Describing ourselves by HOW rather than WHAT we think.

[sandy_mcd]

Rather, all elements of the Universe were compacted into a single location that became unstable. At that density, elements change, such that we can't radio-carbon date beyond that. It's like a reconstruction of the elements. We make inferences about how elements would behave at that density (largely by knowing how elements change due to the density of the sun; the nuclear fusion at the sun's core turns hydrogen to helium and then iron, which, by the Bessemer process, becomes steel).

I am getting more and more confused - it is getting late, perhaps that's it. But, radio-carbon dating back to the Big Bang ? I thought that technique could barely make 50,000 years, let alone the 13,700,000,000 years of the Big Bang proponents. Again, the standard scientific explanation doesn't even mention elements at that early time :

There was some matter present, but it was minuscule compared to the amount of radiation. The radiation was in the form of photons, neutrinos (and anti-neutrinos). The matter present was in the form of electrons, positrons, and a very small concentration of protons and neutrons (about 1 part per billion). As a result of the extremely high temperature and density present, all of these items acted like particles.

[sandy_mcd]

Testing evolutionary theory is hard, because evolution occurs over many many generations. Therefore, in order to test evolutionary theories, we need to use animals that reproduce quickly. The hypothesis would be that genetic mutations that benefit a species (i.e., result in greater reproductive success) are more likely than are other mutations to be passed on to offspring, resulting in a long-term, phenotypic change in the species. The null hypothesis would be that genetic mutations that benefit the species are not more likely than are other mutations to be passed on to offspring, and, therefore, do not result in a long-term, phenotypic change in the species. There are any number of empirical tests of these hypotheses. Some have involved viruses. In fact, a great example is the fact that the influenza virus mutates constantly.

All of this is what is described here as microevolution. Sure small changes can be generated in our lifetimes, but where and how did life originate ? What about the large differences between different phyla ? How did they come about ?

[AttentionKMartShoppers]

"Too complex" begs the question: too complex for what?

As I said, all you're doing is freakin' quotin things you don't understand. Begging the question has NOTHING to do with this.

[Ark~Magic]

This same kind of argument has already been discussed almost a hundred times, do we really need to go into it again?

I think we can simplify the argument by saying this: There is alot of power and truth in the bible alone. The philosophy and teaching of Christianity has had such a profound effect on the world and people that it is enough to get them to embrace and cherish their faith. Not only that, but isn't it enough to show how the bible shares harmony with science, not to mention various other revelations that have been given through it, like prophecies about civilizations falling that have come true? And let's not forget how many archaelogical findings support it.

I have philosophical problems with the 'no creator' B.S. and alot of similar problems with evolution, but I won't go into them here. I'm simply saying, the bible itself is a great way of showing how God has shared his truth and knowledge with people throughout history.

...But if you want to read some very good information regarding the creator and the universe including the concept of ID and other such things, try some more respectable sites like:

http://www.doesgodexist.org
and
http://www.reasons.org

[ncooty]

Rather, all elements of the Universe were compacted into a single location that became unstable. At that density, elements change, such that we can't radio-carbon date beyond that. It's like a reconstruction of the elements. We make inferences about how elements would behave at that density (largely by knowing how elements change due to the density of the sun; the nuclear fusion at the sun's core turns hydrogen to helium and then iron, which, by the Bessemer process, becomes steel).

I am getting more and more confused - it is getting late, perhaps that's it. But, radio-carbon dating back to the Big Bang ? I thought that technique could barely make 50,000 years, let alone the 13,700,000,000 years of the Big Bang proponents. Again, the standard scientific explanation doesn't even mention elements at that early time :

There was some matter present, but it was minuscule compared to the amount of radiation. The radiation was in the form of photons, neutrinos (and anti-neutrinos). The matter present was in the form of electrons, positrons, and a very small concentration of protons and neutrons (about 1 part per billion). As a result of the extremely high temperature and density present, all of these items acted like particles.

Radio-carbon dating = radioactive or carbon dating methodology

Carbon dating is often used for more recent dating, because it is more precise, due to its shorter period of decay.

Radioactive dating uses radioactive isotopes with longer half-lives to date older masses. (The half-life of Uranium 238 is about 4.47 billion years and the half-life of Thorium 232 is about 14.05 billion years. Thus, both are more than capable of dating a Universe that is estimated to be between 13 & 15 billion years old. That's one half-life of Th-232.)

Here is an excellent website to learn more about this topic:

http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/age.html

I believe this explanation and the site listed answer your second comment as well.

Again, these methods are objective, falsifiable, and replicable. I'm just asking for the same things from ID, so I can choose whom to believe.

[ncooty]

Testing evolutionary theory is hard, because evolution occurs over many many generations. Therefore, in order to test evolutionary theories, we need to use animals that reproduce quickly. The hypothesis would be that genetic mutations that benefit a species (i.e., result in greater reproductive success) are more likely than are other mutations to be passed on to offspring, resulting in a long-term, phenotypic change in the species. The null hypothesis would be that genetic mutations that benefit the species are not more likely than are other mutations to be passed on to offspring, and, therefore, do not result in a long-term, phenotypic change in the species. There are any number of empirical tests of these hypotheses. Some have involved viruses. In fact, a great example is the fact that the influenza virus mutates constantly.

All of this is what is described here as microevolution. Sure small changes can be generated in our lifetimes, but where and how did life originate ? What about the large differences between different phyla ? How did they come about ?

First, I'd like to note that I'm not here to advocate other theories. I feel as though every time I ask a question about ID, all I get are attacks against other, extant theories. This is what I was referring to when I wrote that many ID proponents here have so far substantiated their beliefs with false dichotomies (i.e., if they're wrong, we must be right). Even if you do shoot down evolutionary theory entirely, it won't add one iota of support to ID theory. Just because they're wrong (which I've yet to see) doesn't mean ID is right... or even supported.

Nonetheless, I'll respond somewhat to your questions, though I don't see how this is progressing my education in ID.

Question 1: Where and how did life originate?

Everyone here seems adamant that intelligent design and creationism are distinct, but questions such as this blur that distinction. Ark-Magic directed me to http://www.reasons.org, where I found the following distinction between creationism and ID:

"Creationism focuses on the cause and beginning of the universe. Intelligent design focuses on arrangements of preexisting materials that point to a designing intelligence."

Thus, your first question relates to creationism, not ID theory. In any case, there are multiple theories on the formation of life. I won't discuss alternate theories here, because they would compete with creationism theory, and I want to learn about ID, not creationism. If anyone would like to learn about such theories, try this site for a start:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Origin_of_life

Question 2 (&3): What about the large differences between phyla? How did they come about?

What you're curious about is called "speciation". Go here to understand those theories:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Speciation

Again, I don't want to review any such theories, because that's not what this site is about. I'm not here to advocate alternate theories and I don't understand how attacking them provides any support whatsoever for ID. If nothing else, these other theories at least help to show that other scientific theories are testable and objective. I'm sure ID is as well. All I want to hear from someone is the objective, empirically testable, falsifiable hypothesis underlying ID. I think that's what's really missing for me.

I'm not trying to be difficult... really. I want to test the theory of ID or at least be able to design a study that would test that theory. All I can find online are theoretical articles supporting ID. None of them is empirical. ID advocates would have a drastically better scientific base of operations if they could produce some empirical research. I want to do that research and advocates here should certainly want their opinions vindicated. Many ID advocates seem to feel that the scientific community is excluding ID out of hand, without any consideration whatsoever. From what I've read, it just seems to me that skeptics are frustrated because ID proponents haven't provided a way to test their hypotheses. That's something that's required of any scientific theory.

[ncooty]

"Too complex" begs the question: too complex for what?

As I said, all you're doing is freakin' quotin things you don't understand. Begging the question has NOTHING to do with this.

KMart,

On the whole, I find your posts to be devoid of useful content and common courtesy.

From http://www.dictionary.com:
beg the question: (v) take for granted or assume the truth of the very thing being questioned. For example, Shopping now for a dress to wear to the ceremony is really begging the question; she hasn't been invited yet.

The assumption here is that there is a point of design that is "too complex" for nature to produce. How is "too complex" objectively defined? In other words, how complex is too complex? ("'Too complex' for what?" was a very basic version of these.)

In the future, I will likely not respond to your posts, KMart. They are insolent, immature, defensive, and unproductive. Moreover, as is the case here, you frequently neither support your assertions nor show any evidence whatsoever that support even exists.

I recommend the following sites to help you develop your ability to produce support for your assertions:

Dictionary:
http://www.dictionary.com
Encyclopedia:
http://en.wikipedia.org
Logic Tutor:
http://www.wwnorton.com/logictutor/
Rules of Argument:
http://www.personalityresearch.org/papers/rules.html

You might ask yourself, why are you so defensive when people are skeptical of your beliefs? Aren't you doing the very things you despise from those who automatically, ignorantly, and angrily reject ID because an alternate theory is so dogmatically attached to their own identities?

[ncooty]

This same kind of argument has already been discussed almost a hundred times, do we really need to go into it again?

I think we can simplify the argument by saying this: There is alot of power and truth in the bible alone. The philosophy and teaching of Christianity has had such a profound effect on the world and people that it is enough to get them to embrace and cherish their faith. Not only that, but isn't it enough to show how the bible shares harmony with science, not to mention various other revelations that have been given through it, like prophecies about civilizations falling that have come true? And let's not forget how many archaelogical findings support it.

I have philosophical problems with the 'no creator' B.S. and alot of similar problems with evolution, but I won't go into them here. I'm simply saying, the bible itself is a great way of showing how God has shared his truth and knowledge with people throughout history.

...But if you want to read some very good information regarding the creator and the universe including the concept of ID and other such things, try some more respectable sites like:

http://www.doesgodexist.org
and
http://www.reasons.org

Ark-Magic,

Thank you for the suggested sites and I apologize if I'm rehashing an old argument.

In any case, I'm apparently not rehashing the topic you had in mind. I'm here to learn about intelligent design. Your whole post was about Christian creationism.

If you go to http://www.reasons.org, you'll find definitions there that delineate the difference.

In fact, on page 6 of this site (http://www.reasons.org/chapters/seattle ... 200410.pdf), you'll find the following:

"So, creationism looks beyond the facts of nature, such as the Big
Bang, and attempts to identify the Causer. ID examines the facts of
nature, focusing on those that defy naturalistic explanation, to
demonstrate the need for an intelligent cause—though they do not
attempt to identify the Causer."

Here is KMart's explanation:
"Creationism starts with the belief that the Bible is correct, and says that God created the universe and all life present.

"Intelligent Design is based on science and says that life is way too complicated to have evolved, but requires a designer (and, the fun part is that it doesn't necessarily have to be God...you could say aliens did it, and that they were rather simple biologically speaking...) I'm not quite sure if fine-tuning in the universe goes along with ID or not...but I think it might."
http://discussions.godandscience.org/vi ... php?t=1419

Again, I apologize if this is a really simple issue to everyone else here. I think I understand ID a lot more now than before I came here. The thing that still escapes me, though, is the most fundamental piece of information to understanding why this is a scientific theory: a scientific hypothesis.

Can anyone state the objective, testable, falsifiable hypothesis of ID? I think that would really help me understand this much better. Such hypotheses are the essential element of a scientific theory. I know this is a really simple issue for everyone here. I'm sure you all know how science works and what scientific methodology is, so I really don't mean to patronize anyone by asking for the scientific hypothesis of the ID theory. (The strange thing is that I've been trying to get this for a while now.) Some people have written that they just know or feel that ID is true, but that's just not science. That doesn't make it wrong, but it doesn't make it science either. Of course, everyone here knows that; that's 7th grade science.

[Ark~Magic]

This post will be a bit difficult to express, but let me give it a shot anyway.

I think the whole idea of many things being realized through evolution alone is a major obstacle both scientifically and philosophically.

For example, they can explain that nature chose the anteater to become what it is today; that it may have become the anteater because of its shape and form which allowed it to adapt to eating ants.

However, their idea of the environment alone being responsible for selecting certain species or shaping literally everything is very limited. For example, why did evolution even realize the concept of flight to begin with? Where did it draw the idea to realize flying species? Why is it neccessary?

Things like the eyes and a fully functioning awareness of the world (conciousness) had to have been realized from things independant from evolution because they do not deal with the 'inside' but rather the 'outside'. However, there is not much explanaton about how evolution itself came to know about the outside world and how to deal with it effeciently. The idea of the environment having its effect on evolution alone is limited.

If you need to clarify, I shall do so. I'm sorry if it is a bit difficult to understand.

[BGoodForGoodSake]

This post will be a bit difficult to express, but let me give it a shot anyway.

I think the whole idea of many things being realized through evolution alone is a major obstacle both scientifically and philosophically.

For example, they can explain that nature chose the anteater to become what it is today; that it may have become the anteater because of its shape and form which allowed it to adapt to eating ants.

However, their idea of the environment alone being responsible for selecting certain species or shaping literally everything is very limited. For example, why did evolution even realize the concept of flight to begin with? Where did it draw the idea to realize flying species? Why is it neccessary?

Things like the eyes and a fully functioning awareness of the world (conciousness) had to have been realized from things independant from evolution because they do not deal with the 'inside' but rather the 'outside'. However, there is not much explanaton about how evolution itself came to know about the outside world and how to deal with it effeciently. The idea of the environment having its effect on evolution alone is limited.

If you need to clarify, I shall do so. I'm sorry if it is a bit difficult to understand.

Ark~Magic I think you missed ncooty's point. Ncooty I beleive, is looking for an empiracle way to support/disprove ID. There being problems philosophically and scientifically with evolution does not support ID. If you wish to discuss these short commings we can start a new thread.

[AttentionKMartShoppers]

And once again, ID has been improperly described...yeah to silly people

[ncooty]

And once again, ID has been improperly described...yeah to silly people

The definition offered was yours, quoted from one of your own posts (complete with a link). Draw your own conclusions.

[AttentionKMartShoppers]

Maybe you'd have a valid point if I were referring to your nonsense. But I'm not.

[AttentionKMartShoppers]

Ark~Magic I think you missed ncooty's point. Ncooty I beleive, is looking for an empiracle way to support/disprove ID.

I'm sure he has no qualms with the fact that there is no way to falsify evolution...

[ncooty]

The conjecture is that the physical elements of the universe ... were confined to a small space. We know these dense masses exist. That's what a black hole is.

So are you saying above that the universe has always existed as a black hole and that at some point it expanded ? And that there are included in this expanded universe a number of black holes which by your preceeding statements may at some point expand into their own universes ?

In response to your statements, I think I may have been unclear.

Perhaps we really don't disagree as much as you might think. Perhaps some light could be shed on what appear to be communication difficulties. I'm sure I could understand your arguments much better if you could explain to me why my statements aren't a paraphrase of yours. Care to give it a go for the sake of understanding one another ?

Sandy,

I think I might not have responded to this post of yours.

The following statements might serve to clarify our misunderstanding:

Some proponents of the Big Bang theory theorize that prior to the Big Bang, the mass causing the black hole might have been disparate masses. In other words, there could have been a universe with galaxies, solar systems, asteroids, etc. Those separate masses would be drawn to each other by gravity. According to such an explanation, as they were drawn to one another, these masses created larger masses with stronger gravitational fields. Thus, over time, all matter in the Universe could have been pulled into a massive, singular point. Something with a mass that great would have a gravitational pull that would pressurize the mass and create a nearly immeasurably dense mass. There is currently no way to test this theory (to my knowledge), so it is considered moot. We do, however, have some support via a phenomenon known as a "blue shift" (a decreasing rate of acceleration between masses) and the existence of black holes (masses so dense that light cannot escape them). In other words, we know that the Universe appears to behave in this manner (masses being pulled back into one another). Detractors would likely site anti-gravity and dark matter theories, but I think that is getting outside the scope of this discussion. In short, no, I wasn't saying that the Universe had always existed as a black hole.

Second, not all black holes have the same mass, so even if a black hole were to explode, it wouldn't have the mass to recreate something the size of the universe. This is also a logical impossibility: a non-identical subset cannot be larger than the set (or domain).

Third, current black holes probably do not have the density that would be required to initiate an explosion. I don't know enough about black holes, white holes, and worm holes to speak intelligently about where such a threshold might be.

I hope that helps and, again, sorry for letting your post slip through the cracks until now.

Finally, I should add that I am only posting this to respond to an earlier request. I do not intend to carry on this discussion of alternate theories of how we came to be. As I've mentioned before, I think too many people on this site believe they can support ID by attempting to trash alternate theories. Discussing the Big Bang, evolution, or any other alternative to ID in no way educates anyone on the nature of ID hypotheses. That method of argumentation is akin to: If A, then B. If C, then B. B and not A, therefore C. This is a false dichotomy. (I have posted a link to a logic tutor elsewhere in this thread in case anyone wants to review what a false dichotomy is.) In short, attacking alternate theories does not support ID and in this thread, it's off-topic.