Intelligent Design Vs. Time Plus Chance

[nina]

I'm always interested to hear people's views on the subject and their reasoning for why they believe what they do. I heard a metaphor the other day from Wayne Dyer...that went something like this... Imagine a large junk yard. All the scraps of metal...toilets strewn about, nuts and bolts, glass, tires, and all sorts of junk just piled in this yard. A strong wind comes...and blows up a huge amount of dust, and also blows around all the junk in the yard. The dust and glass and metal swirl violently through the air, and when it finally settles, you are now staring at a huge jumbo jet. The junk in that yard settled just right, as to create this enormous extremely complex aircraft. What are the chances.

[Universal Mind]

Imagine it settling and forming God. What are the chances? If you have that junk yard and the objects disintegrate and their particles are constantly bouncing off each other in astronomical numbers and exchanging subparticles, allowing the formations of systems that come together to form greater systems that come together to form even greater systems, over billions of years there will be some fascinating formations. But it would take more than billions of times for the objects to land and form a jet in a single instance. They would have to at least be melted first.

[Neruo]

I heard that lame attack on evolution many, many times. Ironically, it has pretty little to do with evolution. Seeing as evolution as a single step, that is just childish, evolution has made countless tiny steps. And they resulted in complex beings not just because of random shit happening, but because of selection. Also, no wind can screw in a 3 inch bolt, but for instance the rotormotion-tail of the e-coli bacteria can be formed in small steps. And that used to be the main argument for intelligent design when it was new, the circular 'propeller' system of bacteria, that just couldn't have been formed! Having short time memory, for a middle-link for the complex propeller system has been found, seems to be a trait more religious (theists) have. Point being: Lame metaphor that has nothing to do with evolution but will confuse un-schooled people.

[nina]

Well, time is relative. What we perceive as a billion years, might only be seconds to someone or something else. You say that "it would take more than billions of times for the objects to land and form a jet in a single instance"...which doesn't make sense because how can something take billions of times AND be a single instance? Yes, one would think that this is impossible...but if it really was impossible, how then...could our world exist? All the intricacies and complexity of our own systems, even just the human eye...the amount of "happy coincidences" that would have to happen in order for us to be what we are now seems pretty ridiculous to me. Which is one of the reasons I believe that there had to be an intelligent design to our universe...rather than believing it was all just "time + chance"... Lame metaphor that has nothing to do with evolution but will confuse un-schooled people.[/b] *shrugs* Oh...and blame Ne-yo...he forced me to post in this forum against my will. Didn't you. Didn't you!

[Universal Mind]

Well, time is relative. What we perceive as a billion years, might only be seconds to someone or something else. You say that "it would take more than billions of times for the objects to land and form a jet in a single instance"...which doesn't make sense because how can something take billions of times AND be a single instance? Yes, one would think that this is impossible...but if it really was impossible, how then...could our world exist? All the intricacies and complexity of our own systems, even just the human eye...the amount of "happy coincidences" that would have to happen in order for us to be what we are now seems pretty ridiculous to me. Which is one of the reasons I believe that there had to be an intelligent design to our universe...rather than believing it was all just "time + chance"... [/b] Not just time + chance, but time + chance + preservation + evolution. I said it would take more than billions of times for that stuff to happen in a single instance. I am talking about more than billions of single instances. Maybe a google or a google plex or something, but there would have to be a high powered blow torch in the junk yard. Plus, I described the evolution of the universe to make the point that it's not like everything happened at once. Also, what is your answer to this... Imagine it settling and forming God. What are the chances? [/b] God is not supposedly a result of any kind of evolutionary process. How did he happen?

[IZ]

The chances are zero. Why because it takes a human mind to make a jet. There is no intelligence in the wind that lets it know that the tires go on the bottom and the wings on the side. Hell even if aliens or heavenly forces controlled the wind they wouldn't make a jet but their own form of aircraft. So zip for me. Human design cannot be copied by a strong wind.

[Keeper]

lets just think about this: what are the odds of a gold statue forming anywhere in the universe, allowing for a billion billion years? now, I know that this is probably a poor argument, but first you will have to tell me how we come about, set by step actually, I think I will make a thread about that

[Bonsay]

lets just think about this: what are the odds of a gold statue forming anywhere in the universe, allowing for a billion billion years? now, I know that this is probably a poor argument, but first you will have to tell me how we come about, set by step actually, I think I will make a thread about that [/b] Well I don't understand how god just spontaniously forming in some dimension, asking us to do things (eaven though he is allpowerfull) and then sending us to hell, seems perfectly ok, but a gold statue forming in the universe is impossible.

[taltho]

Aquanina. Hi! Another metaphor; I heard this somewhere I think it was a wiccan quoting a Native American woman. "If you take the bible and put it out in the wind and the rain the pages soon erode and disintegrate to nothing but earth, our religon is the wind and the rain". Wind and such is more often than not a destructive force that can tear down mountain's return buildings and pyramids to dust etc. Not a force of creation. Something to think about.

[becomingagodo]

Improbable versus impossible events William Dembski formulated the universal probability bound, a reformulation of the creationist argument from improbability,[119] which he argues is the smallest probability of anything occurring in the universe over all time at the maximum possible rate. This value, 1 in 10120, represents a revision of his original formula, which set the value of the universal probability bound at 1 in 10150.[120] In 2005 Dembski again revised his definition to be the inverse of the product of two different quantities, 10120 and the variable rank complexity of the event under consideration.[121] In "Innumeracy: Mathematical Illiteracy and Its Consequences," John Allen Paulos states that the apparent improbability of a given scenario cannot necessarily be taken as an indication that this scenario is more unlikely than any other potential one: "Rarity by itself shouldn't necessarily be evidence of anything. When one is dealt a bridge hand of thirteen cards, the probability of being dealt that particular hand is less than one in 600 billion [1 in 6 x 1011]. Still, it would be absurd for someone to be dealt a hand, examine it carefully, calculate that the probability of getting it is less than one in 600 billion, and then conclude that he must not have been [randomly] dealt that very hand because it is so very improbable."[/b] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intelligent_design Plus metaphors have no hard science behind it and crappy generalisation like simple orgainism are like helicopter how can they get put together. Evolution is fact and theory like relativity is fact and theory it only the chirstian science that speaks against evolution and the scientifically illeterate peoples of america. If you type in biology in wikipedia the first thing you will see is evolution that because all of biology depends on that because it been emprically tested and because it got tons of proof.

[Howie]

I'm always interested to hear people's views on the subject and their reasoning for why they believe what they do. I heard a metaphor the other day from Wayne Dyer...that went something like this... Imagine a large junk yard. All the scraps of metal...toilets strewn about, nuts and bolts, glass, tires, and all sorts of junk just piled in this yard. A strong wind comes...and blows up a huge amount of dust, and also blows around all the junk in the yard. The dust and glass and metal swirl violently through the air, and when it finally settles, you are now staring at a huge jumbo jet. The junk in that yard settled just right, as to create this enormous extremely complex aircraft. What are the chances.[/b] It sounds like us and the planet earth in the midst of the entire universe. So small

[Neruo]

lets just think about this: what are the odds of a gold statue forming anywhere in the universe, allowing for a billion billion years? now, I know that this is probably a poor argument, but first you will have to tell me how we come about, set by step actually, I think I will make a thread about that [/b] You should, because it actually is a great argument: A god statue, or a jumboyet, Do not just appear. They get put together, but to get that far a lot of factors are needed: an intelligent species, a society that wants to make gold statues or jumboyets, the technology needs to be there. A jumboyet basically is one of the results of cultural evolution. (as a result of normal evolution that 'provided' an intelligent species).

[nina]

I truly feel sorry for those who believe that these bodies are all that we are. *tear*

[bradybaker]

I truly feel sorry for those who believe that these bodies are all that we are. *tear* [/b] I'm a pretty laid back guy....rarely take offense to anything. That statement, however, is just about enough to get me to peak.

[The Blue Meanie]

My perspective: The purpose of ID, before the reasoning EVEN STARTS, is to try and put a creationist bent on the theory of evolution. All the lobbyist and think-tank institutes pushing the idea are fundamentally Christian. So, right from the outset, it's intellectually dishonest - it creates a theory to fulfill a preconceibved purpose. Second ,the actual guts of the ID argument is that "Oh, hey, Evolution is all cool and that, but look how glorious and refined and perfect everything is - pure chance couldn't have produced that, that's insufficient, isn't all of that silly? I mean, come on, there MUST be some higher force guiding things!" In other words, ID is only really believed simply because the people proposing and supporting it can't get their heads around evolution and natural selection - it's a theory based on incomprehension of an already established and much better-supported theory that those people simply don't understand. ID, as far as I'm concerned, is a bunch of gargbage insidious pseudo-science being pushed by brainwashed conservative "think-tanks". It's not even being CONSIDERED as curriculum for schools over here, and it astounds me that this is even an ISSUE in any country that considers itself rational.

[nina]

I'm a pretty laid back guy....rarely take offense to anything. That statement, however, is just about enough to get me to peak. [/b] *shrugs* edit: I really don't understand how you could have taken offense to what I said unless you misinterpreted my intent

[spoon]

lets just think about this: what are the odds of a gold statue forming anywhere in the universe, allowing for a billion billion years? now, I know that this is probably a poor argument, but first you will have to tell me how we come about, set by step[/b] You're right, it does seem to be a poor argument, I can't even figure out what you're getting at. But here are the steps: - gold forms - human sees it and identifies it as having a statue-like pattern - a 'gold statue' is created For examples see: old man in the mountain, man on the moon, etc. Just because we see a 'design' in a natural formation, be it chemical or biological, does not mean that there actually was a 'designer'. Snowflakes are incredibly complex; but no-one pretends that god is up there in the clouds with a tiny ice chisel, frantically chipping away. It has been demonstrated that evolutionary mechanisms account for complexity in biological systems, and that the laws of chemistry and physics produce complexity in non-living things without outside help. So while things that are designed are complex, things that are complex are not necessarily designed. Arbitrarily conflating 'complexity' with 'design' is not going to cut it.

[Ne-yo]

You're right, it does seem to be a poor argument, I can't even figure out what you're getting at. But here are the steps: - gold forms - human sees it and identifies it as having a statue-like pattern - a 'gold statue' is created [/b] He didn't say statue-liked patterns, He said a Gold Statue Formed over a billion year timeline.

[Moonbeam]

All the intricacies and complexity of our own systems, even just the human eye...the amount of "happy coincidences" that would have to happen in order for us to be what we are now seems pretty ridiculous to me. Which is one of the reasons I believe that there had to be an intelligent design to our universe...rather than believing it was all just "time + chance"... [/b] The eye is often used a complex organ which surely could not have evolved over time, and therefore must have been created. I have never understood this example, seeing as how any vision is better than no vision, therefore any stage of the development would be useful, and any sense of light is better than no sense, including the light sensing pigments that some bacteria have. "Eyes have evolved no fewer than forty times, and probably more than sixty times, independently in various parts of the animal kingdom. In some cases these eyes use radically different principoles. Nine distinct principles have been recongized..." Richard Dawkins, Climbing Mount Improbable If you care about how this is determined, there is a whole chapter about it in the book. Same for wings, which have evolved multiple times as well. It is pitiful how creationists are reduced to pushing such a weak "theory" as "intelligent design", and it would be laughable except that their ultimate plan is to go all the way-- Bible as science text-book. It should be called "unintelligent design" anyway, as may inefficiencies, redundancies, etc. found thruout the natural world. (Why doesn't our gene for making vitamin C work? Why don't dolphins have gills? Why are there a million kinds of beetles? Why do we have multiple copies of the genes for making hemoglobin, some of which cannot even be translated into a functional protein, others of which cause disease under some circumstances but are protective under others? Why does ontogeny recapitulate phylogeny? Why are there fossils of animals that don't exist anymore, including birds with teeth and whales with legs? etc. etc. etc....) I guess we could always go with my Granny's answer: Satan did it, just to confuse us! P.S. I was going to say something about the gold statue...how do we determine the odds? What are you talking about? I don't know how to respond to that, never mind.

[bradybaker]

*shrugs* edit: I really don't understand how you could have taken offense to what I said unless you misinterpreted my intent [/b] It's just as easy for me to get all high and mighty and say I truly feel sorry for those people that are deluded and impressionable enough to actually believe that there's more to reality than the physical. It's an ignorant, condescending thing to say. Besides, some people choose beliefs based on logic analysis of the data in front of them, not what makes them feel good. We have plain ol' fashioned masturbation for that. Sorry if I misinterpreted.

[spoon]

He didn't say statue-liked patterns, He said a Gold Statue Formed over a billion year timeline.[/b] Are you being facetious? Define statue. Unless you're including 'designed/built by someone" (and making the question pointless) in the definition a statue will be something that is close enough to the accepted patterns of statues (size, topics, complexity, whatever). My point was that this fails as an analogy for design because you do not need a designer to produce these patterns. As I said, look at the man on the moon, or the old man in the rock. What is designed may be complex, but what is complex is not necessarily designed. ID fails because of this. Just because you see similarities between natural phenomena and things you know were designed, does not mean that they were.

[Universal Mind]

Remember the face that was spotted on Mars? Does it prove the existence of intelligent minds on Mars? http://images.google.com/images?q=mars+fac...es&ct=title

[Ne-yo]

Are you being facetious? Define statue. Unless you're including 'designed/built by someone" (and making the question pointless) in the definition a statue will be something that is close enough to the accepted patterns of statues (size, topics, complexity, whatever). My point was that this fails as an analogy for design because you do not need a designer to produce these patterns. As I said, look at the man on the moon, or the old man in the rock. What is designed may be complex, but what is complex is not necessarily designed. [/b] Spoon you know exactly what I'm talking about I don't see why you're trying to act like it's such a complex question. Let me explain it a little more in detail, better yet put it this way. What are the chances of the Statue of Liberty being formed in it's exact same definition as it is within a timeline that consist of billions of years?

[becomingagodo]

What are the chances of the Statue of Liberty being formed in it's exact same definition as it is within a timeline that consist of billions of years?[/b] Well it improbable. However it not impossible ravity in it self doesnt tell you anything whether it true or false. Now all of us coming to this forum and typing exaculay what we have done is really improbable even being born is like four times the lottery. Now saying it is impossible because their is a very high chance it might not happen is wrong. Everything in the end of the day is as improbable as this. Plus this is a argument for ignorance.

[Ne-yo]

Well it improbable. However it not impossible ravity in it self doesnt tell you anything whether it true or false. Now all of us coming to this forum and typing exaculay what we have done is really improbable even being born is like four times the lottery. Now saying it is impossible because their is a very high chance it might not happen is wrong. Everything in the end of the day is as improbable as this. Plus this is a argument for ignorance. [/b] Im not saying it's a very high chance it may not happen, I'm saying that it's "Impossible" to happen without the assistance of a designer.