General > Off Topic
to Nums and PY
PurpleYouko:
--- Quote ---Yes, I know most creationists would scoff at that statement.
Who designed the designers? Evolution, on the galactic scale over galactic time could indeed very probably produce intelligence. Simple numbers game.
But lets say it's a 1 in a 10^100 shot. There are some major hurdles to overcome after all. Everytime the designers expanded past their planet, they seeded, wether intentionally or not, that planet with some of their own planet's organisms.
In that sense alone, life developing in one part of the galaxy could expland and grow into other parts.
--- End quote ---
Granted that this scenario could be possible. It still comes down to evolution eventually though and the universe only has a finite lifetime in which it could have happened.
What you are suggesting is not typical of ID though.
They mouth off about not being specific about who the designer was but when it comes right down to it they always bring God in at some point.
Did you catch that story on the news this morning. In response to a recent decision by a Pensylvanian school board to reject ID from its science classes, some pillock (can't remember his name) declared "If a natural disaster strikes your town then don't turn to God! You have thoroughly rejected him"
:blink:
WTF has God got to do with ID? ID is specifically supposed to have nothing to do with God.
Or have we just caught the IDers out in another underhanded cheap ploy?
Numsgil:
--- Quote ---
--- Quote ---But let's say some intelligent designer influenced the development of organsisms at key points in our history. Key points that evolution was incapable of doing (in limited time). Then we must reexamine the nature of evolution in general.
--- End quote ---
OK I have a problem with this logic. What is the proposed nature of this inteligent designer and where did it come from?
If it evolved itself then the same time constraint applies to it.
If not then we are talking about God which makes ID religion.
--- End quote ---
Let's say that on average abiotic elements take 15 billion years to form into life, with a standard deviation of 3 billion years.
That would be a time constraint that wouldn't prohibit the development of life somewhere, but would mean very little life evolved on its own.
Numsgil:
--- Quote ---
--- Quote ---Yes, I know most creationists would scoff at that statement.
Who designed the designers? Evolution, on the galactic scale over galactic time could indeed very probably produce intelligence. Simple numbers game.
But lets say it's a 1 in a 10^100 shot. There are some major hurdles to overcome after all. Everytime the designers expanded past their planet, they seeded, wether intentionally or not, that planet with some of their own planet's organisms.
In that sense alone, life developing in one part of the galaxy could expland and grow into other parts.
--- End quote ---
Granted that this scenario could be possible. It still comes down to evolution eventually though and the universe only has a finite lifetime in which it could have happened.
What you are suggesting is not typical of ID though.
They mouth off about not being specific about who the designer was but when it comes right down to it they always bring God in at some point.
Did you catch that story on the news this morning. In response to a recent decision by a Pensylvanian school board to reject ID from its science classes, some pillock (can't remember his name) declared "If a natural disaster strikes your town then don't turn to God! You have thoroughly rejected him"
:blink:
WTF has God got to do with ID? ID is specifically supposed to have nothing to do with God.
Or have we just caught the IDers out in another underhanded cheap ploy?
--- End quote ---
I'll admit alot of poor science from ID people. Really really poor. It sickens me.
What gets my goat is that I see much the same behavior from "scientists". It's sort of like the white-supremicist arguments you occassionally find in science articles from 100 years ago.
At best its quait. At worst its destructive to science as a whole.
Anyone who doubts that evolution occurs is only kidding themselves. What we don't know is how successful evolution is, what sort of time it needs to do its thing, etc.
PurpleYouko:
--- Quote ---Let's say that on average abiotic elements take 15 billion years to form into life, with a standard deviation of 3 billion years.
That would be a time constraint that wouldn't prohibit the development of life somewhere, but would mean very little life evolved on its own.
--- End quote ---
So what you are saying is that our own Earth is a relative new comer to the cosmos at a mere 4.5 billion years of age whereas other parts of the universe are thought to be as old as 14 billion years.
Evolution could have occurred somewhere and then gradually migrated across the universe on the boots of some advanced form of life. They either did it deliberately (ID) or through not being careful enough (AD "Accidental design" :D )
I don't have a problem with that concept as a hypothesis. Can it be proven though? What predictions would be made based on the hypothesis? Can the hypothesis be tested?
If not then it is just as valid to hypothesize that the entire universe was sneezed out of the nose of a being called "The Great Green Arkelseizure" and we should all live in constant fear of a time known only as "the coming of the great white hand kerchief" HitchHiker's guide to the galaxy
After all we can't disprove that either.
Numsgil:
--- Quote ---I don't have a problem with that concept as a hypothesis. Can it be proven though? What predictions would be made based on the hypothesis? Can the hypothesis be tested?
--- End quote ---
One would expect to see stochastic evolutionary events. Not that stochastic events always mean ID, but that's what you'd expect to see.
For instance, the development of eukaryotes was very sudden. We have little evidence of the steps that occurred from one to another. It just sort of bang occurs in the fossil record.
That eukaryotes were designed from preexisting microbes by an alien intelligence (perhaps as part of a terraforming project or something along those lines) would explain that better than evolution. Not that evolution couldn't have done that, just that ID fits the evidence as well or better.
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version