Ben Stein vs. Sputtering Atheists

[myelo]

would you please name them for us?

Here's a few examples of observed speciation:

Dobzhansky Th. O. Pavlovsky. "An experimentally created incipient species of Drosophila", Nature 23:289-292, 1971.

Mosquin T.  "Evidence for autopolyploidy in Epilobium angustifolium (Onaagraceae)", Evolution 21:713-719, 1967.

Also fish: Mayr E.,. Populations, Species, and Evolution, Massachusetts, Harvard University Press. p. 348,  1970.

Mice: Stanley S. Macroevolution: Pattern and Process, San Francisco, W.H. Freeman and Company. p. 41, 1979.

[iWalrus]

Ok Donzo, Rather than regurgitate some google-found irreducible complexity rebuttal to you, that you'll no doubt already know, I'm just going to cut to the heart of it. I.D. starts with the assumption that there is a creator (designer, whatever) and sets out to find evidence of he/she/it. Science starts out with the assumption that what we observe with our senses is real and that we don't know anything for sure.


If you start out assuming something is already fact, why do you need to find proof of it? You've already made up your mind. I, on the other hand, am more comfortable assuming that I don't know a damned thing. That way, I can work from the bottom up rather than the top down. If finally reaching the top leads me to the Lord, so be it. I will have earned my way there without taking any dead-end shortcuts.

[gwano]

Never is a long time. Will only take the average person 70 years or so. I'll promise that if there is not creator or life after death I will let go of my faith in 20 years or so.

I would not expect you to let go of your faith, nor would I wish you to.
Thats a personal choice that should always be retained if so chosen.

[SkyRock]

Then what is the belief in evolution based on?  Faith that these missing fossils will be found and complete the record?

Faith?  LMAO  Good try son.  Like I said before, to most scientist, evolution is very real and like a puzzle with missing pieces but the picture is still discernable.  

You do know that the cambrian is just a classification name.  Time did not switch off and on to stop cambrian and start pre-cambrian, there was 2billion years in there.  Darwin was unhappy about there not being "total" evidence to completely prove the theory, but it is acceptable to most scientist that we may never get the records we need.  So, we have to look at the big picture and base our knowlege on "proven" facts and how they fit together with the theory over time.  It so far looks like evolution is a winner!

[Donzo]

Ok Donzo, Rather than regurgitate some google-found irreducible complexity rebuttal to you, that you'll no doubt already know, I'm just going to cut to the heart of it. I.D. starts with the assumption that there is a creator (designer, whatever) and sets out to find evidence of he/she/it. Science starts out with the assumption that what we observe with our senses is real and that we don't know anything for sure.


If you start out assuming something is already fact, why do you need to find proof of it? You've already made up your mind. I, on the other hand, am more comfortable assuming that I don't know a damned thing. That way, I can work from the bottom up rather than the top down. If finally reaching the top leads me to the Lord, so be it. I will have earned my way there without taking any dead-end shortcuts.

I'm sorry, but that is not a rebuttal to the irreducible complexity argument. 

If you are comfortable assuming that you don't know a damned thing, then tell me what you do know about the irreducible complexity argument...besides your preconceived assumptions as to it's origins being the end all be all as to why it holds no water.

[Donzo]

Faith?  LMAO  Good try son.  Like I said before, to most scientist, evolution is very real and like a puzzle with missing pieces but the picture is still discernable. 

You do know that the cambrian is just a classification name.  Time did not switch off and on to stop cambrian and start pre-cambrian, there was 2billion years in there.  Darwin was unhappy about there not being "total" evidence to completely prove the theory, but it is acceptable to most scientist that we may never get the records we need.  So, we have to look at the big picture and base our knowlege on "proven" facts and how they fit together with the theory over time.  It so far looks like evolution is a winner!

So things existed before, then all of a sudden all these new things appear.  That's good enough as "proof"?  You mention things fitting together with a theory over time.  Using this as an argument, "time" started with the appearance of the many fossils of the Cambrian period. How could it not?  The fossil record shows some changes over time.  It also shows fossils before that time.  Using part fossil record as part of a proof and not using the entire record to support a theory is off, IMHO.  It's like saying "I made a killing the stock market in my lifetime, except for those 5 years I lost everything."

[AKIron]

I would not expect you to let go of your faith, nor would I wish you to.
Thats a personal choice that should always be retained if so chosen.

It'll be real hard for me to retain my faith when I die if there is no life after death.

[gwano]

It'll be real hard for me to retain my faith when I die if there is no life after death.

ya I got that
That is your belief and I respect that.

I, on the other hand don't care if my body is dumped out in the woods and the coyotes drag my parts to the four winds. When your'e dead thats it, your'e dead.
the organic matter from my deteriorating body parts will start the evolutionary process anew!!
thats just my belief.

[iWalrus]

I'm sorry, but that is not a rebuttal to the irreducible complexity argument. 

If you are comfortable assuming that you don't know a damned thing, then tell me what you do know about the irreducible complexity argument...besides your preconceived assumptions as to it's origins being the end all be all as to why it holds no water.

I'm sorry, but I guessed you missed the part where I said I was not going to argue against the irreducible complexity argument. Plenty of people have already picked it apart, pummeled it, and revealed it as not ever having touched the scientific method with a 10 foot pole. No need for me to beat a dead paramecium.

My original intent was to point out how I.D. is yet another attempt to defend one's sacred beliefs. Beliefs that are, at the present, outside of the observability of science.

One of the points of your argument was, and I'm paraphrasing, that the odds of the simplest form of life occurring spontaneously far outweigh the potential of the entire universe. That's quite a math problem! Can you show your work?

[Donzo]

I'm sorry, but I guessed you missed the part where I said I was not going to argue against the irreducible complexity argument.

No, I got that.  I just took it a attempt to sidestep answering something you were quick to ridicule.

Plenty of people have already picked it apart, pummeled it, and revealed it as not ever having touched the scientific method with a 10 foot pole. No need for me to beat a dead paramecium.

myelo was kind enough at least post some links to sources when asked.  Can you do the same (you later asked me for my math homework)

My original intent was to point out how I.D. is yet another attempt to defend one's sacred beliefs. Beliefs that are, at the present, outside of the observability of science.

One could argue that evolution itself is an attempt to defend one's sacred belief as well.  Where is the absolute proof that evolution is real?

One of the points of your argument was, and I'm paraphrasing, that the odds of the simplest form of life occurring spontaneously far outweigh the potential of the entire universe. That's quite a math problem! Can you show your work?

Where did I make this point? 

[storch]

Here's a few examples of observed speciation:

Dobzhansky Th. O. Pavlovsky. "An experimentally created incipient species of Drosophila", Nature 23:289-292, 1971.

Mosquin T.  "Evidence for autopolyploidy in Epilobium angustifolium (Onaagraceae)", Evolution 21:713-719, 1967.

Also fish: Mayr E.,. Populations, Species, and Evolution, Massachusetts, Harvard University Press. p. 348,  1970.

Mice: Stanley S. Macroevolution: Pattern and Process, San Francisco, W.H. Freeman and Company. p. 41, 1979.

myelo, thanks for citing these examples.  regarding dobzhansky's fruit fly experiments, I believe I can respond because I have read up on these experiments.  the impression that I come away with is that this series of experiments are simply an example of a laboratory induced physiological change in a specimen, even though they did involve genetic changes we must consider that the changes did not occur naturally.  it proves that man deliberately created the changes and in my view sort of proves the ID point of view.

with regard to other examples cited I am unfamiliar with these but will read up on them and respond after I am better informed.

however please feel free to point out where I'm going wrong regarding dobzhansky's work.

[SkyRock]

then all of a sudden

I thought you were baiting, guess I was right.  I have quoted the most idiotic part of your statement.  

[iWalrus]

No, I got that.  I just took it a attempt to sidestep answering something you were quick to ridicule.

If ridicule Intelligent Design is what I did, then how can I answer it? I can ridicule a noun, but I cannot answer one.

myelo was kind enough at least post some links to sources when asked.  Can you do the same (you later asked me for my math homework)

Go to your favorite search engine and type in something like "arguments against irreducible complexity". You can also go to your local library. They have tons of great resources there, especially in the periodicals section. (I later made a mistake and assumed you were someone else)

One could argue that evolution itself is an attempt to defend one's sacred belief as well.  Where is the absolute proof that evolution is real?

That's just it. There is no absolute proof that evolution is real. I never claimed that. Once we definitively decide that something is the concrete truth, we stop learning about it. We stop investigating. With the unimaginable vastness of Truth, I find it hard to believe that anyone claims to know anything beyond all doubts.

Where did I make this point? 

You didn't. It was another poster. When you replied to my original post, I wrongfully assumed that you were the person I had replied to. My mistake.

[Donzo]

I thought you were baiting, guess I was right.  I have quoted the most idiotic part of your statement.   

Explain please.

[AKIron]

ya I got that
That is your belief and I respect that.

I, on the other hand don't care if my body is dumped out in the woods and the coyotes drag my parts to the four winds. When your'e dead thats it, your'e dead.
the organic matter from my deteriorating body parts will start the evolutionary process anew!!
thats just my belief.

I don't care what happens to my physical remains either. If I'm right and there is more I think we'll both be pleased that you were wrong. If you're right neither of us will be.