Intelligent Design and Evolution

[mage]

http://www.cbn.com/cbnnews/news/051107a.asp

In plain terms, a bit more gravity would mean any creature larger than the size of a pea would be crushed into nothing. And a little less gravity would mean that the Earth would come unglued and fly off into space.

What? I guess that's why everyone that landed on the moon (which has 1/6th the gravity of Earth) just flew off once they landed right? Total BS.

Darwinism has been maintaining that advanced life is easy to produce all over the universe.

Nobody that knows what they're talking about has ever said it's easy to produce anywhere. Total BS.

Who wrote this junk? I would hate to be on the same side as these people. The title of this article is called "Intelligent Design Grounded in Strong Science," yet they make nothing but weak claims. All they are doing is saying evolution can't possibly be true, therefore they're right. Not like anything more could be expected from CBN, though.

Originally posted by: Honoko
that shouldn't prevent you from reading the article objectively. I didn't see the word "genesis" mentioned in there once. and anyone with brains should be able to ignore all the Christian bias in it and pick out the scientific stuff on his/her own.

The only scientific "evidence" to support the claims in that article is that all the pieces of a flagella must (he should avoid using the word 'must' since he may be wrong) be in place before it can work (no proof is given), and that the odds of a planetary scenario that can sustain life forming are too low. He also (stupidly) adds that a little more or a little less gravity would destroy anything on the planet or the planet itself (he says the planet would come unglued and fly apart if there were not enough gravity). How is it possible for anyone to take this article seriously?

[XanBcoo]

Originally posted by: mage
He also (stupidly) adds that a little more or a little less gravity would destroy anything on the planet or the planet itself (he says the planet would come unglued and fly apart if there were not enough gravity).

I beleive the whole gravity argument was referring to the fact that the amount of gravity that earth applies to everything on it is the right amount to sustain everything on it (the pea example), and if the sun (or any other body) applied more or less gravity to earth, then the earth would leave its orbit (and fly off into space; or a whole bunch of other shit would be affected - the tides for example). It's eternally set to the "right" amount. That's what I see it's trying to say.

Keep in mind mage that this is a news article, and many of the proponents of ID they interview or refer to are (to quote) "people with serious academic training. They are Ph.D.s from very, not just reputable -- but elite -- institutions. And they are people doing research on the key pressure points in biology and physics, and so their arguments are based on cutting-edge knowledge of developments in science."

Beleive what you will about ID, I think the real issue is stuff like this (most of which has already been discussed in this thread):

West remarked that "hate speech, speech codes, outright persecution, and discrimination is taking place on our college campuses, in our school districts, against both students and teachers and faculty members."

In fact, universities are evolving into centers for censorship. Five years ago, Baylor University dismissed mathematician Dr. William Dembski from his position, primarily because he headed a center for ID there.

Also...

Walter L. Bradley got a Ph.D in materials science from UT Austin

Hook 'em.

[mage]

Originally posted by: XanBcoo
I beleive the whole gravity argument was referring to the fact that the amount of gravity that earth applies to everything on it is the right amount to sustain everything on it (the pea example), and if the sun (or any other body) applied more or less gravity to earth, then the earth would leave its orbit (and fly off into space; or a whole bunch of other shit would be affected - the tides for example). It's eternally set to the "right" amount. That's what I see it's trying to say.

I know what he was trying to say, however, if the Earth had a different gravity, I don't believe it would be much different. Life would have adapted to that gravity just as well as it has to Earth's.

[darkmetal505]

this should have a poll

1) if you think it should be taught
2) if you think it shouldnt
3) you could care less and everyone is making a big deal out of it

[mr3vi1m0nk3y]

Originally posted by: mage

Originally posted by: XanBcoo
I beleive the whole gravity argument was referring to the fact that the amount of gravity that earth applies to everything on it is the right amount to sustain everything on it (the pea example), and if the sun (or any other body) applied more or less gravity to earth, then the earth would leave its orbit (and fly off into space; or a whole bunch of other shit would be affected - the tides for example). It's eternally set to the "right" amount. That's what I see it's trying to say.

I know what he was trying to say, however, if the Earth had a different gravity, I don't believe it would be much different. Life would have adapted to that gravity just as well as it has to Earth's.

but then again he doesnt believe that organisms evolve so that never fit into his argument

[Honoko]

Originally posted by: mr3vi1m0nk3y
but then again he doesnt believe that organisms evolve so that never fit into his argument

Xan never said that. Stop being so hostile.

Originally posted by: darkmetal505
this should have a poll

That's a good idea, except after 3 pages worth of discussion, I think it's a bit too late. Everyone's said what they wanted to say, I'm pretty sure.

Anyways, I didn't post that ID article so you could speculate on stuff Ph.D people have been studying and probably know a lot more than we do. Someone wanted to know some scientific theory that can point to an intelligent designer and I provided the sources.

And if you really seriously want to argue the whole ID theory, go read those two books I mentioned and then find ones that're equally as acclaimed that supports evolutionary theory and then create a new thread and duke it out.

The last two quotes in Xan's most recent post in here is most relevant to the topic of this thread. A discussion about the amount of gravity needed for us to live is useless because who here actually studies gravity for a living? =P

I think this thread's about to run out of steam anyway, unless someone out there has something new to contribute. Otherwise, we're on the verge of recycling old arguments.

[mage]

Originally posted by: Honoko
The last two quotes in Xan's most recent post in here is most relevant to the topic of this thread. A discussion about the amount of gravity needed for us to live is useless because who here actually studies gravity for a living? =P

I hope to study it for a living one day.

[XanBcoo]

Originally posted by: mr3vi1m0nk3y

Originally posted by: mage
I know what he was trying to say, however, if the Earth had a different gravity, I don't believe it would be much different. Life would have adapted to that gravity just as well as it has to Earth's.

but then again he doesnt believe that organisms evolve so that never fit into his argument

No one said anything about organisms evolving. We were talking about gravity, buddy - which has absolutely nothing to do with evolution. I have no idea who or what you're referring to. If you're referring to me then you're a dumbass for putting words in my mouth (because I DO beleive organisms evolve), and if you're referring to propenents of ID in general, then you're an even bigger dumbass for reasons I've already stated. Stay relevant, please.

Originally posted by: mage
~~Stuff about gravity~~

I had thought of a lot of that myself, which is why ID doesn't make complete sense to me. But even then, I'm still getting from the article that ID asserts that there is something keeping all the physical factors about the universe not only adequate, but also constant, instead of relying on random chance and unexplainable forces. I don't know what to think about the theory itself, but I do think that no one should stop it from being taught on the basis that they beleive it isn't "scientific." Again, all that's been discussed and I've already given my thoughts on it.

[mage]

Originally posted by: XanBcoo
and if the sun (or any other body) applied more or less gravity to earth, then the earth would leave its orbit (and fly off into space; or a whole bunch of other shit would be affected - the tides for example).

It definitely wouldn't happen that way. The sun cannot change it's mass so drastically in the middle of its lifespan to put the Earth into a different orbit. Earth would not fly off into space if it or the sun had less mass. Mars and Pluto both have less mass than Earth, are on both sides of Earth, yet they still orbit the sun. The only way for the Earth to have a different orbit is for it or the sun to have been a different mass in the first place, or if something large collided with Earth, but life would have adapted (denying that life is unable to adapt to certain situations is the same as denying that Earth orbits the sun) to those conditions if it were even able to form in them in the first place.

Many people also believe life was once present on Mars (there is some very good evidence). If Earth is so special, how could there have (possibly) been life on Mars at one point?

[mage]

sorry, double post