I dare you to read it all...

[Goofydoofy]

I like to take short walks in public parks on beautiful days when the weather is just right. And when I have walked a good distance and feel at one with nature and life, I like to sit on a park bench in the shade near a lake and watch the squirells nibbling on there forages and the various other small creatures scurrying about. It calms my mind and soul and makes me happy for all the wonder things that God gave us on this planet. And then I like to whip out my pecker and masterbate in a furious manner and splurge all over the park bench for the next person to sit in and enjoy. This is what I like.

[Horcrux]

This thread lasted for a month and a half without being corrupted by Goofy, thats gotta be a record!

[Ceruis]

Goofy is

[Horcrux]

Went and saw Expelled last Saturday, and I got to say, it was worth the money. Very insightful, and even entertaining. It is not backing or advertising any specific religion. It is presenting the theory of Intelligent Design (on which most Religions basically rely) as an equally strong, at the very least, theory countering the theory of evolution. It has some great interviews with not only researchers, teachers, etc, who have been ostracized and lost jobs over presenting Intelligent Design, but also of some of the top names on the Evolution side. One of which was Dawkins. The last interview with him was pretty interesting. I don't remember word for word, but he basically stated that another race seeding earth with life could fill in the hole of the ignition of life, which Evolution can not fill currently. So basically, Intelligent Design of life on earth by another race is permissible by Evolution, but not by a God figure.

Anyways, I'd recommend it to everyone who is interested, both Evolutionists or Intelligent Design-ists.

[Bilnick]

I have yet to see any Intelligent Design paper that does not mention the theory of evolution. A good theory should be able to stand on its own. Poking holes in the theory of evolution at best disproves that theory, it does not support a different theory.

The theory of evolution does not need to prove or disprove the existence of God, Allah, Bhudda, Mars, Zeus, or who/whatever. The theory of evolution can co-exist with any number of gods.

[Goofydoofy]

Neither notion can be proved or disproved. I wouldn't be surprised if humans spawned from a pile of shit left over by a goat which was created by God which is a goat who just took shit.

[Horcrux]

I have yet to see any Intelligent Design paper that does not mention the theory of evolution. A good theory should be able to stand on its own. Poking holes in the theory of evolution at best disproves that theory, it does not support a different theory.

The theory of evolution does not need to prove or disprove the existence of God, Allah, Bhudda, Mars, Zeus, or who/whatever. The theory of evolution can co-exist with any number of gods.

You are missing the point. The point of this documentary is to show that people are being shunned and black listed for presenting the theory of ID and that the scientific communitiesare not as open to debate as they once were.

Also, it is not poking holes at the theory of evolution, it is realizing that there are holes and submitting a theory to flll them. Instead of ignoring the holes.

[Bilnick]

Also, it is not poking holes at the theory of evolution, it is realizing that there are holes and submitting a theory to flll them. Instead of ignoring the holes.

Proving one theory wrong does not make the other true.

I am at best a casual novice on ID. From what I have read its basic premise is that some things are too complex to be the result of a random occurence. Some being (I suppose it could be aliens from a galaxy far, far away) or diety is the only explanation for the complexity of certain natural compounds and phenomena. DNA could not have been the result of random chemical reactions for instance. Fine....prove that the odds of DNA being the result of a random chemical reaction is ZERO, not one in a billion, one in a trillion, etc. Unless you can prove that there is zero chance, it is still possible.

Evolution is a relatively new science. Darwin's original theory is 150ish years old? Any scientist will tell you that the puzzle is no where near complete. Trying to see what a 10,000 piece puzzle looks like with only a handful of pieces is hard to do....thats why there is constant searching for more pieces. I would almost guarantee the Human species tree will change in our lifetime based on future discoveries.

Yeah I know I wasn't directly commenting on the movie this time.

[Horcrux]

Also, it is not poking holes at the theory of evolution, it is realizing that there are holes and submitting a theory to flll them. Instead of ignoring the holes.

Proving one theory wrong does not make the other true.

Sure doesn't. But assuming an un-proven theory is correct and ignoring alternatives is bad science.

And yeah, probabilities have been calculated on the chances of proteins lining up perfectly to create the first life. I've seen various numbers, but it is in the range of the 1 in the trillions. But, as long as you have that 1 on top, it is a probability. However, the problem is the amount of time it would probably take to see that 1 in a trillion occurance. Given an infinite period of time, you will see all outcomes, period. However, it has been proven that the universe has not been around for an infinite period of time. And the Earth has been proven to be even younger than the universe in general. Therefore, the chances of seeing this 1 in the trillions outcome in a limited amount of time starts being less and less likely, the less time you limit yourself to. This probability is the basis in the difference between ID and Evolution. Evolution relies on 100% non-guided mutation to create life, while ID relies on a guided creation of life. Evolution relies on that 1 in however-many chance for the ignition of life, while ID says a force tilted the scales in favor of life starting, possibly to the point of directly creating it.

[Bilnick]

What evidence does ID offer up that indicates a diety created life? Because we do not know or understand certain things therfore it must be a diety?

ID relies upon the assumption there is some diety that created things we cannot explain or has extremely low probability of randomly happening. Wouldn't you have to prove first that a diety exists before ID has any merit?

[Goofydoofy]

It is amazing what a fool will believe to get by.

[Horcrux]

What evidence does ID offer up that indicates a diety created life? Because we do not know or understand certain things therfore it must be a diety?

ID relies upon the assumption there is some diety that created things we cannot explain or has extremely low probability of randomly happening. Wouldn't you have to prove first that a diety exists before ID has any merit?

Don't shoot me if I'm wrong, I'm not totally studied on this. But, I'll try and address your points. (Wow, this turned out long)

First, I think a huge piece of evidence ID has for itself is the probability aspect. Like I said, given an infinite amount of time, every possible outcome of every situation is possible, even if it is 1 out of a billion-trillion-zillion chance of happening. However, it has been basically proven, and has been accepted by even the evolution side that the universe began at one point, and has not had an infinite past. Time may continue for an infinite length from now, however the possibility for life will not go the whole duration. The universe is fated to 1 of 2 outcomes (and there is scientific and mathematical backing for both of these that I can bring up if you would like). Either the universe will collapse in upon itself, or it will expand forever. Collapsing in on itself will remove the possibility of life. And if the universe expands for an infinite amount of time, there will eventually be an infinite distance between every planet, star, etc, allowing for no life. Given this, we are talking about a relatively short period of time where life is possible in our universe. Now we need to break the time down even more, to the lifespan of a star. Every star, including our sun, will eventually burn out and consume its surrounding planets, destroying any life growing on them. This means that any life that is growing within that solar system has the duration of the stars life to develop to a point where it can travel to a younger solar system to continue developing, or it will be consumed and life will have to restart from a single cell eventually. So, every race that could ever evolve in our universe, including humans, would have to race to that point in development before their star would consume them. So now, not only do we have the trillions to one ratio of proteins lining up to create the first form of life, we have the probability that this life will evolve at a fast enough rate to get out, which is minimal as well. Knowing that we far ahead in the evolutionary race than every other life form on earth, we must assume that either we are evolving non-guided at an exceptional rate, or that we were seeded by a race that survived their sun consuming them. Either way, the probability is very very minimal. And now, we must combine (multiply) the 1 in the trillions probability by this other minimal probability, to come up with an even more unlikely probability.

Now on to the unlikely hood of our specific situation. Now, we finally determined that the earth was not the center of the universe 100s of years ago. However, the more we learn about our universe, the more we discover random events which fell into place beyond perfectly to foster life on earth. The probability of our exact distance from our sun, the tilt of the earth, the atmosphere, the moon, our surrounding planets protecting us from catastrophic meteor collisions, and much more that goes over my head, all have a semi decent probability of occurring alone, but combining their probabilities into a single probability produces yet another staggeringly large ratio. Yet, all these things have come together, and so we cannot ignore that massively improbable event. And now we multiply this new insanely high ratio with our other from the upper paragraph, and we get a number that my brain would hurt to try and calculate.

Like I said, given an infinite amount of time, all possible events will occur, no matter their unlikeliness. However, we have had a set time for all these very very highly improbable random events to fall into place. And we are left with two possibilities when considering evolution vs ID. Evolution says that this random event did occur, no matter how improbable. And ID says that some force tipped the scales to ensure that these events would occur.

And to the point on a diety, it depends what you mean by a diety. Do you mean a conscious, active being such as the God of the bible? Or do you mean a force, like the Nameless from EQ (for lack of a better example) that unconsciously created everything? Either way, I do not believe that you have to first prove that there is a diety/force who created everything. To me, its an "if and only if" proof. If you prove that there is a diety/force, then you prove ID. If you prove ID, then you prove there is a diety/force. However, you cannot, say, prove ID and therefore say the Christian God exists, or that the Hindu Gods exist, or any other God you want to include here. If ID were proven, then you would have to sort out the religions to figure out which God it is.

Now that the math is out of the way, I'll say what I personally believe. I live math, therefore I sort basically everything I hear, see, know, etc, into two categories. Either it is an absolute, or a probability. I have ID filed in the "probability category". As much as I want to absolutely believe it, there is always that nagging thought in my mathematical head which says "there is that chance, no matter how small, that this is wrong". However, there are two important things filed under my "absolutes" category. First of all, is that if I die, and I'm wrong, I've lost nothing; however, if I die, and I'm right, I gain everything. And second, I am living a happy, fullfilled, content life filled with love. Something I did not have when I was growing up as an inner city, ghetto kid, who often had to outrun gangs just to get home in one piece. To me, the variable that changed my life was believing in God. Given the very, very, one sided probability, and adding my two absolutes to it, my mind is easily made up.

[Jahras]

I think what bil is saying, is that if people wish to call ID a scientific theory, then what testable hypotheses about it are offered. Like evolutionary biology is rich with these hypotheses and research, but what testable claims does ID offer that can be used to support or refute it.

The one that I've usually heard offered for that the irreducible complexity argument, but even that is just saying "well it couldn't have evolved from something simpler." And even though this has been falsified on the eye, and bacterial flagellum etc, it is still saying everything about falsifying evolution, and nothing about supporting a prediction made by intelligent designe.

And given the scope of ID beliefs, from deists to the most fundamentalist beliefs, ID is weighed against a lot of different things, the formation of the cosmos, abiogenesis, macroscopic evolution, and micro evolution (does anyone even dispute this last one now?).

I'll pull an example with a topic thats usually held a lot of contention between the two, the macroscopic evolution of humans from a common ancestor with apes, vs being designed/created by some other agent. Evolutionary biologists have hypothesized that if humans and the other great apes shared this common ancestor, there would be remarkable similarities in their genetics, transitional forms would be found, the dna of our mitochondria would be much more similar than that of lower primates etc etc. All testable criterion to test the theory on, which have been done to death.

Now what kind of hypotheses are offered by ID to be tested? The foundation of science is the use of the scientific method of inquiry, so if we have nothing to test, it falls into the realm of more philosophical and theological arguments, and I don't think anyone disagrees that it is ok for a philosophical argument, but to be in there with the natural sciences, it needs put these testable hypotheses out there for research.

[Horcrux]

Let me read more on it so that I can give a more thorough answer to ya Jahras. I'd rather do it justice than just spew stuff out. I've focused more on the mathematical and logical (proof based) side as that is what more interests me.

[Horcrux]

Let me read more on it so that I can give a more thorough answer to ya Jahras. I'd rather do it justice than just spew stuff out. I've focused more on the mathematical and logical (proof based) side as that is what more interests me.

Don't wanna just leave this as an unanswered question. I'm still reading up on this stuff (I find it fascinating) and I still have a lot to read on, but I think I can answer your question Jahras. The key to determining whether Evolution or ID wins out is whether or not we can identify an irreducibly complex system within a life form. An irreducibly complex system would consist of multiple parts which are all required to produce minimal function, and that an absence of just one part, or one part being under developed, would leave the system non-functional would therefore be thrown out of natural selection. In order to determine if a system is irreducibly complex, every single part of the system must be able to be listed out and fully understood. As of yet, the individual cell is the prime contender to be an irreducibly complex system, however biochemistry and micro-biology is not advanced enough to be able to list and funny understand every part of a cell. Therefore, the hypothesis is unprovable as of yet, but it is testable.

Darwin even stated in his Origin of Species that...

If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down.

It is not debated that some mutations, or evolution, can occur over time. Such as an eye developing from a few light sensitive cells to the human eye. However, if is the transition between no need to sense light and therefore no attempts to sense light, and those few light sensitive cells, that is being debated. Even those few light sensitive cells are a complex system, with each part having to have evolved at infinitesimal increments, and yet simultaneously, to create a functioning light sensitive spot to be a contender for natural selection. And that transition from nothing to a complex system is found all over nature. That is what is being debated.