Happy Atheist Forum

The following are reasons why I believe in ID over evolution:

1. First Cause Argument- We know our universe had a beginning.  If you try to count from negative infinity to zero (zero representing the present) you would never reach it.  Science backs this up with the big bang theory.

Since our universe exists we know that something that already exists had to bring it into existence. The universe has a creator.

If this creator were a being like the universe, a being that exists in time, then this creator would have to be created by something else.  This tells us that the creator must be an eternal being that exists outside of time.

I believe in the big bang theory, I just think there has to be a banger.
   
2. Moral Argument- This argument states that moral laws are evidence for God’s existence.  The fact that we shouldn’t murder isn’t a fact about the world, it is a fact about how the world should be.  Nothing in our physical world makes moral facts true.  Moral facts are not descriptive, moral facts have the form of commands.

Commands can only exist when there is a commander.

Moral laws override everything else.  If someone morally ought to do something, then this over-rules any other consideration that might come into play.  Morality has the ultimate authority.  A command can only carry as much authority as the person who commands it, and since morality has more authority then any human or institution, God must be the commander.

3. Irreducible Complexity- Lehigh biochemist, Michael Behe introduced the concept of irreducible complexity. He defines it as “a single system that is necessarily composed of several well-matched, interacting parts that contribute to the basic function, and where the removal of any one of the parts causes the system to effectively cease functioning.”

 A great example of irreducible complexity is the bacterial flagellum.  The flagellum is similar to an outboard motor.  The machinery of the flagellum includes a rotor, a stator, O-rings, bushings, mounting disks, a drive shaft, a propeller, a hook joint for the propeller, and an acid-powered motor.  In addition, the flagellum requires coordinated interaction of roughly 30 proteins, which requires about 20 proteins to direct their assembly.  

The bacterial flagellum is not the work of an unguided natural process, but rather a creator.

4. Origin of Consciousness- Evolution can only explain the origin of traits that have survival value, so where did our consciousness come from?
   
5. Pre-Cambrian explosion- We know that the Cambrian explosion was an explosion of information.  Fossilized organisms found in Cambrian sediment support this.  Sponges that existed before the Cambrian explosion needed 5 types of cells.  Organisms that emerge during the Cambrian Explosion require at least 50 cell types.  In addition, many new specialized proteins would be required for these multiple cell types, which in turn would require new genetic information.  Evolution cannot account for this eruption of new information.

6. Argument from Design- Our universe is shockingly fine-tuned to support human life.  A few examples of this are the force of gravity, and the fundamental constants of nature, and the initial expansion of the big bang.  Had the rate of expansion been even slightly slowerâ€"one part in a million millionâ€"gravity would quickly force it to collapse on itself.  Had the rate of expansion been slightly fasterâ€"one part in a millionâ€"then stars and planets could not have formed.  I find it highly unlikely that the rate of the big bang expansion and other fine-tuned examples just happened by chance.  I believe that these perfect conditions can only be explained by a divine creator.

Hi, welcome to the forum.  Please note that only points 3,4, and 5 have anything to do with evolution v ID.  Remember,  evolution is not a theory on how life started, it is about how life changed after it started.  I'd be glad to address your other points if you like, but for now I'm going to leave them alone since they shouldn't apply to why you believe in ID.

3.  The problem with Irreducible complexity is that, even if there is something we can't figure out how to make less complex, it is an argument from ignorance.  Just because we don't understand something doesn't mean a god did it.  Anyway, there doesn't appear to be a reason to consider the bacterial flagellum irreducibly complex now that we know more about it.  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irreducibl ... y#Flagella (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irreducible_complexity#Flagella)  This is why we don't jump to assuming a god when we don't know the answer; guessing is poor science.

4.  You don't think being conscious of your surroundings and how you relate to your surroundings and other beings would have a survival value?  

5.  Why can't evolution account for the new life which evolved during the Cambrian explosion...it's not like it actually exploded.  It too about 70 or 80 million years to...er...explode.  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cambrian_explosion (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cambrian_explosion)

Anyway, that's my quick summary of why your problems with evolution have problems.  I'll let the more scientifically  minded members fill in the details...I'm more of a concepts person myself.  Also, feel free to search the forum for the many other threads covering evolution and ID/creationism....it comes up a lot.

Ooops, I almost thought the initial post was a troll. It seems I have a way to go to learn how to spot them properly...

Quote from: "samiahurst"Ooops, I almost thought the initial post was a troll. It seems I have a way to go to learn how to spot them properly...

We try to give people the benefit of doubt even if what they have to say may be something we have come across multiple times.

... Perhaps a diagram is needed:
(https://www.happyatheistforum.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fouroboros.files.wordpress.com%2F2007%2F03%2Fvenn.jpg&hash=fb369216ee37ef7b9c8da8b597639d6aa569b140)

OP: Please do a bit of research before re-posting the same drivel that has been refuted time and time again.
(multiple times on this forum alone)

Missed my nap... and I'm cranky   ,
JoeActor

Quote from: "kubedwheel"The following are reasons why I believe in ID over evolution:

1. First Cause Argument- We know our universe had a beginning.  If you try to count from negative infinity to zero (zero representing the present) you would never reach it.  Science backs this up with the big bang theory.

Pretty much gibberish.  You really need to have a much better understanding of our (humankinds) understanding of space and time before you argue on these things.  
1)  It is quite possible that our universe exists withing a large universe that may or may not have a beginning.
2)  Outside our universe (or before the big bang) the very concept of time may become meaningless.

QuoteSince our universe exists we know that something that already exists had to bring it into existence. The universe has a creator.

You simply have no way of knowing that.  Period.  That is purest unsubstantiated speculation.  You have absolutely no way to know judge that universe as a whole behaves as objects withing it behave.

QuoteIf this creator were a being like the universe, a being that exists in time, then this creator would have to be created by something else.  This tells us that the creator must be an eternal being that exists outside of time.

More pure speculation. You are do nothing more than interjecting God in the abscence of knowledge.

QuoteI believe in the big bang theory, I just think there has to be a banger.

Good for you, you do it on absolutely zero evidence.

Quote2. Moral Argument- This argument states that moral laws are evidence for God’s existence.  The fact that we shouldn’t murder isn’t a fact about the world, it is a fact about how the world should be.  Nothing in our physical world makes moral facts true.  Moral facts are not descriptive, moral facts have the form of commands.

What are these moral facts?  

I think it is a moral fact that slavery is evil. Do you agree?  If you do, please justify your answer using the bible.

Why is it that I have never ever heard a Christian hold up story of Lott offering his daughters to the crowd come to rape the angels as an example of goodness in the bible? Gen 19:5
Or the plethora of other horrendous stories that litter old testament and new?  I am always offered the inspriational bits.

Perhaps Christians can pick them out the same as me because they knew what was moral before cracking open the Bible.

QuoteCommands can only exist when there is a commander.

blah blah blah

QuoteMoral laws override everything else.  If someone morally ought to do something, then this over-rules any other consideration that might come into play.  Morality has the ultimate authority.  A command can only carry as much authority as the person who commands it, and since morality has more authority then any human or institution, God must be the commander.

The Bible is a TERRIBLE place to get your morals.  If you think otherwise, you really haven't considered any other sources.  I've got a long list if you are interested.

Quote3. Irreducible Complexity- Lehigh biochemist, Michael Behe introduced the concept of irreducible complexity. He defines it as “a single system that is necessarily composed of several well-matched, interacting parts that contribute to the basic function, and where the removal of any one of the parts causes the system to effectively cease functioning.”

Wow, your first item that has ANYTHING to do with evolution vs ID.

Behe is a fool.  Every item that he has held up as irreducibly complex simply is not.  They've been checked, every one.  

QuoteA great example of irreducible complexity is the bacterial flagellum.  The flagellum is similar to an outboard motor.  The machinery of the flagellum includes a rotor, a stator, O-rings, bushings, mounting disks, a drive shaft, a propeller, a hook joint for the propeller, and an acid-powered motor.  In addition, the flagellum requires coordinated interaction of roughly 30 proteins, which requires about 20 proteins to direct their assembly.  

The bacterial flagellum is not the work of an unguided natural process, but rather a creator.

Actually, it's a terrible example.  It has been explained many times.
The flagellum is a derivative of bacterial excretory machinery.  For instance, it shares almost all of its genes and proteins with 'syringe' that the plague bacteria uses to inject toxin into other cells.
I doubt even Behe thinks a flagellum is IC any more. I am uncertain if he still thinks anything is IC anymore.  Your arguements are years out of date.

The biggest fallacy of IC is thinking that if you take you one part away it is no longer useful.  It may not be useful as, say a flagellum anymore, but it may be useful in some other role.
In existance today, there are a whole line of bacteria features that share 90%, 75%, 50%, etc, etc of the proteins and genes with the flagellum.  They're all useful.

Quote4. Origin of Consciousness- Evolution can only explain the origin of traits that have survival value, so where did our consciousness come from?

You are arguing that conciousness has no survival value?  Wow, that's a new one.

Quote5. Pre-Cambrian explosion- We know that the Cambrian explosion was an explosion of information.  Fossilized organisms found in Cambrian sediment support this.  Sponges that existed before the Cambrian explosion needed 5 types of cells.  Organisms that emerge during the Cambrian Explosion require at least 50 cell types.  In addition, many new specialized proteins would be required for these multiple cell types, which in turn would require new genetic information.  Evolution cannot account for this eruption of new information.

The Cambrian explosion lasted millions of years... We even know what likely set it off.
A billion or so years before when blue/green algea came on the scene the first free oxygen was put into the environment.  Eukyotic multi-cell life appeared soon after.
Still, for a long time, there was not much free oxygen.  The problem? There was a ton of iron disolved in the oceans.  It took until the time of the Cambrian explosion to 'rust' all that iron out of the oceans.  (Thus laying down our current iron ore deposits).  When the iron was exhausted, free oxygen level jumped enormously.  This is what finally allowed for larger, more complex, multicellular organisms to come on the scene.  And with no competition and free niches everywhere, many new body plans (relatively) rapidly appeared.
We know that

Quote6. Argument from Design- Our universe is shockingly fine-tuned to support human life.  A few examples of this are the force of gravity, and the fundamental constants of nature, and the initial expansion of the big bang.  Had the rate of expansion been even slightly slowerâ€"one part in a million millionâ€"gravity would quickly force it to collapse on itself.  Had the rate of expansion been slightly fasterâ€"one part in a millionâ€"then stars and planets could not have formed.  I find it highly unlikely that the rate of the big bang expansion and other fine-tuned examples just happened by chance.  I believe that these perfect conditions can only be explained by a divine creator.

[/quote]
Probably the weekest arguement in existance.  If the universe was not favorable for life we would not be here to contempate the difference.  Our existance requires it.  It proves not a thing.

It also ignores the fact that 99.9999999999999999 (and keep going for a while) percent of the universe (by volume) is utterly and completely hostile to life.
It's been said that universe really appears to be finely tuned to generate black holes and as a side effect, there are a few miniscule islands suitable for life.

You might enjoy reading the transcript of the Dover trial.  See how huge ID fails in court as science in front of a conservatie, Christian judge appointed by Bush.

You know we get so many hit and run posters I'm not responding untill i know the OP is coming back.

Oh, boy. Here we go again.

 

Are we allowing guest accounts now if they say they're not bots?

Quote from: "Tanker"You know we get so many hit and run posters I'm not responding untill i know the OP is coming back.

Maybe they run because they don't like that the responses make sense?

Quote from: "Whitney"

Quote from: "Tanker"You know we get so many hit and run posters I'm not responding untill i know the OP is coming back.

Maybe they run because they don't like that the responses make sense?

Something my old platoon sargent used to say (in sarcastic jest) was "Why do you have confuse the answers with you're facts and logic." I always hear his voice when I argue with creationists. (FYI he was an atheist too he would just make that respose when I made a good point in whatever conversation we we having)

Quote from: "kubedwheel"The following are reasons why I believe in ID over evolution:

1. First Cause Argument- We know our universe had a beginning.  If you try to count from negative infinity to zero (zero representing the present) you would never reach it.  Science backs this up with the big bang theory.

Since our universe exists we know that something that already exists had to bring it into existence. The universe has a creator.

If this creator were a being like the universe, a being that exists in time, then this creator would have to be created by something else.  This tells us that the creator must be an eternal being that exists outside of time.

I believe in the big bang theory, I just think there has to be a banger.
   
2. Moral Argument- This argument states that moral laws are evidence for God’s existence.  The fact that we shouldn’t murder isn’t a fact about the world, it is a fact about how the world should be.  Nothing in our physical world makes moral facts true.  Moral facts are not descriptive, moral facts have the form of commands.

Commands can only exist when there is a commander.

Moral laws override everything else.  If someone morally ought to do something, then this over-rules any other consideration that might come into play.  Morality has the ultimate authority.  A command can only carry as much authority as the person who commands it, and since morality has more authority then any human or institution, God must be the commander.

3. Irreducible Complexity- Lehigh biochemist, Michael Behe introduced the concept of irreducible complexity. He defines it as “a single system that is necessarily composed of several well-matched, interacting parts that contribute to the basic function, and where the removal of any one of the parts causes the system to effectively cease functioning.”

 A great example of irreducible complexity is the bacterial flagellum.  The flagellum is similar to an outboard motor.  The machinery of the flagellum includes a rotor, a stator, O-rings, bushings, mounting disks, a drive shaft, a propeller, a hook joint for the propeller, and an acid-powered motor.  In addition, the flagellum requires coordinated interaction of roughly 30 proteins, which requires about 20 proteins to direct their assembly.  

The bacterial flagellum is not the work of an unguided natural process, but rather a creator.

4. Origin of Consciousness- Evolution can only explain the origin of traits that have survival value, so where did our consciousness come from?
   
5. Pre-Cambrian explosion- We know that the Cambrian explosion was an explosion of information.  Fossilized organisms found in Cambrian sediment support this.  Sponges that existed before the Cambrian explosion needed 5 types of cells.  Organisms that emerge during the Cambrian Explosion require at least 50 cell types.  In addition, many new specialized proteins would be required for these multiple cell types, which in turn would require new genetic information.  Evolution cannot account for this eruption of new information.

6. Argument from Design- Our universe is shockingly fine-tuned to support human life.  A few examples of this are the force of gravity, and the fundamental constants of nature, and the initial expansion of the big bang.  Had the rate of expansion been even slightly slowerâ€"one part in a million millionâ€"gravity would quickly force it to collapse on itself.  Had the rate of expansion been slightly fasterâ€"one part in a millionâ€"then stars and planets could not have formed.  I find it highly unlikely that the rate of the big bang expansion and other fine-tuned examples just happened by chance.  I believe that these perfect conditions can only be explained by a divine creator.

I would suggest you research these examples of "support" further because you seem to not have accurate information.  For example, your information on the Pre-Cambrian fauna paints a very inaccurate picture.  And if I see the words "genetic" and "no new information" in any paragraph again I'm going to slap somebody with the entire 4 volume set of the Encyclopedia of Genetics.

I would also suggest you try doing a search with these terms on this very board for past posts where these items have been addressed ad nauseum by myself and many others on this board.  Maybe then you will see where the err in ID is.

FYI kubedwheel has logged in without responding, so you might not want to waste any time posting anything more unless you wish to do so for the sake of lurkers who might benefit from the information or if you just feel like it.

Quote from: "Whitney"FYI kubedwheel has logged in without responding, so you might not want to waste any time posting anything more unless you wish to do so for the sake of lurkers who might benefit from the information or if you just feel like it.

I am so tempted to tackle those items of "support" with a vengeance but I have to get up early and move into my new house in SA.  And unfortunately I won't have interwebs until Tuesday of next week...but I may pull a Zombie Jesus and resurrect the thread with all sorts of nifty citations and whatnot ...if I can get time away from writing my monster of a thesis - who knew you could write that much about stressed out smokers and their spit?

Thanks for the fast respond time, sorry it is taking me so long.

QuoteAnyway, there doesn't appear to be a reason to consider the bacterial flagellum irreducibly complex now that we know more about it. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irreducibl (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irreducibl) ... y#Flagella

The TTSS could be an indirect step in the evolution of bacterial flagellum, however, a detailed evolutionary path is required from the TTSS to the flagellum to explain the flagellum’s origin.  And such a detailed path would presuppose that we know how many intermediate systems between the TTSS and the flagellum exist, systems whose functions are neither that of a TTSS nor that of a flagellum.  The bottom line is the bacterial flagellum needs roughly 30 more proteins than exist in the TTSS.

QuoteThe problem with Irreducible complexity is that, even if there is something we can't figure out how to make less complex, it is an argument from ignorance. Just because we don't understand something doesn't mean a god did it.

ID is not an argument of ignorance.  Everyone is ignorant of how complex biological systems are brought about by evolution.  I know intelligence is capable of bringing about such systems, so I infer on what I know rather than what I don’t.

QuoteYou don't think being conscious of your surroundings and how you relate to your surroundings and other beings would have a survival value?

The process of natural selection selects organisms for survival based solely on their behavior. An organism that behaves as we behave but doesn’t have the attendant mental states that we have will have just as much survival value as we do. Mentality is not required for behavior, and nothing more than behavior is needed for survival, so there isn’t survival value to having mental states.

QuotePretty much gibberish. You really need to have a much better understanding of our (humankinds) understanding of space and time before you argue on these things.
1) It is quite possible that our universe exists withing a large universe that may or may not have a beginning.
2) Outside our universe (or before the big bang) the very concept of time may become meaningless.

Your trying to refute my argument with speculation.  You have zero evidence.  A divine creator is a plausible explanation for the origin of the universe based on what I know.  Instead of flamming my post you should post a more plausible explanation of how our universe came into existence.

QuoteWhy is it that I have never ever heard a Christian hold up story of Lott offering his daughters to the crowd come to rape the angels as an example of goodness in the bible? Gen 19:5

3 factors to outrageous proposal: 1. Hospitality considered one of highest measures of man.  2. Wives / daughters typically viewed as property in his culture.  3. Living in degenerate society distorted his views.  Christians don’t hold up the story of Lot offering his daughters to the crowd as an example of goodness because it isn’t an example of goodness.  It’s an example of sin.

Quote from: "kubedwheel"

QuotePretty much gibberish. You really need to have a much better understanding of our (humankinds) understanding of space and time before you argue on these things.
1) It is quite possible that our universe exists withing a large universe that may or may not have a beginning.
2) Outside our universe (or before the big bang) the very concept of time may become meaningless.

Your trying to refute my argument with speculation.  You have zero evidence.  A divine creator is a plausible explanation for the origin of the universe based on what I know.  Instead of flamming my post you should post a more plausible explanation of how our universe came into existence.

We have NO IDEA how the universe came to be.  We don't even really know what it means to ask the question.

I am pointing out that positing God, the God of the completely rediculous Bible is the real speculation.  

If you are going to try to inject God into cosmology, lets closely examine what makes you think a God exists to insert?  You are asserting that Big Bang is the ultimate beginning.  We have no way of knowing that is true.  We just know we are currently blind to what MIGHT have happened before it.  You are asserting that it must have a creator.  pffft.  You know no such thing.

Quote from: "kubedwheel"

QuoteWhy is it that I have never ever heard a Christian hold up story of Lott offering his daughters to the crowd come to rape the angels as an example of goodness in the bible? Gen 19:5

3 factors to outrageous proposal: 1. Hospitality considered one of highest measures of man.  2. Wives / daughters typically viewed as property in his culture.  3. Living in degenerate society distorted his views.  Christians don’t hold up the story of Lot offering his daughters to the crowd as an example of goodness because it isn’t an example of goodness.  It’s an example of sin.

It's an example of sin, eh?  That sure isn't the message of the bible.

Quote from: "kubedwheel"ID is not an argument of ignorance.  Everyone is ignorant of how complex biological systems are brought about by evolution.  I know intelligence is capable of bringing about such systems, so I infer on what I know rather than what I don’t.

By goin this way with your debate, you ignore any possibility that matter can be spontaneously created (which has been done in the lab).  Therefore, intelligence is not the ONLY way that complex biological systems can be brought about.  

Your arguement is something like this:
There is a puddle outside on my patio.  I know that when I turn on my sink, water comes out.  Therefore, the puddle on the patio must have come from the faucet because it is complex.

With this premise, I'm not taking into account the fact that it might have rained.

I'm not saying your wrong... I'm just saying that there could be other explanations but you're so deadset on it being god that you refuse to consider other valid, scientific arguments.

And also remember... evolution and intelligent design (creationism) are not exclusive of one another.  Could a designer have made it all happen and is using us as an experiement to see how things will evolve over time?  Are we just one big experiement?  Who knows.  Neither you nor I know for sure.  And just because we don't doesn't mean there has to be a god who did it all.

Quote from: "kubedwheel"The process of natural selection selects organisms for survival based solely on their behavior. An organism that behaves as we behave but doesn’t have the attendant mental states that we have will have just as much survival value as we do. Mentality is not required for behavior, and nothing more than behavior is needed for survival, so there isn’t survival value to having mental states.

I do not agree with you on this one.  An organism that doesn't have the mental capacity to NOT jump off a cliff will not survive to evolve.  Period.  Living beings make really stupid choices all the time... drinking and driving, for example.  There have been many species that have disappeared because they weren't smart enough to stay up in the trees where they were safe from the creatures that would eat them.  In this respect, mentality IS required for behavior.  That much is common sense.

If I may:

First off, the idea of evolution is often misunderstood.  Evolution is the sum of natural selection and genetic mutation, both things that we can all agree happen.  Now, with that said,

Quote from: "kubedwheel"The process of natural selection selects organisms for survival based solely on their behavior. An organism that behaves as we behave but doesn’t have the attendant mental states that we have will have just as much survival value as we do. Mentality is not required for behavior, and nothing more than behavior is needed for survival, so there isn’t survival value to having mental states.

You're talking about instinct.  You're saying, "If humans had the instinct to do what they did, they wouldn't need consciousness."  Have you seen the endangered and extinct species list?  They all had only their instincts, and we humans beat the competition hands down.  Our unique consciousness is the ability to study anything and reason out the best thing to do.  We don't need 8 gazillion instincts to do what we do; conceptual consciousness allows us to analyze and learn.

What you're saying is kinda like, if you're going to play chess, it's better to have your response to every possible piece combination on the board memorized than to simply have good general strategy.

Quote from: "kubedwheel"I find it highly unlikely that the rate of the big bang expansion and other fine-tuned examples just happened by chance.

It IS highly unlikely.  That's why we're still the only known intelligent life in the universe.  It's also highly unlikely that you'll win the lottery - but it happens.

Quote from: "kubedwheel"2. Moral Argument- This argument states that moral laws are evidence for God’s existence. The fact that we shouldn’t murder isn’t a fact about the world, it is a fact about how the world should be. Nothing in our physical world makes moral facts true.

Quite right.  A moral law, like any other concept (tree, art, human, etc.) does not exist physically.  You can point to examples of them, but nowhere do concepts take physical form.  They occur in human minds (that conceptual consciousness you put so little stock in) so we can better organize information.  In the case of moral laws, people eventually figured out "hey, we can all agree we don't want to be murdered, so let's make it a law not to murder, with consequences if you do."  It came from man's mind, not from God.

Quote from: "kubedwheel"Your trying to refute my argument with speculation.  You have zero evidence.  A divine creator is a plausible explanation for the origin of the universe based on what I know.  Instead of flamming my post you should post a more plausible explanation of how our universe came into existence.

How about this: I don't know, I don't need to know in order to live my life happily, and people more interested than me are working on an answer.  Why do you need to know so badly?

OP, I want to make it clear that I am not arguing against ID.  As others have said, ID and evolution are not necessarily contradictory ideas.  What I AM arguing against is an omnipotent being.  Perhaps there is some powerful being who put us here, who can do things beyond our wildest dreams, but I guarantee you he/she is still bound by the laws of science, even if we do not currently understand those laws.  There can be no effect without a cause.

QuoteYou are asserting that it must have a creator. pffft. You know no such thing.

No, I said its possible a creator is responsible for the origin of our universe.

QuoteBy goin this way with your debate, you ignore any possibility that matter can be spontaneously created (which has been done in the lab)

Could you or someone else please link or inform me of where I can find info on spontaneously created matter in labs? thanks.

So...

If complex things need a designer, then who designed the designer? Who designed the designer's designer? Etc.

Intelligent design falls apart because it demands an infinite regress.

Isn't it obvious?  He designed himself!!! (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W7x1ETPkZsk)

Quote from: "Heretical Rants"Isn't it obvious?  He designed himself!!! (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W7x1ETPkZsk)

Bwahahaha!  

Quote from: "kubedwheel"

QuoteBy goin this way with your debate, you ignore any possibility that matter can be spontaneously created (which has been done in the lab)

Could you or someone else please link or inform me of where I can find info on spontaneously created matter in labs? thanks.

"matter" was an incorrect word....however:

QuoteOne of the most important pieces of experimental support for the "soup" theory came in 1953. A graduate student, Stanley Miller, and his professor, Harold Urey, performed an experiment that demonstrated how organic molecules could have spontaneously formed from inorganic precursors, under conditions like those posited by the Oparin-Haldane Hypothesis. The now-famous "Miller-Urey experiment" used a highly reduced mixture of gasesâ€"methane, ammonia and hydrogenâ€"to form basic organic monomers, such as amino acids.[31] This provided direct experimental support for the second point of the "soup" theory as described above, and it is around the remaining three points of the theory that much of the debate now centers.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Origin_of_ ... quent_work (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Origin_of_life#.22Soup.22_theory_today:_Miller.27s_experiment_and_subsequent_work)

Quote from: "kubedwheel"Thanks for the fast respond time, sorry it is taking me so long.
The TTSS could be an indirect step in the evolution of bacterial flagellum, however, a detailed evolutionary path is required from the TTSS to the flagellum to explain the flagellum’s origin.  And such a detailed path would presuppose that we know how many intermediate systems between the TTSS and the flagellum exist, systems whose functions are neither that of a TTSS nor that of a flagellum.  The bottom line is the bacterial flagellum needs roughly 30 more proteins than exist in the TTSS.

I think my previous comment still stands....there is no reason to think it is irreducibly complex.  Now you are saying we should think something is irreducible complex simply because we may not know all the steps to how it formed.  That's an argument from ignorance....of course, so is ID.

QuoteID is not an argument of ignorance.  Everyone is ignorant of how complex biological systems are brought about by evolution.  I know intelligence is capable of bringing about such systems, so I infer on what I know rather than what I don’t.

You are comparing apples to oranges.  We know that intelligence is used to make some complex things.  However, no one in their right mind thinks that it requires intelligence for a snowflake to form (they are very complex).

So...again, I'm going to  stand with my previous statement.

QuoteThe process of natural selection selects organisms for survival based solely on their behavior. An organism that behaves as we behave but doesn’t have the attendant mental states that we have will have just as much survival value as we do. Mentality is not required for behavior, and nothing more than behavior is needed for survival, so there isn’t survival value to having mental states.

Do you think that a non-conscious animal could make weapons?  Do you think that the ability to make weapons makes us better fit for survival?  If you answer no to either of these questions I am going to have to assume you're just an idiot or a troll and give up trying to reason with you.

Quote from: "Whitney""matter" was an incorrect word....however:

QuoteOne of the most important pieces of experimental support for the "soup" theory came in 1953. A graduate student, Stanley Miller, and his professor, Harold Urey, performed an experiment that demonstrated how organic molecules could have spontaneously formed from inorganic precursors, under conditions like those posited by the Oparin-Haldane Hypothesis. The now-famous "Miller-Urey experiment" used a highly reduced mixture of gasesâ€"methane, ammonia and hydrogenâ€"to form basic organic monomers, such as amino acids.[31] This provided direct experimental support for the second point of the "soup" theory as described above, and it is around the remaining three points of the theory that much of the debate now centers.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Origin_of_ ... quent_work (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Origin_of_life#.22Soup.22_theory_today:_Miller.27s_experiment_and_subsequent_work)

Thanks, Whitney.. I keep using the wrong word in that argument.  Ugh.  *I* knew what I meant.  

Sorry, I was waiting to see if you were a hit-and-run poster before.  Let's look at your original post, your following clarifications in mind.

Quote from: "kubedwheel"The following are reasons why I believe in ID over evolution:

1. First Cause Argument- We know our universe had a beginning.  If you try to count from negative infinity to zero (zero representing the present) you would never reach it.  Science backs this up with the big bang theory.

I'm not sure what this has to do with biological evolution, which is covered specifically by evolutionary theory, but maybe you also take issue with cosmology.  Most likely, you hold the misconception that the two are the same, or as Hovind (I think) put it "Hydrogen to humans evolution."  Biological evolution entails genetic variation, it is a system of natural selection and mutation.  While it could be said that it functions on natural principles, just like cosmology, this is like conflating volcanology with stellar astronomy.

All of that aside, the universe may not have a beginning, and the Big Bang Theory is mute on the what the universe was doing before inflation.  It might not have existed, it might have been bouncing forever and anon (a bang, a crunch, a bang, a crunch, and so on), it might owe it creation to two colliding branes in an infinite, eternal sea of them, or it might have existed forever in a stable state prior to inflation.  3 out of 4 suggest reality is as eternal as God, though you might see that as an equivocal statement (I do not mean it as one).  In the case of the first, Brahma, Ra, Cronus, Jehova, the Celestial Teapot, Arceus, Meza Virs, or any other creator deity you can or cannot imagine.

Quote from: "kubedwheel"Since our universe exists we know that something that already exists had to bring it into existence. The universe has a creator.

If this creator were a being like the universe, a being that exists in time, then this creator would have to be created by something else.  This tells us that the creator must be an eternal being that exists outside of time.

Or part of an infinite regress of creator heritages.  You know, if there was a creator.

Quote from: "kubedwheel"I believe in the big bang theory, I just think there has to be a banger.

You accept the Big Bang Theory: it accounts for the observations of the blackbody background radiation of the universe and its expansion, as well as the uniformity.  You believe there was a banger, as it, at best, meets the criteria for an anthropic argument (which is a weak argument, as its only criteria is that we exist) and makes no other specific predictions for the universe.  Forgive me if you meant nothing by it and I'm arguing semantics.
   

Quote from: "kubedwheel"2. Moral Argument- This argument states that moral laws are evidence for God’s existence.  The fact that we shouldn’t murder isn’t a fact about the world, it is a fact about how the world should be.  Nothing in our physical world makes moral facts true.  Moral facts are not descriptive, moral facts have the form of commands.

Shared social instinct is as good a reason for believing in a creator as most hominids having five fingers (four fingers and one thumb, if you prefer).  These morals are not universally shared, as sociopaths and rapists, among others, demonstrate.  Being pentadactyl isn't a universal trait, either, but it is the norm (most people don't kill others wholesale without what they regard as a very good reason, which is another example of the human social mechanic at work), and the universe at large doesn't have five digits at the end of each of its non-existent limbs, nor any morality.  It is indifferent to our existence.  Our morality is an evolved trait, which while it is similar to other animal's, still differs, in much the same way as we have a unique appearance with many, many similarities.  The universe, however, is not remotely similar to us.

Quote from: "kubedwheel"Commands can only exist when there is a commander.

Are we the only ones receiving these moral imperatives (that aren't even universally imperative among us), because if that's the case, I find it rather curious that our morality is very near to that of the other members of family hominidae.  If everything receives these imperatives, then plenty must find a way to deny them.  Rather, morality is consistent with being a social construct, a derivative of inherited, evolved social instinct.

Quote from: "kubedwheel"Moral laws override everything else.  If someone morally ought to do something, then this over-rules any other consideration that might come into play.  Morality has the ultimate authority.  A command can only carry as much authority as the person who commands it, and since morality has more authority then any human or institution, God must be the commander.

In addition to the two replies directly above this one, I'll mention this means that God's authority must not be inviolable.  While it is true that a person will try to act within their morality as much as they can, this doesn't count for much, because people will disagree on when killing another person was justified, on what age is suitable for consent, on when, or if, torture is acceptable (whether you wish to call any given scenario torture or not, at what point is the cut-off for the discomfort you can cause another person before it becomes morally abhorrent?).  Does your God's morality include an impressive amount of moral ambiguity?  It's worth noting again that morality is thoroughly throttled as an argument for intelligent.

Quote from: "kubedwheel"3. Irreducible Complexity- Lehigh biochemist, Michael Behe introduced the concept of irreducible complexity. He defines it as “a single system that is necessarily composed of several well-matched, interacting parts that contribute to the basic function, and where the removal of any one of the parts causes the system to effectively cease functioning.”

 A great example of irreducible complexity is the bacterial flagellum.  The flagellum is similar to an outboard motor.  The machinery of the flagellum includes a rotor, a stator, O-rings, bushings, mounting disks, a drive shaft, a propeller, a hook joint for the propeller, and an acid-powered motor.  In addition, the flagellum requires coordinated interaction of roughly 30 proteins, which requires about 20 proteins to direct their assembly.  

The bacterial flagellum is not the work of an unguided natural process, but rather a creator.

It's worth noting that evolution is not barred from creating irreducibly complex structures (though the more complex they are, the less likely they are to develop in novel fashion), but more importantly, the flagellum is not irreducibly complex, and we have yet to find any irreducibly complex system.  The claim is patently false.  The various proteins that make up flagella can function to ends other than motility, and also of note is that the proteins making up the flagellum vary wildly, sharing a few similarities in their respective domains (Eukaryota, Archaea, Bacteria), and they are an excellent example of convergent phenotypes, where they evolved independently to take advantage of the environment (in this case, a flagellum is quintescential in cellular movement), much like wings on bats, birds, and insects.   The specific functions of the reduced systems range well out of the lay education, which is exactly why the flagellum is a prime target for creationists.  Nevermind that the flagellum is a favored method of transport for a plethora of parasites and infectious bacteria.  Apparently your intelligent designer designed man's morality (with the appropriate ambiguity) and then applied the flagellum to kill and cause great pain to man, the sole shepherd of this designer's vague, but uniquely manifest (only through us, yes?) morality in the universe.  Anyway, have a video:
[youtube:2rpfd4c9]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SdwTwNPyR9w[/youtube:2rpfd4c9]

Quote from: "kubedwheel"4. Origin of Consciousness- Evolution can only explain the origin of traits that have survival value, so where did our consciousness come from?

Our consciousness is not independent of our ability to hold our memories and perceptions in our heads, it is not independent of our ability to solve problems and reason and interact socially, rather our consciousness results from us possessing these traits.  Consciousness is not irreducibly complex, either, as reducing any of these traits will not instantly switch off consciousness.
   

Quote from: "kubedwheel"5. Pre-Cambrian explosion- We know that the Cambrian explosion was an explosion of information.  Fossilized organisms found in Cambrian sediment support this.  Sponges that existed before the Cambrian explosion needed 5 types of cells.  Organisms that emerge during the Cambrian Explosion require at least 50 cell types.  In addition, many new specialized proteins would be required for these multiple cell types, which in turn would require new genetic information.  Evolution cannot account for this eruption of new information.

I'm going to keep this simple.  Information can be increased through natural selection and mutation, and no one holds the expectation that the cell types differentiated literally over night, but they could be expected to evolve rapidly.  Have a video that will show you the applicable model about 7 minutes in, though I recommend you watch the whole thing:
[youtube:2rpfd4c9]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mcAq9bmCeR0[/youtube:2rpfd4c9]


I think if you given an in-depth look at the ID claims, you will find they come up short.  There is plenty we do not know, but what we do not know is not justification for specific assumption.  ID, rather than giving us a model of the biological world we can utilize, spends most of its time shooting at the rapidly-disappearing gaps in evolutionary theory, as though disproving evolutionary theory would vindicate creationism, as though there were only two possibilities.  Don't be fooled.

We addressed the whole IC/Behe thing in this thread (http://www.happyatheistforum.com/viewtopic.php?f=3&t=318&start=15) nearly two years ago.

Quote from: "kubedwheel"The following are reasons why I believe in ID over evolution:

1. First Cause Argument-
2. Moral Argument-
3. Irreducible Complexity-
4. Origin of Consciousness-
5. Pre-Cambrian explosion-
6. Argument from Design-

So basically your belief in ID is based on six arguments that are each themselves flawed.

Thanks for clearing that up.

Quote from: "kubedwheel"

QuotePretty much gibberish. You really need to have a much better understanding of our (humankinds) understanding of space and time before you argue on these things.
1) It is quite possible that our universe exists withing a large universe that may or may not have a beginning.
2) Outside our universe (or before the big bang) the very concept of time may become meaningless.

Your trying to refute my argument with speculation.  You have zero evidence.  A divine creator is a plausible explanation for the origin of the universe based on what I know.  Instead of flamming my post you should post a more plausible explanation of how our universe came into existence.

Someone on this board once said (I apologise, I cannot remember whom) trying to describe what existed before the big bang is like trying to describe what is north of the north pole. I like that example because it puts into perspective the infinitum of the universe. I personally like to analogise the universe as a mobius loop or Klein bottle. Both these three-dimensional objects have no beginning or end. They just are. I'm quite happy and comfortable with the idea that there doesn't necessarily need to be a grand beginning or end. Even though I can't fully visualise such a concept (my brain is not wired to understand it, just as it isn't wired to completely visualise the 7th dimension or oblivion) I'm happy to accept it because I know there are things the human race will never truly understand. However, just because there are blanks in the collective human knowledge, doesn't then give me the right to fill that blank with god. That is an easy way out.

I take issue with a grand creator because that trivialises our existence. It means I'm born into bondage and I'm eternally judged by something which has proved itself very jealous and petty and at the same time (according to some christians) far too complex to comprehend. Too many things in the bible point to primitive human emotion fuelled laws and parables. I cannot give credence to the paradigm of godly and eternally wise traits juxtaposed with basic human emotions like greed, malice and spite - all of which yahweh has displayed in abundance.

"Everyone is ignorant of how complex biological systems are brought about by evolution." Wrong. So wrong, in fact that I'm not even going to bother explaining why and how it's wrong.

1) The universe had to have a beginning. This has nothing to do with Evolution, btw, but here's the deal: Before the big bang, time as we know it did not exist. Time is the fourth dimension, just another axis of direction that we do not percieve correctly because humans are imperfect in their design (hint hint).

[youtube:2vdvm0ak]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y9KT4M7kiSw[/youtube:2vdvm0ak]

The Big Bang is basically the origin on the coordinate plane that is the universe. There was no Up/Down, Left/Right, Back/Forth, Before/After, or any of the other seven dimensions of reality.  Furthermore, (even if the Big Bang worked in terms of time, the way you are imagining it, and therefore required a cause) we don't know what caused it. It's sort of cheating humanity to pretend that we do know how it began when we really don't.  I can't be more clear about this: THE IDEA OF THE BIG BANG HAVING A CAUSE IS IMPOSSIBLE!!! The concept of "Cause" requires time which was utterly nonexistent before the beginning of the universe.

2) Moral Laws prove there is a God.  I don't think it's cocky of me when I say I am too smart to think that's true, and here's why. Morality is how we know what is and is not acceptable in society.  This is no evidence for a supreme creator, simply evidence that we are social animals who evolved a complex that gives us a mutual agreement not to harm other members of our society.  All morality is societal based, not God based. Furthermore, we have every reason to be moral, even if there is no Sky Daddy to pass judgments on our actions. There are 3 levels of Morality.

There is Preconventional Morality, which we are supposed to outgrow between the ages of 7 and 12. This basically tells us that whatever makes our parents give us a cookie is right, and what makes them give us a spanking is wrong.  Biblical morality is preconventional, it only provides the motive of Want of Heaven and Fear of Hell. Nothing abstract, and the laws are concrete and inflexible. I can find more morality watching Nickelodian!

There is Conventional Morality, which most of us live out all our lives in, Which just tell us to do whatever makes everyone else around us think better of us. The motivation is purely just to be accepted.

And there is Post Conventional Morality, think Gandhi, and MLK. Here, the motive is to genuinely do what is best for humanity as a whole.  You can sacrifice your own life for the greater good.  There have been dogs and chimpanzees become capable of this (it's incredibly rare), and only some humans are truly motivated by Post Conventional Morality.

So Morality is not a matter of a commander laying down rules, it is our motivation to do what we percieve as good, and we can accomplish this without a really tall invisible man telling us what to do.

3) Irreducible Complexity.  Someone else embedded a video on the evolution of Flagellum, the Eyes have a similar explanation.  I'm not going to bother putting this to death, others have debunked it thoroughly right here in this thread.  Instead I will point out that this is an Argument from Ignorance.  "There may be holes in evolution, therefore the designer did it!!!" WTF???That makes no sense.  Just because evolution is wrong, doesn't make your position at all correct.  You need evidence bub, and you ain't got it!  Evolution, on the other hand, has got a literal mountain of evidence that does nothing but confirm it.  Most of the 'holes in the theory' are either misinformations based on a limited understanding of the theory, or flat out lies.

[youtube:2vdvm0ak]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5nj587d5ies[/youtube:2vdvm0ak]
[youtube:2vdvm0ak]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U6QYDdgP9eg[/youtube:2vdvm0ak]

4) The Origin of Consciousness. Epiphenomenom of a highly complex brain that we developed because our intelligence was our greatest tool for survival several thousand years ago.  What's not to understand.  Don't get me wrong, consciousness is the single greatest thing about human existence.  Our ability to think freely is what makes everything else that we value possible.  But it's explainable by science.

Evolution FTW!

PipeBox answered your fifth reason perfectly, I'm not going to mess with that at all.

Quote from: "PipeBox"

Quote from: "kubedwheel"Pre-Cambrian explosion- We know that the Cambrian explosion was an explosion of information. Fossilized organisms found in Cambrian sediment support this. Sponges that existed before the Cambrian explosion needed 5 types of cells. Organisms that emerge during the Cambrian Explosion require at least 50 cell types. In addition, many new specialized proteins would be required for these multiple cell types, which in turn would require new genetic information. Evolution cannot account for this eruption of new information.

I'm going to keep this simple. Information can be increased through natural selection and mutation, and no one holds the expectation that the cell types differentiated literally over night, but they could be expected to evolve rapidly. Have a video that will show you the applicable model about 7 minutes in, though I recommend you watch the whole thing:

[youtube:2vdvm0ak]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mcAq9bmCeR0[/youtube:2vdvm0ak]

I think if you given an in-depth look at the ID claims, you will find they come up short. There is plenty we do not know, but what we do not know is not justification for specific assumption. ID, rather than giving us a model of the biological world we can utilize, spends most of its time shooting at the rapidly-disappearing gaps in evolutionary theory, as though disproving evolutionary theory would vindicate creationism, as though there were only two possibilities. Don't be fooled.

It's just a matter of education.  ID isn't real.  Sorry   .

Quote from: "kubedwheel"

QuoteWhy is it that I have never ever heard a Christian hold up story of Lott offering his daughters to the crowd come to rape the angels as an example of goodness in the bible? Gen 19:5

3 factors to outrageous proposal: 1. Hospitality considered one of highest measures of man.  2. Wives / daughters typically viewed as property in his culture.  3. Living in degenerate society distorted his views.  Christians don’t hold up the story of Lot offering his daughters to the crowd as an example of goodness because it isn’t an example of goodness.  It’s an example of sin.

If it is an example of sin then why was lot saved when god destroyed the cities?

Quote from: "kubedwheel"

QuoteYou are asserting that it must have a creator. pffft. You know no such thing.

No, I said its possible a creator is responsible for the origin of our universe.

How do you go from something could have possibly created us to what created us was a god,that god cares about us,he had a son named Jesus who died etc etc.  I'll say it's possible anythings possible but not everything is probable.

You believe in ID because it fits yor requirements and enables you to force-fit reality into your preferred world view.  My guess is that you avoid reading any arguments against the idea because they would make you feel uncomfortable.   Were you to have done so you would have found some of the many refutations of ID itself and all the reasons you give for believeing in it.  So much information is available in books and on-line sources that your ignorance can only be feigned or willful.

The psychological process going on here is cognitive dissonance.  Creationists and their more recent manifestation, ID believers, try to avoid it at all costs in order to maintain their comforting delusion that they have a protective magic friend watching over them and that they know all the answers without having to bother learning anything.

I hope that helps.

Quote from: "kubedwheel"

QuoteBy goin this way with your debate, you ignore any possibility that matter can be spontaneously created (which has been done in the lab)

Could you or someone else please link or inform me of where I can find info on spontaneously created matter in labs? thanks.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virtual_particle (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virtual_particle)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_foam (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_foam)
http://srikant.org/core/node12.html (http://srikant.org/core/node12.html)

i guess that should put that question to rest

Quote from: "kubedwheel"The following are reasons why I believe in ID over evolution:

1. First Cause Argument- We know our universe had a beginning.  If you try to count from negative infinity to zero (zero representing the present) you would never reach it.

The kalam argument is easy to refute; here's how to do it:  once you specify an actual number, you can count to it.  Once you start moving, you have a starting-point of time, which is merely a dimension of the Universe.

Also, even if your fallacy weren't fallacious, why should that imply a god with moral qualities?
   

Quote2. Moral Argument-  If someone morally ought to do something, then this over-rules any other consideration that might come into play.  Morality has the ultimate authority.  A command can only carry as much authority as the person who commands it, and since morality has more authority then any human or institution, God must be the commander.

Unsupported assertion.  Chimpanzees and other animals practice both moral and immoral behavior, without televangelists or forum preachers.  Also, given the balance between good and evil in this world, I'm left to assume that your god is either not omnipotent, not omnibeneficent, or not really concerned ... or not extant.  I'll go with D for $500, Alex.

Quote3. Irreducible Complexity- Lehigh biochemist, Michael Behe ... <snip> ..The bacterial flagellum is not the work of an unguided natural process, but rather a creator.

Did you read any of the 56 peer-reviewed articles showing this to be false?  You know, the same ones that Behe, under oath, was forced to admit he hadn't read? Or, as the judge in that trial put it (htp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Behe#Dover_testimony), "Professor Behe's concept of irreducible complexity depends on ignoring ways in which evolution is known to occur."  

Quote4. Origin of Consciousness- Evolution can only explain the origin of traits that have survival value, so where did our consciousness come from?

I'd suggest you read some Nicholas Humphrey and Daniel Dennett.

Also, this is a god-of-the-gaps fallacy.
   

Quote5. Pre-Cambrian explosion- We know that the Cambrian explosion was an explosion of information.  Fossilized organisms found in Cambrian sediment support this.  Sponges that existed before the Cambrian explosion needed 5 types of cells.  Organisms that emerge during the Cambrian Explosion require at least 50 cell types.  In addition, many new specialized proteins would be required for these multiple cell types, which in turn would require new genetic information.  Evolution cannot account for this eruption of new information.

DNA isn't information.  It's molecules.  Also, it's quite likely that those cell types were living in loose conjunction with other cells already -- or in symbiosis, as is the case with our absorbing primitive bacteria and harnessing them to process every bit of energy we use.

Quote6. Argument from Design- Our universe is shockingly fine-tuned to support human life.

Strong anthropic fallacy.

Read this.  ID is religion not science.

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/dover/k ... ision.html (http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/dover/kitzmiller_v_dover_decision.html)

If you don't like to read, listen to this.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RQQ7ubVIqo4 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RQQ7ubVIqo4)

hey all...um...kubedwheel hasn't logged in since Mon 22 Jun, 2009...so don't expect a response any time soon.

Quote from: "Whitney"hey all...um...kubedwheel hasn't logged in since Mon 22 Jun, 2009...so don't expect a response any time soon.

I just looked at the time stamps: This is an old thread, I wonder why it resurrected itself so suddenly...

Oh well, I just wanted to say I'm really proud of this Forum: It makes me confident to know how easily rational people can put Intelligent Design arguments to a quick death.

Actually here's what I think.  I think that we don't have any definite proof that the universe was created by a supreme being or by a big bang theory.  We don't have the science to know that yet.

In time, we'd all learn for sure how the universe started.  In time, we'd have irrevocable proof to support the theories that we have right now or debunk them.

Until such time, there is no sure answer.

But even so, do I believe that a god that created man from dust (an impossibility as you and I know) also created the universe?  No.

Hi, guys. Thought i'd give you a few posts in other sections before diving into the bearpit, as it were. Let's see what the credulous have brought us here, shall we?

Quote from: "kubedwheel"The following are reasons why I believe in ID over evolution:

Two things wrong with this, and that's even before we get into the meat of the argument. Firstly, reality doesn't actually care what you believe, and neither do those who actually pay attention to reality. Your belief is entirely without consequence, and utterly irrelevant to those who are concerned with what is actually true about the real world. Secondly, evolution is a fact, and therefore not something to be believed in. Where we have hard evidence from reality, belief is superfluous and irrelevant. Where we don't have hard evidence from reality, belief is ridiculous. Either way, belief is without utility. As it happens, we actually do have hard evidence from reality that evolution is a fact, rendering your belief not just worthless, but absurd.

Now, on to your guff. Excuse me if I'm less than completely rigorous, I'm delivering from the hip here.

Quote1. First Cause Argument- We know our universe had a beginning.

That's not an argument, it's a rectally extracted blind assertion. Interestingly, and for the first time in ages, you have actually dived straight into my specific area of interest. Cosmology is something I know a good deal about. More interestingly still, nobody I am aware of that actually understands the material in this area would agree with you. If you actually have evidence that the universe had a beginning, I'd love to see it. I also know of a group of very serious men in Stockholm who would be greatly interested in said evidence, and they have a nice shiny medal prepared, ready to engrave your name on it alongside a picture of the man who invented dynamite. I can call them now, if you wish, but perhaps it were better if we actually had a look at your evidence, since it's actually about 2 am in Stockholm as I type this. They'd be extremely disgruntled if I woke them up now, only to find that it's the usual credulous guff representing a serious misunderstanding of what the valid science actually tells us.

QuoteIf you try to count from negative infinity to zero (zero representing the present) you would never reach it.

Ah, Xeno's paradox (which is only a paradox if you're a moron). This particular bit of drivel is trivial to refute. Have you ever been from one place to another?

 

QuoteScience backs this up with the big bang theory.

Actually, no. The big bang theory (an incomplete model that is currently undergoing some quite serious revision) tells us only what happened after the Planck time, which was not the beginning. Indeed, being a finite time after the beginning of cosmic expansion, it isn't even the beginning of our cosmic expansion, only a description of what comes after.

QuoteSince our universe exists we know that something that already exists had to bring it into existence.

Well, that's a non-sequitur. The existence of something doesn't actually preclude the existence of something before it. You might want to introduce a little rigour into this rectal vindaloo, if you ever want anybody to take it seriously. Even granting this, though, you still have all your work ahead of you to demonstrate any act of will in cosmic instantiation.

QuoteThe universe has a creator.

I would normally have included this in the last section I quoted, but I thought this little gem worthy of specific attention. Since the universe is, by definition, all that exists, any deity could only ever be a subset of the universe, and therefore a product of it. Tell us, oh wise one, how can a product of something also be the producer? That's completely apart from the fact that you have absolutely no evidence to present. If I am wrong on that latter point, pleas refer to my first paragraph in this post.

QuoteIf this creator were a being like the universe, a being that exists in time, then this creator would have to be created by something else.

And if this enchilada were a pepper like a jalapeno, an enchilada that exists in chilli, then this enchilada would be hot. All of this is utterly irrelevant until you address the definitional points above.

QuoteThis tells us that the creator must be an eternal being that exists outside of time.

And now you will need to demonstrate that 'outside of time' is a viable concept. Good luck with that. You can start by telling us all what time is (note: There are people here who actually have some idea of what time is, so it'd better be good).

QuoteI believe in the big bang theory, I just think there has to be a banger.

Again, belief is irrelevant. The evidence says that the big bang happened (although that conclusion is always subject to revision, pending further evidence). What you believe is entirely without relevance or merit in this regard. In other words, nobody cares what you believe, least of all the universe.
   

Quote2. Moral Argument- This argument states that moral laws are evidence for God’s existence.

Man, this shit is straight out of the Kalamity Craig playbook. Do you actually have any arguments of your own, or is it just the usual apologetic excrement stolen from your favourite apologist? As it happens, Craig is a fuckwit, and that is trivial to demonstrate.

Let's pretend for a moment, though, that you're actually being original, just for fun.

Firstly, Craig's argument is actually that there exists some kind of objective morality (he actually states 'objective moral values', a concept self-refuted by inclusion of the word 'values', which are and can only ever be subjective). He then goes on to cite what can only be regarded as social mores. These again can only ever be subjective.

QuoteThe fact that we shouldn’t murder isn’t a fact about the world, it is a fact about how the world should be.

Should be? Is that the limit of your scope? Really, you haven't spent much time out in the world, have you?

QuoteNothing in our physical world makes moral facts true.

Errr, fail. Facts are true by definition. That's what a fact is. It is something that is true. As it happens, though, I will require evidence that there is any such ting as a 'moral fact'.

QuoteMoral facts are not descriptive, moral facts have the form of commands.

Do they indeed? Well, you can stick your commands into an orifice more readily associated with a more solid form of waste. I recognise nobody's authority to command me.

QuoteCommands can only exist when there is a commander.

And of course you have evidence in support of this commander? Only, those gentlemen in Stockholm are waiting with bated breath.

QuoteMoral laws override everything else.

And yet you can't demonstrate the existence of these moral laws, can you? All you need to do is to demonstrate that objective morality exists, and we're with you. Any sign of that evidence?

QuoteIf someone morally ought to do something, then this over-rules any other consideration that might come into play.  Morality has the ultimate authority.  A command can only carry as much authority as the person who commands it, and since morality has more authority then any human or institution, God must be the commander.

Excepty, of course, that you have no evidence to support this preposterous entity.

Quote3. Irreducible Complexity- Lehigh biochemist, Michael Behe introduced the concept of irreducible complexity. He defines it as “a single system that is necessarily composed of several well-matched, interacting parts that contribute to the basic function, and where the removal of any one of the parts causes the system to effectively cease functioning.”

 A great example of irreducible complexity is the bacterial flagellum.  The flagellum is similar to an outboard motor.  The machinery of the flagellum includes a rotor, a stator, O-rings, bushings, mounting disks, a drive shaft, a propeller, a hook joint for the propeller, and an acid-powered motor.  In addition, the flagellum requires coordinated interaction of roughly 30 proteins, which requires about 20 proteins to direct their assembly.  

Oh dear, you had to go and do it, didn't you? Let's give this fuckwittery the full treatment, shall we?

Firstly, irreducible complexity is not a problem for evolution (which is a demonstrable fact, regardless of what you believe), it's actually a natural outcome of it. This was first elucidated by Hermann Joseph Müller in a process that now bears his name, the Müllerian two-step. This process consists of two stages:

1. Add a part.
2. Make it necessary.

This is, of course, apart from the fact that lying fuckwit Behe's pet example, the bacterial flagellum, has been demonstrated to be anything but irreducibly complex, which brings us nicely to the second point.

The bacterial flagellum has been demonstrated to be built upon a co-opted previous mechanism, namely the type III secretory system (which I note has been cited earlier in the thread). More importantly, work was done on the bacterial flagellum specifically to address this horseshit, and some interesting results turned up. First, the gene coding for the FliI protein was knocked out, resulting in the cessation of flagellar biosynthesist. Then, the gene coding for FliH was knocked out, and flagellar synthesis returned! That buggers IC up the arse with a cheese-covered stick, for sure.

A wonderful post by the Blue Flutterby on this topic here (http://www.rationalskepticism.org/creationism/calilasseia-mega-post-1-irreducible-complexity-t3047.html#p64200).

QuoteThe bacterial flagellum is not the work of an unguided natural process, but rather a creator.

Ah, more arse-gravy. And of course, you have evidence to support this guff? You can begin by providing that evidence for your magic man that those Swedish gentlemen are awaiting.

Quote4. Origin of Consciousness- Evolution can only explain the origin of traits that have survival value, so where did our consciousness come from?

Oh, dear. Are you suggesting that being able to recognise patterns in our surroundings and being able to think abstractly, thereby being able to plan ahead, didn't have survival value? Seriously?!!

Quote5. Pre-Cambrian explosion-

Ooops! A confusion of terms here. There was no 'pre-Cambrian explosion'. Indeed, there wasn't even an explosion in the Cambrian. There was a proliferation of a range of body plans but, given that it actually lasted somewhere between 10- and 80 million years, it's hardly an explosion, except on geological timescales. Interestingly, the existence of Cambrian time rains a coprolitic barrage from an elevated position all over your stance.

QuoteWe know that the Cambrian explosion was an explosion of information.

Define information.

QuoteFossilized organisms found in Cambrian sediment support this.  Sponges that existed before the Cambrian explosion needed 5 types of cells.  Organisms that emerge during the Cambrian Explosion require at least 50 cell types.  In addition, many new specialized proteins would be required for these multiple cell types, which in turn would require new genetic information.  Evolution cannot account for this eruption of new information.

While we're awaiting your rigorous definition of information (another of my specific areas of interest, and something I know a little about), you can explain how 80 million years constitutes an eruption. Then you can explain what you understand of the processes involved in fossilisation of organism, and the barriers thereto. Please demonstrate that you actually understand any of the gudd you are spouting, and that you aren't just given us copypasta from arsebiscuitsingenesis.

Quote6. Argument from Design- Our universe is shockingly fine-tuned to support human life.  A few examples of this are the force of gravity, and the fundamental constants of nature, and the initial expansion of the big bang.  Had the rate of expansion been even slightly slowerâ€"one part in a million millionâ€"gravity would quickly force it to collapse on itself.  Had the rate of expansion been slightly fasterâ€"one part in a millionâ€"then stars and planets could not have formed.  I find it highly unlikely that the rate of the big bang expansion and other fine-tuned examples just happened by chance.  I believe that these perfect conditions can only be explained by a divine creator.

Again, we don't actually care what you believe, not least because you believe in a magic man that is wholly unsupported by anything resembling critically robust evidence. As for fine-tuning, perhaps you could cite some rigorous sources on this. You should note that when physicists are talking about fine-tuning, they are actually talking about the fact that certain parameters have to fit within certain narrow values if our models are correct.They are not suggesting that there is any kind of fine-tuner. More importantly, it has not been established that the physical constants we observe could actually be any different.

As for your erection of the 'chance' canard, sceince doesn't postulate chance. It postulates well-defined and testable natural mechanisms. I hope you note the distinction. Not noting the distinction will only confirm my worst fears.

Quote from: "kubedwheel"

QuoteWhy is it that I have never ever heard a Christian hold up story of Lott offering his daughters to the crowd come to rape the angels as an example of goodness in the bible? Gen 19:5

3 factors to outrageous proposal: 1. Hospitality considered one of highest measures of man.  2. Wives / daughters typically viewed as property in his culture.  3. Living in degenerate society distorted his views.  Christians don’t hold up the story of Lot offering his daughters to the crowd as an example of goodness because it isn’t an example of goodness.  It’s an example of sin.

Quote from: "Genesis 19:6-8"

QuoteLot went outside to meet them and shut the door behind him and said, "No, my
friends. Don't do this wicked thing. Look, I have two daughters who have never slept with a man. Let me bring them out to you, and you can do what you like with them. But don't do anything to these men, for they have come under the protection of my roof.

Seems to me that the bible is saying that Lot's daughters are worth less than the men in Lot's house. You know, the innocent girls minding their own business are worthy of getting raped, but not the other people...actually, no, I'll give lot something, he is protecting someone from getting raped, but not everyone. Here's an idea, go out with a sword or something and kill the fucking assholes trying to rape people. You know, I'm a survivor of rape, and the bible is the most triggering book I've ever read. I can watch the "Crow" Movie three times a day and no be triggered when they depict Shelly being raped and murdered, but the bible? Fuck that shit.

Quote from: "Squid"And if I see the words "genetic" and "no new information" in any paragraph again I'm going to slap somebody with the entire 4 volume set of the Encyclopedia of Genetics.  

That is something i'd pay to see.

This, to me, is like the witch scene in the holy grail. If you want to argue about the most important topic in the history of the universe, don't try to prove how it happened yourself. I assure that you can't.

Quote from: "hunterman317"This, to me, is like the witch scene in the holy grail. If you want to argue about the most important topic in the history of the universe, don't try to prove how it happened yourself. I assure that you can't.

Do you mean we will be dunked in a river for accepting Darwinian evolutionary theory?  

I knew I needed a bath, I just didn't realize it was that obvious.

Quote from: "hunterman317"This, to me, is like the witch scene in the holy grail. If you want to argue about the most important topic in the history of the universe, don't try to prove how it happened yourself. I assure that you can't.

So if I weigh the same as a duck, I'm an evolutionist?

But I weigh more than a duck. So that means. . . I'm a terrorist! *Sets self on fire* *Jumps out nearest window*

Quote from: "kubedwheel"If this creator were a being like the universe, a being that exists in time, then this creator would have to be created by something else.  This tells us that the creator must be an eternal being that exists outside of time.

Did I ever mention how flawed this is?

What makes you think that there must be a creator outside of the concept of linear time? Why can not the creator in turn have been created and so on and so forth unto infinity?