.  Why did we have a flood?  God is mad.  How did I get cured?  God did it.  How did the universe come to be?  God made it.

In each case, very personally satifying.  In each case, it is really a punt more than an explanation.  And in thousands, millions, or such caes, eventually we found a perfectly acceptable non-God scientific explanation after all.  Therefore, I simply cannot accept "you can't explain it" as sufficient evidence for the existence of God or God's creation of the universe or of man.

genetic knowlege about micro evolution could support the theory of evoltion, but it could just as easily support some other theory, similarity of genetics between species could support the evolutionary theory, or it could just as easily support design by a single creator, this particular data fits both theories quite well.

Very true - All of the data that supports evolution also supports ID.  ID is essentially "evolution plus".  And that's the rub - while there is plenty of evidence for evolution, there is no evidence for the "plus".

as you may recall i'm not a YEC'er... but old earth doesn't mean evolution, once again, it fits both theories.

I always thought Young Earth was the best way to reconcile and make everybody happy.  But again, YE is essentially "evolution plus", with no non-Biblical evidence for the "plus" part.  It would therefore be unscientific (contrary to a correct application of Occam's Razor) to choose the more complicated theory when the simpler will suffice (and yes, from a scientific perspective, evolution is much much simpler than God).

there is a large difference here - in predicting earthquakes it has been show to work through testing, in genetic meadicine its agian shown to work through testing... evolution cannot be tested, so yes, there is a dividing line.

But it is the same data and theory that lead to earthquake testing and fossil dating, for instance.  It is the same data and theory that leads to gene therapy and evolutionary chart drawing.  If we were wrong about some aspects of evolution, gene therapy simply would not work.  Accepting one but not the other just because it can't be tested is like agreeing that 10+10=20, but not accepting that 10,000,000+10,000,000=20,000,000, just because you can't count that high.  If the former is true (and we can confirm that), then the latter MUST be true (the evolutionary scientific relationships obviously aren't that firm - illustrative purposes only).

Clark, I disagree with your point that you have to buy into the big bang hypothesis if you accept any physics law. I need to discredit God to calculate the trajectory of an artillery round? That is the same argument that medications that are formed to antagonize certain receptors sites in the body are proof of ToE.

But I will take your advice, Clark, and I'll leave physics alone since I will just got owned.

Physiology, however......

As I understand ToE, it states that random transcription mistakes in the genetic code cause mutations in life. The best mutations survive and the rest die off from not being selected.

I think that looks great in theory, but at the genetic level it does not hold water, IMO. Because, Those transcription errors to the genetic code cause a change in ONE protein. ONE. What I tried to show earlier is that each system, no matter how small, are reliant upon many, many proteins performing an EXACT function for survival. They have one single purpose. If you have an error in any one of them, it is called a disease. You would need changes in many proteins happening at exactly the same time for a creature to survive or evolve.

As I was illustrating earlier, any SINGLE piece of the human's homeostatic systems have little or no purpose for survival by themselves, and would not have increased a creature's probability of survival to pass that trait onto the next generation. They must have been formed in concert. According to evolution, you would have parts of an incredibly complex homeostatic system sitting idly by for eons waiting for th the other parts to be formed through random transcription errors.

goodsmitty wrote: Clark, I disagree with your point that you have to buy into the big bang hypothesis if you accept any physics law. I need to discredit God to calculate the trajectory of an artillery round? That is the same argument that medications that are formed to antagonize certain receptors sites in the body are proof of ToE. But I will take your advice, Clark, and I'll leave physics alone since I will just got owned. Physiology, however...... As I understand ToE, it states that random transcription mistakes in the genetic code cause mutations in life. The best mutations survive and the rest die off from not being selected. I think that looks great in theory, but at the genetic level it does not hold water, IMO. Because, Those transcription errors to the genetic code cause a change in ONE protein. ONE. What I tried to show earlier is that each system, no matter how small, are reliant upon many, many proteins performing an EXACT function for survival. They have one single purpose. If you have an error in any one of them, it is called a disease. You would need changes in many proteins happening at exactly the same time for a creature to survive or evolve. As I was illustrating earlier, any SINGLE piece of the human's homeostatic systems have little or no purpose for survival by themselves, and would not have increased a creature's probability of survival to pass that trait onto the next generation. They must have been formed in concert. According to evolution, you would have parts of an incredibly complex homeostatic system sitting idly by for eons waiting for th the other parts to be formed through random transcription errors.

One last bump before I let this one go.

adrenalinejunky wrote: i disagree, yes it does not comply with scientific law, because the whole basis is that there is something higher than scientific law. God.

True - perhaps 'contradict' is the wrong word.  But the existence of god, and the creation of life by god is, or at least could be ... outside of science.  God operates by entirely different rules.

But, my point is that this requires a quite literal leap of faith.  Science requires no faith - only understanding.  Belief in god requires a non-scientific belief.  Clearly, therefore, if evaluating evolution vs. creation in strictly scientific terms, we have to choose evolution - obviously.  Not just because I may not actually believe in god, but simply because, by the rules of science god is more unlikely than the alternatives.

Probability is a scientific concept.  Applying scientific probability to the existence of god results in a tiny tiny probability, precisely because god is outside of science, because in order for god to exist we would have to be wrong about so many other things that feel very confident about.

here is where things start getting confusing. there is no reason that our laws would be created right when matter spontaniously burst on the scene, and not before. another extremely long odds situation.

Not at all - there are a wide variety of physical laws that could work.  The likelihood of OUR laws randomly coming into existence may be tiny, but the likelihood of SOME functional laws coming into existence is substantially greater.

ahh, but i'm not arguing that you can't explain it, but once agian, your comparing apples and oranges. thunder, being flooded, being medically cured, those are all things we can witness and observe, origination theories are not something we can witness and observe.

Not true.  We see the direct results of evolution and random creation all the time.

Take the Big Bang, for instance (easier to explain).

Imagine a slo-mo 3D video, about 20 ms in duration, taken immediately after a hand grenade explosion.  We see grenade-particles moving in different directions for a short period.

We didn't see the grenade explode, but by simply examining the fragments we can determine it was a grenade.  By examining the trajectories and velocities we can determine when and where the grenade exploded.

This is essentially how we know about the Big Bang.  Even though we didn't see it, it would be irrational to NOT conclude that it happened based on obervations made today.

Similarly, we see the effect of evolution, as well as current ongoing evolution, all the time.

Did we see the beginning of life?  No.  But science is all about determining things we didn't see.  We didn't see dinosaurs, but we have a pretty good idea what they HAD to look like.  We didn't see Pompeii get destroyed, but we are quite confident that know what happened.

Are we absolutely sure about the beginnings of life?  No, and we never will be.  Science isn't about absolute certainty, it is about making the best conclusion based on available evidence.  And the best available evidence points to evolution and the Big Bang.  We are not "sure" in an absolute epistemological sense.  But we are "sure" in a real-life science kind of way.

as for why did i get cured and where do we go when we die, there are plenty of cases where science hasn't the slightest clue why someone got cured. and as far as i know there is no scientific answer for where do we go after we die (nowhere isn't much of a scientific answer)

As to cures - there are many people who get cured by means we do not understand - yet.  Apparently random cures we didn't understand 100 years ago now make perfect sense.  Maybe today's miracle cures are tomorrow's ho-hum.  Simply because we don't know now is in no way indicative that we will not know in the future.

My point was that religious/supernatural explanations are often given for phenomenons that science cannot explain, when historically all that was needed was some more study.

As to where we go after death, again - just because we don't know doesn't mean that we can't know.  But - as to current knowledge, the very concept of going somewhere after death assumes something of which there is no evidence:  a soul, or spirit, or the whatever that allegedly survives death.  If we had some evidence of a soul, we could try to determine what happened to it (if anything) after death, but right now the answer is simple.  When you die, you decompose.  There is no "you" to go anywhere.

huh? Young earth is not "evolution plus" young earth is the theory that states there was no evolution.

Allow me to rephrase.  Young Earth theory doesn't deny evolutionary evidence, and perhaps even accepts it.  YE simply says "yes, but" - Sure, you found a bunch of fossils, but God put them there and made them look old.

In that sense it is "evolution plus" - in the sense that YE doesn't say that evolution is scientifically wrong, so much as irrelevant.

but i will agree that evolution is simpler than God, but i'm also looking at this from a totally different perspective than you. Because its not my belief in ID that makes me think that God is real, its knowing God that makes me believe in ID. Kinda like your "we're here" scenario. (totally unscientific i'll grant)

I cannot argue with that, and that makes perfect sense to me.  If you add "God" to the available evidence, then both YE and ID become much less unlikely, and probably the best explanations.

But this is completely different from what some other posters in this thread have claimed.  Unless you bring a presumption of God with you, the available evidence does not support YE or ID.  And that makes ID a religious belief, not a scientific theory.

goodsmitty wrote: Clark, I disagree with your point that you have to buy into the big bang hypothesis if you accept any physics law. I need to discredit God to calculate the trajectory of an artillery round?

Well, that depends on your exact beliefs.

But small missile trajectories rely upon Newtonian physics.  Ballistic missile trajectories also rely upon Einsteinian relativity.  Both Newtonian and Einsteinian physics are fairly well-established, both with missiles and otherwise.  Without relativity, for instance, landing on the moon would have been impossible.  The same rules apply to all of these situations.

Now, those very same rules were applied to astrophysics, and the result was the Big Bang.  (Actually, it was the other way around.  Einstein observed astrophysics, arrived at the General Theory of Relativity, which was subsequently applied to space travel and ballistic missiles.  Works either way)

So, to deny the Big Bang, you must either conclude that the observed data is incorrect (hard to do), or you must conclude that the rules of Newton and Einstein (which are applied every day in a zillion fashions) are incorrect, or you must conclude that Dr. Hawking's arithmetic is incorrect.  Take your pick.  But yeah - if you decide that Relativity is incorrect, you will a hard time explaining ballistic missiles.

Or you could take the Young Earth approach and conclude that God is fooling us all.

As I understand ToE, it states that random transcription mistakes in the genetic code cause mutations in life. The best mutations survive and the rest die off from not being selected.

Mutations accelerate the process, and are needed for some of the major changes, but even natural non-mutative variation creates evolution.

I think that looks great in theory, but at the genetic level it does not hold water, IMO. Because, Those transcription errors to the genetic code cause a change in ONE protein. ONE. What I tried to show earlier is that each system, no matter how small, are reliant upon many, many proteins performing an EXACT function for survival. They have one single purpose. If you have an error in any one of them, it is called a disease. You would need changes in many proteins happening at exactly the same time for a creature to survive or evolve.

I'll have to do some research on single-protein mutations before I can give a specific answer, but I can offer this suggestion in the meantime.  If it was that simple to show a fatal flaw in evolutionary theory, then either the world's leading scientists are all complete morons, or they are all in an international cabal out to fool the masses.  Neither of those explanations are acceptable to me. 

As I was illustrating earlier, any SINGLE piece of the human's homeostatic systems have little or no purpose for survival by themselves, and would not have increased a creature's probability of survival to pass that trait onto the next generation. They must have been formed in concert.

Not true.  This has been addressed in a wide variety of models and theoretical explanations.  This objection became the new darling of the creationist crowd after the whole "eye" argument was beaten down, but it doesn't hold any more water.  Again, I will have to do some research to provide a proper answer, but I encourage you to do so as well in the meantime.

According to evolution, you would have parts of an incredibly complex homeostatic system sitting idly by for eons waiting for th the other parts to be formed through random transcription errors.

Nope.  Not at all.  Details to follow.     :)

But mainly - none of the objections you offer are exactly rocket science.  Clearly within the comprehension of any biologist.  Therefore, if they had merit, evolution would have been rejected long ago, unless there is this massive international conspiracy again.  Given the number of family members (and other people I respect) that this conspiracy would have to involve, I find this conspiracy impossible.

Smitty - to quote add {quote} in front of the quoted text, and {/quote} after the quoted text, except with [] instead of {}.

I am obviously less qualified in biology than in physics, but I cannot encourage you enough to read A Brief History of Time.  That will probably answer all your immediate questions about the Big Bang.

And as to evolution - I encourage everybody to visit http://www.talkorigins.org - www.talkorigins.org .  This large and comprehensive website is essentially dedicated to explaining evolutionary theory.  Obviously biased and occasionally sarcastic, there is nevertheless an impressive amount of information there.  Must read for anybody with questions or doubts about evolution.

Clark Kent wrote: Smitty - to quote add {quote} in front of the quoted text, and {/quote} after the quoted text, except with [] instead of {}.

Thanks!

I am obviously less qualified in biology than in physics, but I cannot encourage you enough to read A Brief History of Time.  That will probably answer all your immediate questions about the Big Bang.

Thanks-I'll start with Darwin first, just because it is more interesting to me. I really have had no desire to this point, but now I want to have it under my belt for our next encounter. I think it is also ironic that the professor I used to spar with in college was a Sunday school teacher for his church.

BTW-What do you do for a living that you know so much about physics and probability? I am guessing you teach.

So, following my own advice, I spent some time on http://www.talkorigins.org - www.talkorigins.org and http://www.talkdesign.org - www.talkdesign.org , its sister site dedicated to discussions of intelligent design.  Neither of these sites pretend to be "neutral", so all articles should be read critically.  The forums, however, are full of people with a wide variety of beliefs.

I am humbled by the knowledge and education of the people on the forums and by the posted articles, on both sides of the issue.  I cannot encourage you strongly enough to spend some time on these sites to learn.  The forums are also outstanding.

Following up on smitty's earlier post, I stumbled across this little post about the formation of complex proteins - somewhat relevant to smitty's question:  http://talkorigins.org/origins/postmonth/feb05.html#run - http://talkorigins.org/origins/postmonth/feb05.html#run

In addition, you should also read this article about irreducible complexities, which I believe is at the heart of your concern about the interlocking systems of the human anatomy - much like the older argument about the eyeball:  http://www.talkdesign.org/faqs/icdmyst/ICDmyst.html - http://www.talkdesign.org/faqs/icdmyst/ICDmyst.html

Here is an interesting article on probability and the origins of life - essentially a seriously souped-up version of the first three pages of this thread:  http://talkorigins.org/faqs/abioprob/abioprob.html - http://talkorigins.org/faqs/abioprob/abioprob.html

I also strongly encourage absolutely everybody to read this article, a good intro-primer on evolutionary biology.  No advanced education required:  http://talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-intro-to-biology.html - http://talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-intro-to-biology.html

But most of all I just encourage everybody to read and learn.  So many of today's controversial issues (Big Bang, Evolution, etc.) are poorly understood by people who nevertheless have strong opinions on the subject (me included).  While we all cannot be astrophysicists or evolutionary biologists, it still behooves us to educate ourselves as best we can, and not base our beliefs on "arguments" that have only been tested on those that already agree.

well,, ive been reading alot (not all, but most) of the posts and well,, i think that i fall into the midle area of belief on this issue.

u can rable on about how improbablity statistics state that it is highly unliekly that this would happen etc etc blah blah blah...

however, what we do know (and theoretically, we dont "know" anything) is how the earth today is what we see around us. now, this has to have been brought about in some way. beliefs are seperated into two groups as to how this happened u have 2 sides, helping handed believers and random creation believers.

someone said that we dont know how many universes there have been (due to the contraction of the universe theory and the re-explosion etc) and they were right and and we also dont know how long each "rolling of the dice there is" so,,, what i was thinking is, that it is improbable, that someone watching the big bang and being able to predict the outcome in a few billion years. the way it turned out is what we see today. BUT, if you think about the millions of other ways in which it could have happened as someone suggested, nitrogen based life forms,,, then the need for highly complicated probality maths goes right out the window. because we can just accept that life happened this way, as opposed to another way,,, not as opposed to nothing.

so it boils down wheather or not u think that "god" decided to make the decisions or (hate to use the really bad analogy) god decided to make his own movie that started with the big bang and put many a variable factors in and wait and see what would randomly happen to entertain himself (this would also account as to why god lets evil happen). who said god was a good guy anyways. i mean, no one knows him, there is bad on earth, he has left us in the dark about alot of stuff...

as you can see my argument has kind of been against god.... but,, all these theories and controversial topics and issues that come about all boil down to a few big questions

what was there b4 the big bang

who made the tiny particle that consisted of everything which banged into a universe,

the obvious answer is god,, but then questions about him arise like:

when did god begin and how

what was there before god

who made god

but in the end,, the answer to life, everything and the universe is...

42

Hey!

HADES wrote: Does omnipotence allow for logic to be broken... IE...does omnipotence allow for an object to be created so heavy that it cant be lifted by the omnipotent being?

I was going to ask the exact same question.

DBibeau855 wrote: No, no matter how heavy it was, he would still be able to move it, it could be infinitly heavy.

But you're not looking at the other side.

If he could lift something that he designed in such a way that he wouldn't be able to lift, then he wouldn't be able to do something(not being able to create something he can't lift) which would scratch the whole omnipotence thing off the board.