Evolution and Intelligent Design

[Chemist]

Blue Priest why do you not believe in evolution?  There IS scientific evidence that proves it.  It can be seen in diseases easily.

I dont see anything in any of the evidence for evolution that cant be explained through intelligent design. As Ive stated before, I dont think evolution disproves God if it is true, so its not a matter of me not believing it because I think its a way to destroy christianity.  I cant really explain why I dont believe its true, which is sorta strange cause I can normally explain things like that better, all I can really do, is make sure you dont misunderstand why I dont think its true.

Meaning you're not just an ID proponent, you're a creationist. Isn't it funny how no non-religious people disbelieve evolution? But that aside I find it interesting that you think your view can explain things just as well as evolution does. I'd be intrigued to hear how it explains:

1. The fossil record. Every species we know of from the fossil record apparently existed in a certain time frame; not before, not after. There are also certain patterns, such as no land dwelling animals before a certain point in time, then amphibians showing up (gradually), with all reptiles showing up later and mammals showing up later still (etc.) ... and interestingly there aren't any members of a new class from before the existence of a transitional species linking them to older classes. Are you going to say now that the fossil record is just there to deceive us into thinking evolution is true?

2. The flaws in the human body. Someone so brilliant as to make DNA work should know better than to build in wisdom teeth into their "greatest creation". Or are you saying those are a good thing to have?

2b.) The peculiar structure of the human brain. It consists of three layers: the reptilian brain (much like the entire brain present in reptiles), the limbic brain (built on top of it, as present in mammals), and the neocortex (present in higher mammals and much larger in humans). The reptilian brain is the part that handles the body's vital functions such as breathing and heart rate, as well as some primitive instincts. It is reliable, but impulsive. The neocortex is the part that allows us to have language and abstract thought. It is in the frontal lobe of the neocortex that the brain's executive functions reside. These allow us to differentiate and choose between "good" and "bad", among other things. But the thing is: it is hard for the frontal lobe to overpower the primitive impulses of the reptilian brain. Why? Because the reptilian brain is situated right at the base of the brain, from where the signals get sent on to the rest of the body. It makes sense that evolution did nothing to change this, but if you were to believe that we were actually designed that way, then you'd have to concede that the creator wanted us to a) give in to those impulses, or b) have a hard time fighting them. So does your deity actually want us to be promiscuous or something? Because that's what we're "designed" to be like.

[BluePriest]

No chemist, you misunderstand me.

First I've got to make something clear here. You are taking many assumptions, such as the fossil record, as evidence that the bible is wrong, and so To me, it seems that although youre calling me a creationist, the real issue is that you are an atheist that wants proof for the bible being wrong. Why else would you choose to peruse this argument? Especially now that it is getting into biblical territory? I knew there was something about the manner of which you spoke during this debate that made me question things you would say, and now its coming out.

Now, let me state this as well. One of these things is true. They cant both be true.
1)The bible is wrong
2)The bible is right

Chemist, both you and me have all the evidence we personally need to make a 100% decision that we are right on what we believe, and yet, one of us is still wrong.

1)The fossil record. First let me say that whole "test of faith thing" that you here some people say, I think is a cop out from people who use it. The only test of faith i see with the fossil record is to see how God shows his works. So there would be a reason for it. Second let me say that considering we only have about 1% of the fossil record, that means that there is plenty of room for it to actually be proven that it really doesnt work like that. However, me simply stating that doesnt show any evidence for the bible supporting the fossil record, and so I must go on to the next step.

As I am sure you are aware of, the bible talks of a large flood that wipes out many things. Im not going to talk about the flood yet though. Im going to talk about the life before the flood.

It was thought to be very different. Im not very good at describing it, but it was almost like another planet. Everything was able to live longer, you look in the bible and you see that some people lived to be over 900 years old. This seems really implausible, but once you look at things, assuming the bible is true, and try to prove the bible, you actually see that it isnt implausible at all. You see, when there was the flood, it was the first time there was actually rain. But the rain didnt actually just appear there. It was there the whole time. What do I mean? In Genesis when it says a firmament was created above the heavens, it is believed by biblical scholars that the earth was protected from many of the harmful rays of the sun by something similar to a mask of water around the earth. There was also constantly a light mist as well. It was a wonderful and easy place to live in. Since the earth was young (or even if it was old, life was still young) there werent many diseases that you could just randomly catch, and our bodies werent as prone to things such as heart attacks. This is the world that the dinosaurs were use to living in.

Something many people dont seem to understand, is that the flood wasnt just a giant flood. There were earthquakes, massive ones, and volcanic eruptions. The world was in chaos, that entire firmament down poured on the world.  Because of that chaos, that is when the fossils you see appeared. You can look at things and assume millions of years, or you can look at things and assume it happened rapidly. I assume it happened rapidly

Now as to the order of it. You make it seem like this
a= amphibian R=Reptile m= mammal

So are you telling me the fossil evidence looks like this (just using the three types you mentioned, excluding fish and the like)?
---a---r--m--m--a--m--r------
--a---r---r---m---a---m---r---
---a--r--r--m---a---r---a----
----a---r---r----r---a---a--a--
----a---a----r---a--r---a---r---
----a--a----a----r--a----r------
a---a--a----a--r--a----a-a---

Or are there occasionally mammals and reptiles down lower as well? Before I go into the order of things, I will wait for your response to that.

Ill have more to post on that later, but thats all for now, and I know, I didnt comment on the order (yet).

As to point 2. 2 and 2b really go together.
2) This is a really common misconception I hear. God DID make us all perfect. And then, we ruined it. It talks about the fall of man in the bible. I wont post it, but it explains all the imperfections we have.

2b) Actually, I dont see it as either   a) give in to those impulses, or b) have a hard time fighting them.
I see it as using those impulses to our advantage. Dont let them overtake us, but dont try to completely put them away.

Im sure you will have a lot to say, so I look forward to a response.

[Innominate]

No chemist, you misunderstand me.

First I've got to make something clear here. You are taking many assumptions, such as the fossil record, as evidence that the bible is wrong, and so To me, it seems that although youre calling me a creationist, the real issue is that you are an atheist that wants proof for the bible being wrong. Why else would you choose to peruse this argument? Especially now that it is getting into biblical territory? I knew there was something about the manner of which you spoke during this debate that made me question things you would say, and now its coming out.

Now, let me state this as well. One of these things is true. They cant both be true.
1)The bible is wrong
2)The bible is right

Splitting hairs here, but it's possible that the Bible is partially wrong and partially right; it is for example correct when it talks about ancient Jewish custom and folklore (though historically it is patchy in the early books), and wrong when it says that god made the earth in seven days, the Jews were slaves in Egypt, David and Solomon presided over populations of millions at a time when the global population was itself a few tens of millions, etc. I guess you could say it is right when it talks facts and wrong when it talks itself up.

Chemist, both you and me have all the evidence we personally need to make a 100% decision that we are right on what we believe, and yet, one of us is still wrong.

At least one of you is wrong; Pastafarianism is the one true religion.

1)The fossil record. First let me say that whole "test of faith thing" that you here some people say, I think is a cop out from people who use it. The only test of faith i see with the fossil record is to see how God shows his works. So there would be a reason for it. Second let me say that considering we only have about 1% of the fossil record, that means that there is plenty of room for it to actually be proven that it really doesnt work like that.

You know very little of statistics. Do we need to have 100% of the evidence to make an informed decision about the remainder? What would you say the odds are that every single fossil we have ever found fits into the model predicted by evolution? What if we factor in independent corroboration of the theory from multiple sources? The geographical spread of creatures mimics exactly what we would expect if those animals evolved in the environments they were found - kangaroos are only found in Australia, some islands without predators have almost all the flightless bird species that exist - even though some species could survive in many places, we only find them in places where we can trace a consistent genetic lineage to the fossilised ancestors we find in the same place. Speaking of fossils: they're also localised. Species are not spread across the globe except when they have the ability to migrate over those distances. In other words, exactly what we would expect if the theory of evolution were true.

Conversely, were these organisms designed and placed on earth there is no reason why they would be localised as they are. If you wish to argue that your creator god decided to put these creatures in specific places and not others without informing people about his choices through the Bible, feel free. You'll have to provide a testable hypothesis based on that theory however. If intelligent design is to be treated as scientific, it must make falsifiable predictions. Evolution does, and every single prediction evolution makes is borne out by the evidence. So where are the predictions of intelligent design?

However, me simply stating that doesnt show any evidence for the bible supporting the fossil record, and so I must go on to the next step.

As I am sure you are aware of, the bible talks of a large flood that wipes out many things. Im not going to talk about the flood yet though. Im going to talk about the life before the flood.

It was thought to be very different. Im not very good at describing it, but it was almost like another planet. Everything was able to live longer, you look in the bible and you see that some people lived to be over 900 years old. This seems really implausible, but once you look at things, assuming the bible is true, and try to prove the bible, you actually see that it isnt implausible at all. You see, when there was the flood, it was the first time there was actually rain. But the rain didnt actually just appear there. It was there the whole time. What do I mean? In Genesis when it says a firmament was created above the heavens, it is believed by biblical scholars that the earth was protected from many of the harmful rays of the sun by something similar to a mask of water around the earth. There was also constantly a light mist as well. It was a wonderful and easy place to live in. Since the earth was young (or even if it was old, life was still young) there werent many diseases that you could just randomly catch, and our bodies werent as prone to things such as heart attacks. This is the world that the dinosaurs were use to living in.

Except a water canopy of sufficient thickness to stop more than a fraction of a percent of the dangerous radiation from the sun would have killed everyone alive. Water canopy adds more mass on top of the air, which presses down on the atmosphere, which increases the pressure at sea level, which crushes the alveoli in our lungs, the blood vessels on our skin and our eyes. Or is this a magical water canopy that defies even more of the laws of physics than just gravity and the second law of thermodynamics?

Something many people dont seem to understand, is that the flood wasnt just a giant flood. There were earthquakes, massive ones, and volcanic eruptions. The world was in chaos, that entire firmament down poured on the world.  Because of that chaos, that is when the fossils you see appeared. You can look at things and assume millions of years, or you can look at things and assume it happened rapidly. I assume it happened rapidly

Funny, there don't seem to be any mentions of earthquakes or volcanoes in the Biblical account of the Flood. Are you reading a revised version?

Now as to the order of it. You make it seem like this
a= amphibian R=Reptile m= mammal

So are you telling me the fossil evidence looks like this (just using the three types you mentioned, excluding fish and the like)?
---a---r--m--m--a--m--r------
--a---r---r---m---a---m---r---
---a--r--r--m---a---r---a----
----a---r---r----r---a---a--a--
----a---a----r---a--r---a---r---
----a--a----a----r--a----r------
a---a--a----a--r--a----a-a---

Or are there occasionally mammals and reptiles down lower as well? Before I go into the order of things, I will wait for your response to that.

No mammal is found at or below the same level of the first reptiles or amphibians, nor are reptiles found below the first amphibians. In higher levels they do mix as your diagram suggests. It's worth noting that the amphibians and reptiles found higher up show greater morphological complexity and a stronger resemblance to the amphibians and reptiles we currently have. This "increased resemblance to modern animals" pattern applies almost unilaterally (some animals, like lung fish, crocodiles and sharks have a less steeply defined progression; modern species are still different, but less so than in other cases).

Ill have more to post on that later, but thats all for now, and I know, I didnt comment on the order (yet).

As to point 2. 2 and 2b really go together.
2) This is a really common misconception I hear. God DID make us all perfect. And then, we ruined it. It talks about the fall of man in the bible. I wont post it, but it explains all the imperfections we have.

2b) Actually, I dont see it as either   a) give in to those impulses, or b) have a hard time fighting them.
I see it as using those impulses to our advantage. Dont let them overtake us, but dont try to completely put them away.

Im sure you will have a lot to say, so I look forward to a response.

To pre-empt your next response, I pose a series of questions: why are fish found scattered throughout the fossil record when they could swim to survive any flooding? Were these fish killed by the volcanoes? If so, why were they not all found in volcanic rock? And why is the ordering of these species always persistent? Why, for example, do we not find Enchelion montium on the same or higher strata as Leptolepis talbragarensis? Why is it that the fossils we have show a consistent trend of decreasing morphological complexity with depth, no matter where in the world we find them?

[Chemist]

First I've got to make something clear here. You are taking many assumptions, such as the fossil record, as evidence that the bible is wrong, and so To me, it seems that although youre calling me a creationist, the real issue is that you are an atheist that wants proof for the bible being wrong. Why else would you choose to peruse this argument?

I'm an atheist who is intrigued by your claim that creationism can explain known scientific evidence (such as the fossil record) just as well as evolution can. To my knowledge it doesn't even have an internally agreed upon answer for, well, pretty much anything. But I want to hear your view, because you claim it makes more sense than evolution.

Hence questions I believe you couldn't offer sensible answers to. I'm not asking you where the Bible, or any other holy book, talks about the five mass extinctions. I'm asking you to explain the existing evidence (preferably in a way that makes more sense than evolution). If you can do that using the Bible, good for you. But the Bible itself isn't evidence; it's a book. The fossil record is the evidence (or FACT if you will), which I'm asking you to explain.

I knew there was something about the manner of which you spoke during this debate that made me question things you would say, and now its coming out.

So you didn't believe my explanation of evolution because you suspected I'm atheist? Shouldn't you listen to arguments rather then look at someone's religious (non-)affiliation?

As I am sure you are aware of, the bible talks of a large flood that wipes out many things. Im not going to talk about the flood yet though. Im going to talk about the life before the flood.

Whereas the fossil record talks about five separate mass extinction events. How do we know about them? Well, you see we have methods of estimating the age of each individual fossil ever found (much like we have ways to estimate the age of the Earth), which means we can use our collective fossil record to "look back in time" and see what kinds of plants and animals coexisted at any point of our planet's 4.5 billion year history. One can clearly see there were no birds and mammals around in the Triassic period, for instance, and we have a pretty good idea of what kinds of animals dominated the land and seas back then. We can easily notice in the records when 19% of families, 50% of genera and 70% of all the species of a time simply vanish over 30 million years. That's what a mass extinction looks like in the fossil record: all those species that were there aplenty in the older-aged fossils are absent from the newer ones. But no worries: after a mass extinction new species emerge (evolve) to replace the old ones. (Also note that all of these mass extinctions took place long before humans evolved.)

You appear to assume that there were merely two periods in the Earth's history: one with both dinosaurs and humans living together (pre-flood), and one without dinosaurs (post-flood). But we can see into the past more than well enough to see that there were no elephants, bears, cows, humans, chicken, ostriches, etc. around in the Triassic period. No modern mammals at all. No birds at all either. We can see when a species first appears in the fossil record and when it last appears in the fossil record. Your hypothesis of "All animals poofed into existence at once and there was one single mass extinction in the history of the Earth" is disproved by the fossil record. You'll need a better one.

You can look at things and assume millions of years, or you can look at things and assume it happened rapidly. I assume it happened rapidly

If you're going to say our dating methods are flawed then introduce a better one - like praying over rocks and asking God how old they are. [/sarcasm]

We don't just say "this is millions of years old"; we make a preciser estimate. Different fossils aren't the same age. And here's the thing - you won't find a single 300 million years old dinosaur fossil. Because no dinosaurs had evolved by then. And you won't find a 50 million year old dinosaur fossil either - because by that time all dinosaurs were extinct.

Now as to the order of it. You make it seem like this
a= amphibian R=Reptile m= mammal

So are you telling me the fossil evidence looks like this (just using the three types you mentioned, excluding fish and the like)?
---a---r--m--m--a--m--r------
--a---r---r---m---a---m---r---
---a--r--r--m---a---r---a----
----a---r---r----r---a---a--a--
----a---a----r---a--r---a---r---
----a--a----a----r--a----r------
a---a--a----a--r--a----a-a---

Or are there occasionally mammals and reptiles down lower as well? Before I go into the order of things, I will wait for your response to that.

Imagine there are no reptiles or mammals in the lowest rows (No, not a SINGLE one - that would disprove evolution and we wouldn't be talking of the fossil record as evidence for evolution then). Also imagine that the lowest few rows contain at least 1000 amphibians... the rest are blanks. Then finally one row comes along that contains a single reptile fossil (even though it looks much like an amphibian) and a few hundred actual amphibians. In the row above we have a few more reptile fossils etc. and soon we have rows where of the thousands of fossils there are more reptiles than amphibians. Then a few rows above we have the first fossil of something that looks like a cross between a mammal and a reptile... we see a few more mammals in the rows above (that look like small rodents - though not any species known today). Then for two rows we don't have many fossils at all... and in the row above them we suddenly have no more dinosaur fossils, but plenty of mammals (still none of the ones around today).

So yes do try to explain that away as a coincidence.

2) This is a really common misconception I hear. God DID make us all perfect. And then, we ruined it. It talks about the fall of man in the bible. I wont post it, but it explains all the imperfections we have.

So a guy and a woman ate some fruit long ago and they grew wisdom teeth as a result? Okay, I'm not discussing this right now... let's just stick to the fossil record.

[lawlmaster09]

So a guy and a woman ate some fruit long ago and they grew wisdom teeth as a result? Okay, I'm not discussing this right now... let's just stick to the fossil record.

LOL, finally some athiests besides me on the thread!

[PhuzzY LogiK]

LOL, finally some athiests besides me on the thread!

I think there's plenty around here, but making it seem like a club is counter-productive to the intent of the thread.

[lawlmaster09]

when did i say i was making it a club? just a few days ago it was

Me vs. TheOwner vs. BluePriest

Athiest Vs. half athiest vs. creationist

[Artois]

when did i say i was making it a club? just a few days ago it was

Me vs. TheOwner vs. BluePriest

Athiest Vs. half athiest vs. creationist

A half atheist?!  Is this proof of evolution or did God intelligently design the half-atheist to confuse the issue?!!

PS.  What is a half atheist?  Is it similar to an agnostic?

[lawlmaster09]

when did i say i was making it a club? just a few days ago it was

Me vs. TheOwner vs. BluePriest

Athiest Vs. half athiest vs. creationist

A half atheist?!  Is this proof of evolution or did God intelligently design the half-atheist to confuse the issue?!!

PS.  What is a half atheist?  Is it similar to an agnostic?

(lol)

no, half-athiest means he thinks evolution and intelligent design can "mesh"

(both be correct)

[TheOwner]

when did i say i was making it a club? just a few days ago it was

Me vs. TheOwner vs. BluePriest

Athiest Vs. half athiest vs. creationist

A half atheist?!  Is this proof of evolution or did God intelligently design the half-atheist to confuse the issue?!!

PS.  What is a half atheist?  Is it similar to an agnostic?

By half atheist he means I am undecided on whether I believe in God or nothing.  When younger a believed in God then for a couple years I went atheist then I started to think.... and I wasn't sure.... and yes Blue Priest I don't know where our argument was going.  As for the new point you brought up about heart attacks and diseases, that could be correct (not how I interpreted the bible), but also think about it like this...  In the 1400s did Cancer not exist?  Or was Cancer just not known to people.  So many deaths were classified of Natural Causes (which means we have no idea).

[ratcharmer]

The use of "vs" is somewhat inappropriate, as most of us are trying to have a rational discussion of the topic, not form teams and see who wins.

Many prominent scientists, including one of the leaders of the human genome project, see no conflict between evolution and God, as do most theologists. The only prominent scientist I can think of who claims otherwise is Richard Dawkins and he is quite well known for being very vocal of his belief that religion and anything is incompatible.

[airframe]

religion and anything is incompatible.

Well, religion is characterized by make believe and tradional outgroup hostility. Often dividing everything into your own religious sect and "others".


I think use of vs is somewhat appropriate when talking about evolution and intelligent design.