Home / A Challenge - Defend Evolution Against Intelligent Design  
Image of A Challenge - Defend Evolution Against Intelligent Design

This challenge arose from a discussion in a large philosophy venue in which I stated that if ever a really competent intelligent design defender or evolutionist came around, he would blow the philosophers present out of the water. Of course, everybody was aghast at that suggestion. So I devised the challenge below and asserted that nobody there would be able to make a coherent defense against these four points.

I am very sad to say that nobody even came close, with two minor exceptions. What I did not expect was the anger and blind hostility engendered by my defense of the four (pro-ID) points. I always clearly stated that I played the devil's advocate. That was usually forgotten within seconds. The fact that people could not defeat the challenge regularly unleashed blind rage of the kind you would expect to find among fanatic religious believers rather than "scientifically minded" philosophers. There were also many professions of "belief" or "faith" in evolution - reminiscent of similar religious "testimony."

...who could have predicted the evolution of the human mind?

In summary, the challenge for which I ask you to defend is as follows:

1. Evolution cannot qualify as science because it has no predictive value

2. There has never been an observed case of speciation

3. Evolution is not falsifiable

4. The origin of life itself poses a huge problem for evolution.

1. Evolution cannot qualify as science because it has no predictive value.

Evolution cannot predict what will evolve beyond some very broad and trivial limits. It's true that you can say that, in water, only such a species can evolve that can survive in water; but that's about it. Since evolution, by definition, is based on random mutation, there exists no way to predict what will happen - either in single cases or in large populations - and especially not in large populations. After all, who could have predicted the evolution of the human mind?

2. There has never been an observed case of speciation.

A new species is defined as a population which cannot interbreed with the parent population (among other things). We have observed millions of generations of fruit flies, cats, dogs, horses, rats, mice, and microbes. We haven seen millions and millions of mutations, but all we ever got were new races; never new species. We have observed and created huge numbers of races, but no new species.

Remember, the point of my challenge is to defend evolution against intelligent design - so you can't bring in arguments that intelligent designers could use to justify their position also.

The point is not that speciation does not happen. Speciation has never been observed; thus, there is no way to decide if it happens naturally or if a designer has a hand in it.

From this it should be obvious that, strictly speaking, a defeat of point 2 from mere empirical observation is impossible, since even if you were to observe a couple of, say, cats breeding up a new species, how could you prove that not some higher designing power was at work? Clearly, any defeat of point 2 needs to be philosophical.

Clearly, the fossil or DNA record cannot be used to defend evolution. A thoughtful designer would design creatures in good order, much like a thoughtful programmer would first create simple programs and build on these. So we would expect to find in the fossil record exactly what we do find, even if a designer is behind it.

You will find by googling a handful of iffy examples which are claimed as observed speciation. The very rarity of these claims itself speaks volumes (I think there are about five that you might find credible). All these claims suffer from various problems which make them quite doubtful.

3. Evolution is not falsifiable.

If, in a given population, something happens, that is interpreted as evolution at work. If something else happens, that is evolution again. And if nothing happens - bingo - more evolution. Heads I win, tails you lose...

4. The origin of life itself poses a huge problem for evolution.

The problem for evolution is that life originated right at the beginning, when our planet was very young. That is, it originated at the earliest time possible. However, then why did it never originate a second time? If evolution is so easy and ubiquitous, why did life not originate many, many times? That is the problem that needs to be explained. And if you say that there is a higher (different) force at work for abiogenesis, then that force cannot be ruled out for evolution itself, or speciation, etc.

Before you start complaining: I am aware that abiogenesis, technically, is not a part of evolution. However, my argument is that it poses a problem FOR evolution.

Administrator's Note: The preceding article was used for a discussion [discussion text] he led in the Braincrave.com SL group on December 26, 2009 in Second Life, a free 3D virtual world.


Original posting by birric on Dec 18, 2009 at http://www.braincrave.com/viewblog.php?id=20

Written by permalink    plaintext

The following discussion occurred on Saturday, December 26, 2009 at 7:00 PM/19:00 SLT (PST) in Second Life at BrainCrave.com @Avgi, Avgi (69, 146, 32) (http://slurl.com/secondlife/Avgi/69/146/32). It is based on the article titled A Challenge - Defend Evolution Against Intelligent Design. The BrainCrave.com group on Second Life is free to join. Please excuse the typos - it's a very common occurrence in Second Life.

[19:02] BrainCrave OHare: ok folks, we're going to try to do this in group chat. BUT, if it gets really laggy, we'll switch to local

[19:02] BrainCrave OHare: i think we're ready to begin

[19:02] BrainCrave OHare: please let me know if you need a tp

[19:02] Randi Grigorovich: ok

[19:02] BrainCrave OHare: Twas the day after Christmas and all through the world,

many people we’re stirring about those who refused to observe.

[19:02] Noemi Ahren: lol

[19:02] BrainCrave OHare: Bank accounts were empty, and families exhausted with fear,

“without believers and faith,” they cried, “God will never appear!”

[19:02] Solange Sonnenkern: LOL clevah!

[19:03] BrainCrave OHare: Atheists slept in, their minds solidly secured,

“With scientific knowledge,” they professed, “our conclusions will not be disturbed.”

[19:03] BrainCrave OHare: And then in SL, there arose such a clatter,

Pixeled penises were turned off to see what was the matter.

[19:03] Noemi Ahren cracks up.

[19:03] BrainCrave OHare: Birric Forcella appeared to challenge what they thought was fact.

“You’ve been slacking,” he claimed. “It is logic you lack.”

[19:03] Worgen Hokkigai: that doesnt sound like sl

[19:03] BrainCrave OHare: “I challenge you all to a duel of the mind…

to encourage you to think for yourselves, and help save mankind.”

[19:04] BrainCrave OHare: With that as an intro, I hope you all will try to pay close attention to the goal. The goal is to defend evolution against the four hypotheses Birric has put forward. You can read the challenges at http://braincrave.com/viewblog.php?id=20. And, with that, consider the discussion open.

[19:04] Incognito Corvale: Birric Forcella challenging whatever is moving. Sounds very much business as usual.

[19:04] Birric Forcella: Has anybody not read my card - or the blog entry with the four points?

[19:06] phillip1882 Arabello: could you send me copy, i read the blog entry but need reminder

[19:06] Ceri Barrymore: I read them with great interest and I can't say that I contradict any of them, but having observed many of these discussions and also feeling I am open minded and somewhat intelligent I find entering too heavily into your discussions to be a bit daunting although I find the discussions absolutely fascinating

[19:06] Xeno Octavia: ah --ok ---but why??

[19:07] Birric Forcella: Oh, so we have creationists/intelligent design adherents among us?

[19:08] Blonde Starsmith: still can't hear but shows it's active

[19:08] Noemi Ahren: Not voice - text.

[19:08] Blonde Starsmith: okies ty

[19:08] Noemi Ahren: np

[19:08] Worgen Hokkigai: if we do they probably shouldnt be in the group

[19:09] Randi Grigorovich: intellegent design is religion dressed up as science and hence based on myth. Not reality my opinion.

[19:09] Blonde Starsmith: I haven't

[19:10] Elizabeth Spieler: reality is that which never changes

[19:10] Birric Forcella: Well, my four points are meant to challenge evolution - in case you should have missed that - and to see if you can defend evolution in a coherent way.

[19:10] MargaretGrace Sapphire: It is an attempt to supress science so that children will not be exposed to it in scool

[19:10] Pertinax Greggan: A cosmology based on the tribal mythology of a bunch of itinerate, Bronze-Age goatherders...

[19:10] Birric Forcella: You can decide if you want to pick a certain point - or if I should start with point 1

[19:10] MargaretGrace Sapphire: Is there suposed to be sound?

[19:10] Jerome Roddenham: If there indeed is intelligent design, i don't think it could have happened like it is being told in the bible. imho

[19:10] Noemi Ahren: No, Margaret

[19:10] Birric Forcella: Or if you want to start

[19:11] Elizabeth Spieler: challenge evolution hmmm is that possible ? can you define what evolution means to you ?

[19:11] Worgen Hokkigai: evolution has been challanged so much we know more about it then gravity

[19:11] Birric Forcella: Well, ID was devised to be scientifically and intellecturally strong enough to withstand a challenge from Evolution.

[19:11] Worgen Hokkigai: its not tho

[19:11] Birric Forcella: It purposely leaves out things like 6 day-creation and floods

[19:12] Birric Forcella: Or Adam's ribs

[19:12] Elizabeth Spieler: we don't know anything about gravity except that it exists and gets weak in the freezing parts of earth

[19:12] Blonde Starsmith: We know nothing of gravity in my opinion and evolution is just a syalized senquene of events

[19:12] Worgen Hokkigai: it was designed to fool thoes that dont pay attention so that it seems like it might be strong enough to challange evolution but its not

[19:12] Elizabeth Spieler: the Morgan horse evolved 100 years ago - google it

[19:12] Birric Forcella: However, ID takes as point of departure the commonsense impression that there is design in this universe - and it tries to show that there MUST be design

[19:12] Elizabeth Spieler: but what is evolving?

[19:12] Randi Grigorovich: Birric there is nothing scientific about a science based on Mythology

[19:13] Elizabeth Spieler: evolution is in the bible : / so forgive me I need clarification

[19:13] Xeno Octavia: what is design??

[19:13] MargaretGrace Sapphire: Isnt everything evolving and changing

[19:13] Cosmic Parx: To observe what one thinks is design, and then conclude that it must be design based on the observation ... kinda begs the question :)

[19:13] Birric Forcella: Well, ID takes out the mythology and challenges the idea that "something came from nothing."

[19:13] Jerome Roddenham: There could be something like intelligent design at the beginning of the universe. But certainly not the way Christians claim it to be

[19:13] Birric Forcella: Evolution makes the claim that things evolved out of thin air.

[19:14] Elizabeth Spieler: makes no sense to say there was ever nothing ????

[19:14] Noemi Ahren: So does religion

[19:14] Blonde Starsmith: and they do

[19:14] Blonde Starsmith: science has proven life evolves out of lifelessness

[19:14] Jerome Roddenham: No evolution doesn't claim things came out of thin air

[19:14] Elizabeth Spieler: Nirric I heard it was something that did a big bang

[19:14] Blonde Starsmith: studies in Mexico and reproduced elsewhere

[19:14] MargaretGrace Sapphire: Mabie there was always something that just keeps evolving

[19:14] Xeno Octavia: what is intelligent??

[19:14] Noemi Ahren: It had to start SOMEWHERE.... someWHEN

[19:14] Birric Forcella: Well, there was a time when there were no eyes in animals - or no opposing thumbs - or no good brains. - Where did that come from, if it was not designed by somebody

[19:15] Elizabeth Spieler: a baby evolves to old age . . if it doesn't die

[19:15] BrainCrave OHare: birric - to your first challange, i suggest this: science is a process trying to determine how reality works. It is not necesssary for science to solve a problem and/or have predictive value for it to be considered science - only that the scientific method is used. for example, cold fusion is the study of nuclear fusion of atoms at room temperature. no one has yet proven that cold fusion works. that does not mean that the study of cold fusion isn't science. evolution uses the scientific method to discover it through logical inferences; ergo, it's science

[19:15] Randi Grigorovich: i am passionate about this To me intellegent design was created in order to replace science with mythology

[19:15] Birric Forcella: How would you answer the simple challenge that if you see a watch - you can assume that there is a watchmaker.

[19:15] Myriam Brianna: That is no challenge

[19:15] Lucien Velinov: ^

[19:15] Blonde Starsmith: i believe it was developed as a step toward the unity of science and religion

[19:15] Jerome Roddenham: Birric even the watch evolved over centuries

[19:15] Lucien Velinov: I actually wrote the rebuttal...just hadn't distributed it

[19:16] Elizabeth Spieler: only in thinking of beginning and end is it required by the thinker to have one - we have no evidence that is the case

[19:16] Jerome Roddenham: Staring in what is now iraq

[19:16] Birric Forcella: Well, Brain, in that case ID would have to qualify as science.

[19:17] Birric Forcella: If you want to claim that evolution holds, then you have to come up with some proofs which HOLD for evolution but FAIL for Intelligent Design

[19:17] Jerome Roddenham: it could birric but so far it hasn't produced much substantial things and still wants to force it down people's throats

[19:17] Cosmic Parx: The Wath implying a watchmaker is another example of begging the question. Not to mention that it gives a lot of weight to personal incredulity ... "Golly, I can't imagine anything OTHER than a watchmaker doing that!"

[19:17] Myriam Brianna: it doesn't, because it puts a null-answer at the (arbitrarily chosen) end of any research. What prevents me from saying: "The designer did it in his wisdom, case closed"?

[19:17] Freemason Magic: well i have a question about the first statement

[19:17] Freemason Magic: what is SCIENCE?

[19:17] Worgen Hokkigai: thats been defined

[19:17] Elizabeth Spieler: it's to much of a riddle for me - evolution would be intelligently designed

[19:17] Xeno Octavia: who design3ed the designer

[19:17] BrainCrave OHare: @birric, and from wki - definition of scientific method: The scientific method refers to a body of techniques for investigating phenomena, acquiring new knowledge, or correcting and integrating previous knowledge. To be termed scientific, a method of inquiry must be based on gathering observable, empirical and measurable evidence subject to specific principles of reasoning. A scientific method consists of the collection of data through observation and experimentation, and the formulation and testing of hypotheses.

[19:17] RobsterRawb Jaxxon: whatever hes trying to define as credible lol

[19:17] Blonde Starsmith: depends on who's peer reviewing the work as to what is science

[19:18] Worgen Hokkigai: what is the point of this discussion?

[19:18] Freemason Magic: i disagree with that definition

[19:18] Birric Forcella: Well, Brain Crave, in that case Evolution fails according to my four points

[19:18] Xeno Octavia: dont we all

[19:18] Jerome Roddenham: Doesn't see anything in braincrave's explanation about forcing it on people like the Christians do

[19:18] Elizabeth Spieler: we know in the freezing portions of the earth - where people are looking for a better way of Life - UFO's appear

[19:18] Worgen Hokkigai: ugh, this is pointless

[19:19] Freemason Magic: to me Science is the Universe

[19:19] Noemi Ahren: nothing is pointless... it always pays to hear all sides

[19:19] Freemason Magic: we are just man

[19:19] Jerome Roddenham: Science is the quest to gather knowledge

[19:19] Freemason Magic: we cannot be scientific

[19:19] Birric Forcella: We have two competing ways of explaining the same thing. Now we are trying to find out how to decide between those two ways

[19:19] Freemason Magic: at all

[19:19] Blonde Starsmith: I thought science was a process

[19:19] Cosmic Parx: It's good to hear all sides, but nearly impossible to hear all side simultaneously.

[19:19] Xeno Octavia: 1. Evolution cannot qualify as science because it has no predictive value

Predictive value is for small parameters of 'hard' sciences not the narrative within historical context

of 'softer' sciences. As Stephen Jay Gould said in his book 'wonderful Life':

"How should scientists operate when they must try to explain the result of history,

those inordinately complex events that can occur but once in detailed glory? Many large domains

of nature -cosmology, geology, and evolution among them-must be studied with the tools of

history. The appropriate methods focus on narrative, not experiment as usually conceived."

[19:20] Worgen Hokkigai: all that shows is that you have a poor understanding of science

[19:20] Xeno Octavia: And as expanded [clarified] by Per Bak in his book 'How Nature Works':

"We must learn to free ourselves from seeing things the way they are! A radical scientific view,

indeed! If, following traditional scientific methods, we concentrate on an accurate description

of the details, we lose perspective. A theory of life is likely to be a theory of a process, not a

detailed account of utterly accidental details of that process, such as the emergence of humans."

2. There has never been an observed case of speciation

[19:20] Freemason Magic: Xeno agrees then man cannot be scientidic

[19:20] Freemason Magic: what we consider science is mainly a business

[19:20] Xeno Octavia: only if he's a freemason

[19:20] Jerome Roddenham: ir isn't

[19:20] Freemason Magic: control by man

[19:20] Frederick Hansome: Evolutionaty theory does not claim speciaton

[19:20] Jerome Roddenham: it*

[19:21] Birric Forcella: Xeno, that would make Gould merely one voice- and not a strong one. Gould actually tried to give religion a wide berth. If you are telling me that the question cannot be dedided - well, then there is nothing to keep me from believing in ID?

[19:21] Jerome Roddenham: You can believe as you please.

[19:21] Desire Guru: But the real question is: Is computer science really science?

[19:21] Elizabeth Spieler: duality of human thought does not exist in the process of Life - as life has not at any time been recorded to end in total destruction

[19:21] Jerome Roddenham: But until now the evolution team is winning the race

[19:22] Xeno Octavia: 2. There has never been an observed case of speciation

The narrative of fossilized history is able to see many observations of speciation if not obscured

by biblical phantasy.

[19:22] phillip1882 Arabello: birric, sorry i havent spoken sooner, but i wanted to adress youyr four points in a logical way

[19:22] Dyanna Saxmundham: nothing keeps you from believing in it regardless . . . which has always been my question about id proponents. why insist on having id/creationism recognized as "science"?

[19:22] Freemason Magic: Im a computer scientist

[19:22] Freemason Magic: and my answer is not

[19:22] Worgen Hokkigai: they want ID recognised as science so it can be taught in school to make children more stupid

[19:22] Freemason Magic: computer science is a business

[19:22] Birric Forcella: Xeno, those are nice words - but that is not scientific. All you are stating are hopes - you HOPE that science works that way. It does NOT. Either you can decide something or you can't.

[19:22] Freemason Magic: control by man

[19:22] Desire Guru: ahhh a business

[19:22] phillip1882 Arabello: first to your point about evolution not prdicting the future:

[19:22] Freemason Magic: to profit

[19:23] Lucien Velinov: To the extent that any future events can be predicted, an evolutionary path can be predicted.

Understand that predictive value isn't a defining trait that determines what is or isn't science. Predictive value is a basis by which understanding of a concept is measured - consistent, expected results through controled experimentation. Repeatable.

[19:23] Freemason Magic: and benefit somepeople who are interested in that field

[19:23] phillip1882 Arabello: well first, we neeed to establich that evolution gives a good picture of the past

[19:23] Lucien Velinov: Biology courses that focus on genetics explore this in elaborate detail through the breeding of generations of fruit flies to bring about results that are both expected, and appropriately accounted for otherwise.

[19:23] Xeno Octavia: 3. Evolution is not falsifiable

But ID is easily falsified as well as false.

[19:23] Desire Guru: is suspect that being a business was not even considered at the advent of comuter science

[19:23] phillip1882 Arabello: that s that we have lots of evidance that suggests evolution is capable of occuring

[19:23] Elizabeth Spieler: astrology is repeated science

[19:23] Jerome Roddenham: Would love to see some dinosaurs in the christian bible

[19:23] Lucien Velinov: To predict evolution to anything beyond "very broad and trivial limits" (predicting evolutionary paths of pathogens isn't trivial, but hey that's just my opinion) requires extensive knowledge of the future events that weigh upon the myriad of variables that pressure toward or against significant changes.

Evolution Theory's inability to predict the future doesn't disqualify it as science.

[19:23] phillip1882 Arabello: to the point about it not being falsifiable

[19:24] Cosmic Parx: "Predictive value" *sounds* as if it should only mean an ability to foresee the future based on current data. However, evolution can have predictive value when looking into the past. We can, through hypotheses derived from evolutionary theory, make predictions about what we should discover in the fossil record ... and, in fact, evolutionists have frequently made such predictions and been right (e.g., ambulocetus, the footed whale). So -- predictions about what we'll find int he future ABOUT THE PAST fulfill the requirement that evolution be predictive.

[19:24] Elizabeth Spieler: Jerome Gen 6

[19:24] Worgen Hokkigai: astrology is bs, astronomy is good stuff

[19:24] Xeno Octavia: 4. The origin of life itself poses a huge problem for evolution.

The origin is not a problem --it obviously IS. But intellectually explaining is a problem.

even defining its origin is a problem and assuming that it has origin is a problem

-- do check out Carl R. Woese on 'Evolution of Cells'

[19:24] phillip1882 Arabello: well if we had no historal record of speices prior to human exitance

[19:24] phillip1882 Arabello: ]then this would be evidance of ID

[19:24] Jerome Roddenham: Agrees with philip

[19:24] Birric Forcella: No, prediction is just that - saying what will happen. However in evolution NOTHING really can be predicted. If science cannot predict something then it is not science. You know where and when a stone will fall when you throw it - and it does it every time.

[19:25] Cosmic Parx: Evolution can predict future fossil finds, then

[19:25] Elizabeth Spieler: yes Birric

[19:25] Freemason Magic: the only Science is the universe itself

[19:25] Freemason Magic: we are just thinkers

[19:25] Lucien Velinov: That isn't quite true, Birric.

[19:25] Birric Forcella: You are making exactly my point, Cosmic - All you do in Evolution is

[19:25] Freemason Magic: egocentric by nature

[19:25] Birric Forcella: retrodict

[19:25] Lucien Velinov: Then again, it ignores the case of my rebuttal

[19:25] Jerome Roddenham: Evolution can predict what features of the human race will change in adaptation to a changing environment

[19:26] Elizabeth Spieler: we do not know how many births it took for the morgan horse to evolve to it's newness 100 years ago, but no doubt it did occur

[19:26] Cosmic Parx: Then Birric, allow me to turn it around -- does the science of Chemistry predict the future of all chemical reactions?

[19:26] Freemason Magic: we develop ideas and we want to lead the world

[19:26] Freemason Magic: with then

[19:26] Birric Forcella: All you do in evolution is retrodict - and the effect of that is that whatever happened MUST have been evolution - it CAN't have been ID - can't it? So all you do is prove your prejudices in a circular fashion

[19:26] phillip1882 Arabello: we may not be able to predict what exactly will evolve but we can prdict how it will evolve

[19:26] Enzo Stratten: What about the common sense?

[19:26] Freemason Magic: is just a game

[19:26] Elizabeth Spieler: some speculate that balto was a evolved dog, but the breeder neutered him thinking he was a defect : /

[19:26] Freemason Magic: at the end human dont know nothing

[19:27] Xeno Octavia:

On the evolution of cells

Carl R. Woese June 25, 2002 PNAS Vol 99, p8742-8747

A theory for the evolution of cellular organization is presented. The model is based on the (data supported) conjecture that the dynamic of horizontal gene transfer (HGT) is primarily determined by the organization of the recipient cell. Aboriginal cell designs are taken to be simple and loosely organized enough that all cellular componentry can be altered and/or displaced through HGT, making HGT the principal driving force in early cellular evolution. Primitive cells did not carry a stable organismal genealogical trace. Primitive cellular evolution is basically communal. The high level of novelty required to evolve cell designs is a product of communal invention, of the universal HGT field, not intralineage variation. It is the community as a whole, the ecosystem, which evolves. The individual cell designs that evolved in this way are nevertheless fundamentally distinct, because the initial conditions in each case are

[19:27] Jerome Roddenham: Birricj can i hear points toward ID instead of points against evolution?

[19:27] Birric Forcella: No, Chemistry does not predict all reactions - though in principle it does.

[19:27] Xeno Octavia: somewhat different. As a cell design becomes more complex and interconnected a critical point is reached where a more integrated cellular organization emerges, and vertically generated novelty can and does assume greater importance. This critical point is called the "Darwinian Threshold" for the reasons given.

[19:27] Lucien Velinov: Address my rebuttal if you would. That is a clear and gross ignorance of the application of evolution theory in modern science, Birric.

[19:27] Cosmic Parx: I quit. It's far too difficult in this type of discourse to follow or even make any significant points. I predict it will fail to evolve into meaningful discussion in the end.

[19:28] Birric Forcella: Okay, the cell article - I don't understand what it proves.

[19:28] phillip1882 Arabello: as to not observing seiciation, this is probably the only strong argument you have for ID in my opinion

[19:28] Myriam Brianna signs Cosmic's statement

[19:28] Lucien Velinov: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/speciation.html

[19:28] Worgen Hokkigai: having any kind of a meaningful conversation here is pretty pointless

[19:28] Elizabeth Spieler: humans have been born with tails

[19:28] Randi Grigorovich: good night every one i need to rest

[19:28] Lucien Velinov: next, lol

[19:28] Elizabeth Spieler: two headed girls

[19:28] Nathalia Schmooz: A central concept in science and the scientific method is that all evidence must be empirical - ID clearly struggles in this area

[19:29] Elizabeth Spieler: is that not a evolving process?

[19:29] Birric Forcella: Jerome - FOR ID - very simply - it is the only explanation for structured organisms. So far nobody here has addressed HOW evolution would work. All you have said is that it DOES work and that this or that is evolution. I can easily show that the same things MUST be designed - including the primitive cells

[19:29] Xeno Octavia: read the actual artic Birric is used by both sides since ends up agree /disaggeeing with Darwin

[19:29] Lucien Velinov: The fact remains that, even if we assume the whole of evolutionary theory to be false....ID does not stand on any merit to be proven true.

[19:29] Birric Forcella: I can't follow the whole discussion

[19:29] Elizabeth Spieler: I believe Darwin is mistquoted 95% of the time

[19:30] Jerome Roddenham: Nope scientists have proven that cells can evolve and become more intricate even combine and build larger structures with more functions

[19:30] Lucien Velinov: Just read that and be done with it, lol.

[19:30] phillip1882 Arabello: yeah it hard with so many poeple talking at one

[19:30] Lucien Velinov: anyone else want my rebuttal note?

[19:30] Elizabeth Spieler: Birric so far we can't make dirt

[19:30] Birric Forcella: I think point 1 is stronger than the speciation point. Since if you say (and MUST say) that anything that appears is evolution - then you clearly have not explained ANYTHING

[19:30] Nathalia Schmooz: sure Lucien

[19:30] Elizabeth Spieler: Birric basically we make nothing but stories : /

[19:30] Frederick Hansome: Yes, Lucein...your note, please

[19:31] Jerome Roddenham: I say that it is proven that cells can evolve into something more intricate

[19:31] Xeno Octavia: yes Liz exactly

[19:31] Birric Forcella: The argument for ID - to make this clear again - is that it provides an EXPLANATION. Evolution argues that things just happen out of thin air. Now has any one of you a grasp of how evolution considers that to happen?

[19:31] Worgen Hokkigai: darwin doesnt matter anymore, he was big in coming up with the theory but we have a much better understanding of evolution then he could ever hope for

[19:32] Rue Moonwall: The question really is, what does evolution holds for us in the future?

[19:32] Freemason Magic: dont confuse Scientific with an obsesive observant of a natural phenomenos

[19:32] Birric Forcella: Remember - evolution CANNOT have any intended design behind it - so where do the stuctures come from?

[19:32] Xeno Octavia: jer u are not dealing with the actual content which has at least 3 starts to cellular evo

[19:32] Elizabeth Spieler: umm there is no new water on the planet, it's constant recylced - eewww fishies swim in their toilet

[19:32] Jerome Roddenham: It doesn't explain anything nore than forcing the idea through our throats that ID is the only way.

[19:32] Birric Forcella: Please, Worgen, tell me your better explanations.

[19:32] Elizabeth Spieler: water is 13,000 years old

[19:32] Jerome Roddenham: No arguments for it, only against evolution.

[19:32] Elizabeth Spieler: let that twist your brain laughs

[19:32] Rue Moonwall: Remember we are not finish evolving

[19:33] Rue Moonwall: so what does evolution holds for us in the futurre

[19:33] Xeno Octavia: when will it have next BD party then

[19:33] Jerome Roddenham: Look at your smallest toe

[19:33] Jambo Voyager: It promises more chaos.

[19:33] Elizabeth Spieler: water is the same today as it was 13,000 years ago

[19:33] Worgen Hokkigai: Im bairly keeping up with this conversation, it seems like there are 4 diffrent arguments going on at the same time and when you factor in masterbation, Im only arguing stuff between squirts

[19:33] Blonde Starsmith: lol

[19:33] Jambo Voyager: LOLO

[19:33] Dyanna Saxmundham: lol

[19:33] RobsterRawb Jaxxon: LOL

[19:33] Rue Moonwall: jWe are evolving as we text

[19:33] Nathalia Schmooz: Intelligent Design also indicates some kind of aim for an "ideal" species - life doesn't seem to reflect this - all seems very haphazard

[19:33] Birric Forcella: I am asking a very simple question: Does any of you want to explain HOW evolution works?

[19:33] Susy Halcali: Worgen!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[19:33] Blonde Starsmith: ty Worgen great point

[19:33] Elizabeth Spieler: Worgen you get a prize for making me bust out in laughter

[19:33] Frederick Hansome: The expressions we make are a reflection of our beliefs. Our beliefs can be based on faith alone for the IDers or on emperical evidence as do the evolutionists

[19:33] Myriam Brianna: the explanation ID provides is a non-explanation, sorry. And your question towards evolution is pure GIGO, - Garbage In, Garbage Out.

[19:34] Jerome Roddenham: I tried Birric but you ignored it

[19:34] Worgen Hokkigai: I win arguing

[19:34] Blonde Starsmith: HOW is not even a sensible question.

[19:34] Elizabeth Spieler: let's examine the SEED shall we ? under a microscope it has no beginning and no end

[19:34] RobsterRawb Jaxxon: im just smokin n watchin ^-^

[19:34] RobsterRawb Jaxxon: thats some heavy shit

[19:34] Birric Forcella: Nathalia - life needs a lot of organization - from eyes to hearts to fingernails - it DOES suggest a plan

[19:34] Rue Moonwall: Evolution works by the genetic code co-acting with the enviroment

[19:34] Rue Moonwall: Co-scripting

[19:35] Desire Guru: clearly the chicken came before the egg

[19:35] Blonde Starsmith: maybe

[19:35] Jerome Roddenham: it has been proven that cells can change/adapt even work together and form iintircate networks

[19:35] Elizabeth Spieler: environment causes dna to react

[19:35] Birric Forcella: Well, Myriam, I appreciate that you are such a strong and good believer - but now, do you have an argument, too?

[19:35] Jerome Roddenham: intricate

[19:35] Elizabeth Spieler: the plague great example

[19:35] Worgen Hokkigai: life only seems like it needs oginization untill you look at it closely, we arnt an individual, we are made up of many diffrent ogranisms that work together

[19:35] Freemason Magic: if there is true in Science why they are people who claim we are going into Global Warming and others think we actually going into global cooling

[19:35] RobsterRawb Jaxxon: hmm if evolutions true when are women going to stop growing hair on their legs

[19:35] Blonde Starsmith: it's the money and fear

[19:35] Nathalia Schmooz: Birric - eyes hearts fingernails are fit for purpose only and evolve according to need

[19:35] RobsterRawb Jaxxon: ahhh manbearpig!!!

[19:35] Rue Moonwall: Right Exizabeth but enviroment doensnt work alone, other wise we would be like must other animals

[19:35] Elizabeth Spieler: freemason - it's colder here : ))

[19:36] Elizabeth Spieler: Rue yes it's ruled by the stars as we learn in the study - ancient science - of the stars above us

[19:36] Miyam Letov: hi Birric *smiles* i usually listen for a while before i dive into a discussion

[19:36] Myriam Brianna: I have put forward my argument. Your question was nonsensical, it does not apply to the Theory of Evolution but to an effigy of it, by your own making. Please, read up what the Theory of Evolution actually is and then attack it

[19:36] Blonde Starsmith: And science shows the entire solar system is in a warming trned... not man made

[19:36] Birric Forcella: Yes, I agree - all these things have been shown to happen - but now, HOW do they happen - haphazardly or by design. If haphazardly, then explain please how all this structure around us comes about

[19:36] Elizabeth Spieler: it is the moon that drives the tide of the ocean

[19:37] Jerome Roddenham: You ignored my explanation again. probably because it doesn't fit your ideas

[19:37] Elizabeth Spieler: water repells magnetism

[19:37] Elizabeth Spieler: land attracts it

[19:37] Worgen Hokkigai: you better have something to back up that blonde

[19:37] Nathalia Schmooz: by genetic development

[19:37] Jambo Voyager: Here's one: driver sleepiness is being selected against. Not only does it endager the driver, but also the passengers, who are likely to be genetically related to the driver.

[19:37] Elizabeth Spieler: maybe we should be studying the magnetic field ? which seems to decide it all

[19:37] Blonde Starsmith: I see about a referce I read on NASA website

[19:37] Birric Forcella: Myriam, all yo have shown is that you don't have an argument - but you are a firm believer in evolution. The Pope is looking for people like you.

[19:37] Xeno Octavia: yes blonde --sun going into slow nova

[19:37] Enzo Stratten: Theres a theory called Gaia, that planets are like cells for a galaxy, and galaxys are organs for universes, and universes evolve like we have done in this planet.. It has passed predictive tests.. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gaia_hypothesis

[19:37] Rue Moonwall: Elizabeth to some extent the enviroment plays a roll along with our genetic predisposition,

[19:37] Blonde Starsmith: but having a hard time speed reading

[19:37] Blonde Starsmith: I am not prepared to cut and paste

[19:38] Jambo Voyager: The sun will be getting warmer over, gradually, over the next few billion yeasr.

[19:38] Jerome Roddenham: Birrick, is it so difficult to respond to points that are made that are valid?

[19:38] Desire Guru: isn't it something that urth and Gor are in the same orbit around the sun

[19:38] Birric Forcella: What is "genetic development." You are all going around the issue. Nobody denies that there IS development. The question is HOW it happened.

[19:38] Jerome Roddenham: Instead of pnly arguing?

[19:38] Elizabeth Spieler: Rue indeed we seem to be a garden of sorts - high thinking ant hills being very productive in moving here and there

[19:38] Rue Moonwall: Elizabeth many a times the genetic predispositon trancent the enviroment, such as man has no wings but yet he mananges to fly

[19:39] Worgen Hokkigai: everyone knows that global warming is caused by moon men throwing fire at the earth

[19:39] Elizabeth Spieler: oh indeed rue perhaps I was misunderstood

[19:39] RobsterRawb Jaxxon: even i knew that, al gore orderd them to do it!

[19:39] Birric Forcella: Jerome, I am not saying ID is the only way - what I am asking for is some arguments which allow you to discern/decide between ID and Evolution

[19:39] Nathalia Schmooz: Genetics is an accepted science - we develop according to needs in order to survive

[19:39] Elizabeth Spieler: Darwin said it was plants animals and man - bible matches - I see no argument . . .giggles ./ . pets my puppy Shasta

[19:39] Susy Halcali: and light is liquid sunshine poured by the Gods through holes in the sky

[19:39] Rue Moonwall: Elizabeth man can now change the enviroment itself

[19:39] Miyam Letov: um...Birric..nice insult for a fifth grader...please do not presume to know anythign about me simply because you have read my profile

[19:39] Worgen Hokkigai: its all part of a massive consperiacy to use up all the fire on the moon and make oild worth more

[19:40] Jerome Roddenham: Birrick, if you are not upto replying my points. Give us your points why i should believe in ID istead of evolution? And not the points against evolution please?

[19:40] Elizabeth Spieler: Rue I don't believe that

[19:40] Birric Forcella: Why don't you go back to the 4 points?

[19:40] Elizabeth Spieler: Rue man thinks it can

[19:40] Myriam Brianna: I think she aimed that at me, Miyam ;)

[19:40] BrainCrave OHare: just because something is theoretically non-falsifiable does not mean that it is, in fact, falsifiable. in the case of evolution, it is not practically falsifiable

[19:40] Birric Forcella: You are arguing for things I don't disagree with mainly.

[19:40] Rue Moonwall: Elizabeth we can make water put out of the desert

[19:40] Elizabeth Spieler: Rue but so far life would simply evolve again and again because the Universe is the womb


[19:40] Miyam Letov: and for the record....genetic adaptatoin doesn't occur simply because we don't need ot use something..which is why women still have to shave their legs

[19:40] Jambo Voyager: These arguments don't fit into one-liners. Sorry people!

[19:41] Elizabeth Spieler: Rue there is no New water on the planet

[19:41] Jambo Voyager: Wrong forum.

[19:41] Birric Forcella: Jerome, I have looked back trying to find your point. I must have missed it. I can't read everything.

[19:41] Rue Moonwall: Elizabeth the earth is the mother planet

[19:41] Elizabeth Spieler: were all floating on a rock in space of we can't even fathom how large

[19:41] Jerome Roddenham: Cells evolve because of their surroundings and changing purposes that is proven

[19:41] Elizabeth Spieler: Rue labels often are meant to be helpful but in gender they can be hurtful

[19:41] Birric Forcella: What does that mean The Universe is the womb?" - Who put it there? Who made it the womb? Who generated the laws of the Womb?

[19:41] Frederick Hansome: The theory of evolution is easily falsifiable

[19:41] Jerome Roddenham: They can weave intricate intelligent networks

[19:42] Lucien Velinov: anyone else want the note? if not my work is done here

[19:42] Elizabeth Spieler: Birric I refer to the evolution story of the atom in the bible

[19:42] Rue Moonwall: What are you talking about labels? gender?

[19:42] BrainCrave OHare: @frederick - the evidence that supports creation is falsifiable (e.g., you could try to prove that gorillas didn't share similar genetics codes as humans)

[19:42] Elizabeth Spieler: two adams - ATOM and then ADAM

[19:42] Miyam Letov: it works because of breeding...those that are more adapted ot an environment survive to breed and pass on the genes

[19:42] Frederick Hansome: Simply finding a fossel in the wrong strata would falsify evolution

[19:42] Xeno Octavia: Birric ---#WHO???

[19:42] RobsterRawb Jaxxon: anyone believe good and evil arnt completly indoctrined feelings and think there might be a hint of ad there?

[19:43] RobsterRawb Jaxxon: im not on either side of the fence im just sayin

[19:43] Elizabeth Spieler: Rue you called earth mother - she could very easily be in a conceptual metaphor as father - hence my point on gender words for labels

[19:43] Birric Forcella: Jerome, I stated that "design" is a perfectly good explanation for structure - from a watch to an eye. You need to show some arguments if you want to put that explanation out of business.

[19:43] Rue Moonwall: Elizabeth nothing wrong with calling earth the mother planet

[19:43] Miyam Letov: however...it is a far cry from producing living amino acids in an experiment to producing a complex organism

[19:43] Miyam Letov: when we speak of evolution

[19:43] Elizabeth Spieler: Rue I did not say there was anything wrong with it - I said it's confusing

[19:44] Jerome Roddenham: No Birric. Just like all creationist you just bash evolution and don't present any sensible proof of creationism. It is always like that.

[19:44] Elizabeth Spieler: because when you apply a gender you see a WOMAN or a MAN

[19:44] Rue Moonwall: Mother planet, actually gives the earth a life, a personality,

[19:44] Birric Forcella: However, Jerome, this was the point of this discussion and my Challenge - to put these claims of evolution into question and to see if you can defend them. Apparently nobody here can.

[19:44] Blonde Starsmith: Natural evolution is indefensible..

[19:44] Blonde Starsmith: cause no one knows for sure anyway

[19:44] Jerome Roddenham: I did. Currently scientists are creating organs out of simple cells with no intelligence whatsoever

[19:44] Elizabeth Spieler: ok Rue it's your dream - feel free to label it anything you like - but for others to understand and relate you might have some trouble was my only point

[19:45] Miyam Letov: biological adaptatoin has been proven, birric

[19:45] RobsterRawb Jaxxon: creationism depends on faith and faith is blind but can it throw any doubt of creationism out the window?

[19:45] BrainCrave OHare: putting aside whether or not the examples claiming speciation actually are speciation, to not be able to visualize speciation does make it a theoretical exercise. but the theory is still based on scientific facts. of course, that doesn't prove it's correct or even that the logic is correct, but ID is not based on the scientific method. ergo, though it might be wrong, it does not suffer from being non-scientific.

[19:45] Jerome Roddenham: So nature has done that all on its own

[19:45] Xeno Octavia: so this whole gab is just an intellectual hed trip!!

[19:45] Elizabeth Spieler: Jerome not from scratch

[19:45] RobsterRawb Jaxxon: wouldent be a debate if it did

[19:45] Blonde Starsmith: adaptation is not evolution to things like us at the top of this tree

[19:45] RobsterRawb Jaxxon: i call an arguement stalemateeee

[19:45] Nathalia Schmooz: Natural evolution has more scientific basis than any other explanation I have seen

[19:45] Elizabeth Spieler: Jerome we can manipulate the atoms that already exist - we can't make new ones

[19:45] Blonde Starsmith: there are forces unmeasurable I believe

[19:45] Jerome Roddenham: As i said before. ID is possible but has no proof to it whatsoever

[19:46] Blonde Starsmith: and it's our egocentric thinking that keeps us stock in GREAT DEBATES as opposed to thoughtful contemplation

[19:46] Elizabeth Spieler: word choices are vital in this type of conversation . . giggles . . anyone got a candy bar?

[19:46] Miyam Letov: that is where science takes a leap of faith, too. blonde

[19:46] Elizabeth Spieler: I prefer chocolate

[19:46] Nathalia Schmooz: yes without proof its just another school of thought and merely that

[19:46] Miyam Letov: it is just as much a leap of faith as creationism

[19:46] Jerome Roddenham: it isn't

[19:46] Elizabeth Spieler: did anything change after you buried dead people ? did life end ? did anything evolve?

[19:46] Miyam Letov: it isn't because you say it isn't, jerome?

[19:47] Blonde Starsmith: "Modern" science seems to be based on egocentism which stangles thought and innovation

[19:47] Rue Moonwall: Eliabeth thats sily, so what shuld I called it instead of the generalized term "mother planet" maybe be you like me to say better, the planet ocean in wich 6 billions inhabiting and anymals live? By those terms i'll never will finish typing

[19:47] Birric Forcella: Jerome, sure cells evolve in response to their environment - but the question is HOW? Are they DESIGNED FOR their environment - or do they evolve without any plan. The Design, on the face of it, seems far more plausible. So where are the arguments for evolution then?

[19:47] RobsterRawb Jaxxon: i think were a lil too special to be caused by a rock exploding but at the same time an all and powerfull god would most likely make himself a little more apparently known

[19:47] Miyam Letov: there is that "science as religion" that we seem to have developed into. sad, really

[19:47] Elizabeth Spieler: after using weed and feed on your lawn - did the weeds ever come back ?

[19:47] Jerome Roddenham: There is more validity at the moment through finds to evolution than to id

[19:47] Elizabeth Spieler: has anyone actually tried to kill grass?

[19:47] BrainCrave OHare: @birric re: #1 - what might be considered random mutation to us now might later be discovered to not be random. for example, we know that the sun can cause mutations (e.g., cancer). there might have been astronomical events that caused certain mutations to form human features that we cannot discover or prove as they may not ever be observable in our lifetimes.

[19:47] Nathalia Schmooz: modern science simply stuggles because of funding

[19:47] Elizabeth Spieler: it's near impossible you know

[19:47] Blonde Starsmith: ID is based on an innate understanding that we are not alone and are guilded.

[19:47] Elizabeth Spieler: the seeds blow in the wind everywhere

[19:47] Blonde Starsmith: I beleive this two ideologies need to meet in the middle.

[19:48] Blonde Starsmith: both are correct and incorrect

[19:48] Nathalia Schmooz: that is not my "innate" understanding

[19:48] RobsterRawb Jaxxon: lol isnt that the same solution american failed programs have nathalia?

[19:48] Rue Moonwall: Eliabeth language is made to compress data, so we generalized,

[19:48] Birric Forcella: Of course animals and plants are adapted - or they would not survive - but HOW were they adapted - by design or by randomness?

[19:48] Nathalia Schmooz: yes Rob hehehe

[19:48] Elizabeth Spieler: Rob I don't think there is some dude out there in space calling the shots from a private cushy space ship

[19:48] Blonde Starsmith: There are no accidents

[19:48] Jerome Roddenham: I agree that id is possible but there is more validity to evolution at the moment

[19:48] Myriam Brianna facepaws

[19:48] RobsterRawb Jaxxon: no way

[19:48] Blonde Starsmith: and what happens is more then mere causality I believe

[19:49] Elizabeth Spieler: Rob to believe that we then have to make thoughts appear outside us - sorry we all lose on that one - can't be done

[19:49] Nathalia Schmooz: accidents would not fit with "survival" theory

[19:49] Xeno Octavia: when u say design Birric whay are u not saying by designer

[19:49] Maddie Margulis: ID is not possible.

[19:49] RobsterRawb Jaxxon: you dont understand liz we have to evolve

[19:49] RobsterRawb Jaxxon: science needss more fundinggg

[19:49] Blonde Starsmith: To dicuss a designer... would be like a grain of sand contemplating a mountain

[19:49] Elizabeth Spieler: lol rob

[19:49] Rue Moonwall: Elizabeth we project images out side of our head,

[19:49] Ceri Barrymore: why can't we evolve by design?

[19:49] Birric Forcella: Brain, that is besides the point. No matter what caused the mutuations, it does not decide the question if there was design (behind the actions of the sun, for instance) or if it happened randomly.

[19:49] Elizabeth Spieler: let's cure cancer : /

[19:50] RobsterRawb Jaxxon: beacuse women still grow hair on there legs ceri

[19:50] Blonde Starsmith: easir I believe

[19:50] Nathalia Schmooz: yes science needs funding in ares that matter fo thr greater good - not just for big corporations to make more cash

[19:50] Xeno Octavia: when we say ID are we using it in freudian sense??

[19:50] Maddie Margulis: to evolve by design would require a designer, and there isn't one.

[19:50] Blonde Starsmith: Pharm plot to sell razors

[19:50] BrainCrave OHare: fair point birric

[19:50] Miyam Letov: what is this hair fascination that you have, rob?

[19:50] Miyam Letov: it proves nothing

[19:50] Rue Moonwall: Elizabeth the mind edits, then projects an image out side the head, unto the object

[19:50] Nathalia Schmooz: we grow hair on out legs because we love waxing

[19:50] Blonde Starsmith: we don't know that

[19:50] Ceri Barrymore: i was born without an apendix or tonsils, as was my mother, did i evolve or was it by design?

[19:50] RobsterRawb Jaxxon: lol who called it a fascination

[19:50] Elizabeth Spieler: maddie in my research the ship is empty : /

[19:50] Jerome Roddenham: design by default. nature learns what doesn't work and stop producing it

[19:50] Maddie Margulis: I know there is no designer. I am really good at extrapolating and logic.

[19:50] RobsterRawb Jaxxon: im only using it for an analogy and yes i could be a little more creative

[19:50] Nathalia Schmooz: wow you have evolved Ceri - a great being ;-))

[19:51] Miyam Letov: if women could only survive by having hairless legs..then in future generations...women would eventually not have hair on their legs

[19:51] Desire Guru: Please explain to me , dear evolutionists- why there is anything at all- or if you like- how--- what did everything evolve from

[19:51] Lucien Velinov: The fact is, the mechanisms are understood without the need of a designer. The end.

[19:51] Myriam Brianna: Birric, we humans have a dislike for certain scents. Why is that? Because we are the children of a long line of creatures that avoided these scents, because they are often a sign of harm to mammals like us. For example the products of anaerobic metabolisms, like you find them in rotting flesh (they _are_ the "rotting"). The adaption happened in these creates surviving because they (by chance) had a dislike and were able to reproduce

[19:51] Kollette Unplugged tends to listen to Miyam

[19:51] Ceri Barrymore: Native american indians don't have hair on their legs

[19:51] Lucien Velinov: Neither did native Africans.

[19:51] Myriam Brianna: so, yes. It is randomness. But the results aren't random

[19:51] Jerome Roddenham: Some middle americans have their bodies covered in hair

[19:51] Birric Forcella: Maddie, I appreciate your full-throated belief that there is no designer - but then, I was asking for any arguments or mechanisms with which evolution could work without a designer

[19:51] Rue Moonwall: Lucien is called the wisdom of the genetic code

[19:52] Blonde Starsmith: Who cares about biological progression by what ever method. The big science is why are our intelligence and cognitive skills increasing rapidly

[19:52] Elizabeth Spieler: my research "ship" is found in the Emerald City castle on my rental sim of the Marvelous Land of Oz on my picks through tomorrow : )

[19:52] RobsterRawb Jaxxon: so with them must lie the secret to hairless legs...

[19:52] RobsterRawb Jaxxon: say what did they use in their bonfires...

[19:52] Susy Halcali: oooo, it's so nice there, I just went, noticed it on your picks

[19:52] Rue Moonwall: LUcient only our humanitic genetic code can understand mechanism

[19:52] Jerome Roddenham: people stumble on discoveries anytime. So does nature

[19:52] Rue Moonwall: no

[19:52] Birric Forcella: Lucien, I can't answer your points in this space. I hope this discussion will go on and this was only the beginning. Clearly, all this needs to be sorted out. Most people here do not clearly see what it is about.

[19:53] Rue Moonwall: Then animals would be as smart as us Jerone

[19:53] Lucien Velinov: ID has to assert that not only are the concepts better understood with the designer present, but that they CANNOT be understood without the designer present. ID can't do that.

[19:53] Miyam Letov: but YOU have the answer, Birric?

[19:53] Miyam Letov laughs

[19:53] Lucien Velinov: Then again, I'm just in this discussion for the hell of it, I know better lol

[19:53] Jerome Roddenham: I haven't heard one valid point toward ID this whole discussion

[19:53] Ceri Barrymore: Because people think and create and in their creating they cause others to think and develope and over time we cannot help but progress unless a natural disaster destroys intelligent life causing it to regress and begin again

[19:53] Jerome Roddenham: Only evolution bashing

[19:54] Maddie Margulis: actually I am god, and I did the designing. PROVE i'M NOT

[19:54] Blonde Starsmith: good point

[19:54] Xeno Octavia: yes Birr intellectual discussion always ongoing --tho get nowhere

[19:54] Elizabeth Spieler: technically animals see us as intelligent if our eyes are close together - a horse sees a species like us as a cat - eyes close - if the eyes are spread apart such as a goat and cow it's seen as friendly

[19:54] Elizabeth Spieler: we know very little about SIGHT

[19:54] Ceri Barrymore: and who's to say the diety referred to by some as God isn't a prior survivor of an evolutionary process

[19:54] Rue Moonwall: Jerone I Got a good Valid point for you towrds ID

[19:54] Jerome Roddenham: Do we elizabeth?

[19:54] Elizabeth Spieler: and the whole universe works on reflection which we dont' even have a beginning of understanding

[19:54] Birric Forcella: Well, Miyam, the avoidance of scent is a good example of design. It makes more sense to design the avoidance into us. How would it happen naturally? After all, the individuals who smell and would know die in short order. They can't pass on their knowledge.

[19:54] Jerome Roddenham: listens to Rue

[19:54] Xeno Octavia: liz how bout hammerhead shark

[19:55] Rue Moonwall: Jerone I have an exact mathimathical prove,

[19:55] Miyam Letov: we evelaute everything aroudn us based upon our own understanding...our own views...we presume to know animals

[19:55] Jerome Roddenham: i am listening Rue :)

[19:55] Elizabeth Spieler: xeon the ocean we know very little - I am a horse whisper not a whale watcher giggles

[19:55] RobsterRawb Jaxxon: *cough animals are stupid

[19:55] Elizabeth Spieler: animals have no past or future in the sense of time other than I AM HUNGRY let's eat

[19:55] MargaretGrace Sapphire: Thats a dumb comment

[19:55] Xeno Octavia: and i not a rare gas : )))

[19:55] Rue Moonwall: Jerome ANTHROPIC PRINCIPLE

[19:56] Blonde Starsmith: We all may be just convenient avatars for a purpose and destiney we not of. Our soul ships sort of speak. It will progress to complete the soul mission.

[19:56] RobsterRawb Jaxxon: i dont see any animals here to defend themselves.. anybody else?

[19:56] Jerome Roddenham: Yes?

[19:56] Rue Moonwall: Mathematica prove that the creator does exits

[19:56] RobsterRawb Jaxxon: ahh lemme gues they dont need debate caus they got it all figured out

[19:56] Rue Moonwall: ANTHROPIC PRINCIPLE

[19:56] RobsterRawb Jaxxon: offff coareeeeeee

[19:56] Elizabeth Spieler: I only have 15 minutes a day I can train something NEW to an animal

[19:56] RobsterRawb Jaxxon: ask the animals dummyz

[19:56] Elizabeth Spieler: the rest the animal can NOT learn

[19:56] Miyam Letov: we thought we knew about animals

[19:57] Miyam Letov: we said..humans are more intelligent becaus ewe use tools

[19:57] Birric Forcella: Well, Lucien, if you can't show how it all is possible WITHOUT a designer, then the designer hypothesis remains the only game. And so far I haven't seen anybody here make a good argument against the designer hypothesis. In fact, people have come up with many features and traits which seem to be perfect proof for design. How else could they have come about?

[19:57] Miyam Letov: then they observed animals using tools

[19:57] Miyam Letov: so we revised that theory

[19:57] Jerome Roddenham: ANTHROPIC PRINCIPLE still doesn't prove ID

[19:57] Rue Moonwall: Elizabeth righ the only animal that can learn is the animal that has our genetic code, only

[19:57] Miyam Letov: we've seen animals lie

[19:57] Elizabeth Spieler: we like the animals learn through repeating over and over and over it;'s why we stare alot at birth - our eyes are learning shapes to see as we are born blind

[19:57] Miyam Letov: animals give food for sex

[19:57] Elizabeth Spieler: animals don't lie ???

[19:57] Miyam Letov: so we really stumble when we try to define what makes us intelligent

[19:58] Rue Moonwall: Elizabeth we can seed our genetic code in other planet and will get the same results

[19:58] Miyam Letov: they taught an ape sign language

[19:58] Myriam Brianna: I just gave an explanation how it would and could happen naturally. Those who didn't avoid these scents weren't able to reproduce, thus they are not present today. Why don't we avoid radiation and have a sense for it: Because our ancestors weren't exposed to it in lethal doses regularly enough and thus there was no selective pressure to develop a corresponding sense

[19:58] Miyam Letov: and she lied

[19:58] Miyam Letov: it's documented

[19:58] Elizabeth Spieler: animals run on instinct survival of the fittest and can be repeated and proven over and over

[19:58] Miyam Letov: in an old experiment

[19:58] Elizabeth Spieler: Miyam I see she was misunderstood

[19:58] Miyam Letov: so we keep revising the definition of inteligence

[19:58] Miyam Letov: such that it fits only humans

[19:58] Kollette Unplugged: then that Gorilla turned around and taught her daughter ASL

[19:58] Dyanna Saxmundham: well, this has been interesting, but as usual in discussions on this topic one side seems only interested in "converting" the other . . . time for bed :) night all :)

[19:58] Elizabeth Spieler: there is no way to know every experience in her memory to judge that

[19:58] Elizabeth Spieler: there is no evidence HOMEWORK for school kids WORDS

[19:58] Elizabeth Spieler: WORKS*

[19:59] Rue Moonwall: Human DNA can be seeded in other planets and you will get the same results,

[19:59] Elizabeth Spieler: yet we make them do it

[19:59] Elizabeth Spieler: because frankly were all stupid

[19:59] Elizabeth Spieler: just dumb ants thinking were making a big hill

[19:59] Elizabeth Spieler: zoom out

[19:59] Blonde Starsmith: I have to agree... as lively as this has been... I don't need to be convinced of anything atm

[19:59] Blonde Starsmith: great debate. hadn't been to one in years

[20:00] Rue Moonwall: cool

[20:00] Birric Forcella: It seems unlikely, Miriam, that our ancestors were exposed a lot to the scent of burning plastic, for instance.

[20:00] Ceri Barrymore: if anything else these discussions give us a chance to chuckle, think and gain a little intelligence to take with us into other discussions

[20:00] Blonde Starsmith: ty for letting me come

[20:00] Frederick Hansome: Seek the truth; run from one who claims to have found it!

[20:00] Elizabeth Spieler: Bravo Frederick

[20:00] Rue Moonwall: Cerri this is more then a little chuckle

[20:00] Birric Forcella: The who point is NOT to show that people are adapted - of course they are - but to show that the adaptation could NOT come from design but MUST have arisen randomly. Anybody want to meet that challenge?

[20:00] MargaretGrace Sapphire: That is the take home message Grederick for me

[20:00] Elizabeth Spieler: the one with no self esteem is the one I would listen to . . .giggles

[20:00] Freemason Magic: same thank you for this meeting

[20:01] Ceri Barrymore: if you sit and read what everyone is not hearing it's a chuckle

[20:01] Rue Moonwall: this is a blue print

[20:01] Rue Moonwall: this is how we find the compust

[20:01] Rue Moonwall: the direction

[20:01] BrainCrave OHare: it's an excellent question birric

[20:02] Rue Moonwall: Berric everything is random, like bingo

[20:02] Rue Moonwall: Everything is an odd game

[20:02] Elizabeth Spieler: Ceri some folks type 70 words per minute and some don't the art of a fast scrolling chat room conversation can take years to learn - and some things and comments are just ignored for having no value to respond to due to the short fast conversation - we see brain setting importance without choice

[20:02] Rue Moonwall: odds

[20:02] BrainCrave OHare: how do you prove randomness?

[20:02] Rue Moonwall: odd

[20:02] Rue Moonwall: odds

[20:03] Rue Moonwall: Nothing is 100%

[20:03] Birric Forcella: Rue, it's nice that you BELIEVE it - now it would be nicer if you had some arguments . . .

[20:03] Kollette Unplugged: Death, Birth

[20:03] Kollette Unplugged: Those are 100%

[20:03] Rue Moonwall: NOt death so much anymore

[20:03] Elizabeth Spieler: LIFE is also 100% true this moment in each avatar present

[20:03] Rue Moonwall: LIfe will be extended to 200, 300, ? years

[20:03] Birric Forcella: Well, I have no problem with randomness - the question is, WHAT are the mechanisms with which randomness turnes into structures - like hands and feet

[20:03] Rue Moonwall: Maybe indefinately

[20:03] Elizabeth Spieler: Life has no opposite

[20:04] Rue Moonwall: Also you may die at 12, or at 100

[20:04] Elizabeth Spieler: Rue I hope not

[20:04] Ceri Barrymore: i am bowing out of this discussion, have a lovely evening everyone, obviously I haven't evolved to the skills or intelligence level to contribute anything of import.

[20:04] BrainCrave OHare: it is difinitively impossible to prove randomness

[20:04] Kollette Unplugged: It's the Chaos Theory,

[20:04] Elizabeth Spieler: Rue wrinkles get pretty bad at 70 or 80 laughs

[20:04] Rue Moonwall: But the odds Staticis say 70 years old

[20:04] Myriam Brianna: it's a dumb question, because there's no need to show that adaptions 'must' have arisen randomly. It suffices that it is possible, and provides with a a-supernaturalistic explanation ... there's a reason the scientific community is in favour of the etsi deus non daretur, and this reason is that is has proven to be enormously helpful when we try to make predictions, and to describe the world as we percieve it

[20:05] Elizabeth Spieler: Ceri your intelligence didn't require proof - your mere presence proved your not dumb . . smiles

[20:05] Rue Moonwall: Elizabeht we are spending billions a year on product and operations and pills to keep us young

[20:05] Rue Moonwall: and science

[20:05] Birric Forcella: That is a complete non-sequitur, Miriam - I also don't understand the Latin

[20:05] Elizabeth Spieler: Rue some people are . . it's a big world out there

[20:06] Xeno Octavia: this'll most likely be a short centry --over bfore 2050!!

[20:06] Elizabeth Spieler: the oldest living people in the world I think are in Italy and they garden and work and live together cooking and such

[20:06] Rue Moonwall: We have already Double the average age from 35 to 70, and done this in the last 100 years only

[20:06] Birric Forcella: "And so god is not given"?

[20:06] Rue Moonwall: we will triple the average age in the next 35 years

[20:06] Elizabeth Spieler: yes Rue - Montana has plenty of land for the growth of population . . giggles

[20:06] Myriam Brianna: to incorporate something like a designer is, like Nietzsche would have said it, a "Faustgrobe Antwort", "An answer like a fist". It pretends to explain, but it is just another arbitrarily chosen end in the process of question and cognition

[20:06] Birric Forcella: How exactly do you make predictions then?

[20:06] Myriam Brianna: "As if God were not given"

[20:07] Elizabeth Spieler: God is a story someone taught you : /

[20:07] Rue Moonwall: Yes Elizabeth this will bring social conectations

[20:07] BrainCrave OHare: i'd like to refresh birric's question, as i think it's a good one: [08:03 PM] Birric Forcella: Well, I have no problem with randomness - the question is, WHAT are the mechanisms with which randomness turnes into structures - like hands and feet

[20:07] Maddie Margulis: thats it isn't it, get them young

[20:07] Rue Moonwall: Elizabeth did we not double the avere age from 35 to 70 in the last 125 years?

[20:07] Elizabeth Spieler: Santa Clause did not show up again pfft

[20:07] Miyam Letov: interesting that the physicists seem to execpt the concept of God without question

[20:08] Birric Forcella: Myriam, that would only hold if you have prejudged that there cannot be a design. Looking at reality, I don't see how y ou can do that without good arguments. Just (mis)quoting Nietzsche isn't good enough.

[20:08] Miyam Letov: the more they learn, the more they believe

[20:08] Maddie Margulis: indoctrination

[20:08] Xeno Octavia: Brain and birric read Per Bak

[20:08] Elizabeth Spieler: Rue yes I believe we did double life expectancy

[20:08] Rue Moonwall: Elizabeth answer the question I asked you!

[20:08] Rue Moonwall: Right

[20:08] Elizabeth Spieler: Rue you keep repeating am I misunderstanding?

[20:08] RobsterRawb Jaxxon: *throw a chill pill at rue

[20:08] Elizabeth Spieler: Rue I had agreed with you

[20:08] Rue Moonwall: And we did this with what we called by todays standard primative techiniques

[20:09] Frederick Hansome: Goodnight all. May 2010 find you usinge your intelligence more wisely and less argumentatively.

[20:09] Xeno Octavia: and Brain when's the art show

[20:09] MargaretGrace Sapphire: Myriam is correct that is all that sience can do describe the world as we see it based on probabilities. Since is based on establishing probabilities which has to do with the seeking of systematic patterns from random noise. I believe that this is how evolution works. Species evolve randomly. The ones that survive within a particular environmental circumstance as it evolves survive andthose that have the most adaptive traits have the greatest probability of surviving.

[20:09] Elizabeth Spieler: Rue we learned to not live with rats infesting our homes as they carry disease

[20:09] Susy Halcali: wouldn't be able to wear a shirt like BrainCraves if you throw the chill pill at him

[20:09] Rue Moonwall: Eliabeth science is exploting

[20:09] Elizabeth Spieler: Rue we still have invented NO NEW THING

[20:09] Myriam Brianna: I don't say that there can not be a design(er). I say that science can, for methodological reasons, not incorporate the notion of a designer without quitting to be science

[20:09] Elizabeth Spieler: Rue we have only used the materials already here already MADE

[20:10] Rue Moonwall: Elizabeth, we invented machines that can do the work of 200 men

[20:10] Elizabeth Spieler: Rue still didn't change LIFE

[20:10] Rue Moonwall: We have invented social programs such as pre natel care

[20:10] Miyam Letov: and the ancient egyptians had batteries..i don't understand your point, rue

[20:10] Rue Moonwall: anti biotics

[20:10] Elizabeth Spieler: to say I am happier working a machine that standing at the foot of a great pyramid is not evolving to me

[20:11] Elizabeth Spieler: Rue ok but those are all stories

[20:11] MargaretGrace Sapphire: Night all facsinating discussion!!!

[20:11] Myriam Brianna: "The ones that survive within a particular environmental circumstance as it evolves survive andthose that have the most adaptive traits have the greatest probability of surviving." ... and there complex structures arise

[20:11] Elizabeth Spieler: Rue those in africa living without technology are equally happy

[20:11] Miyam Letov: once again..a presumption..we presume to be the most advanced of our species

[20:11] Myriam Brianna: gn8 Margaret

[20:11] Rue Moonwall: Elizabeth the good old days where cruel, bruthish, and short

[20:11] Elizabeth Spieler: Rue there are no good ole days - there are only days with stories

[20:12] Birric Forcella: I wonder if anybody is awake to the fact that all you have displayed so far is (amialble) BELIEF in evolution and (nebulously) science. Just believing it isn't enough - that is what the religious crowd has done for millenia. Just believing that somehow something is "random" as Elizabeth so firmly believes isn't good enough, since it proves nothing. Randomness can just as well be used by a designer.

[20:12] Miyam Letov: how do you know that?

[20:12] Miyam Letov: explain how egyptians had batteries...how we have just now caught up to the mayan's knowlegde of mathematics

[20:12] Elizabeth Spieler: Birric even science questions itself in the age of water being 13,000-14,000 years old

[20:12] Elizabeth Spieler: no thing living lived or can live without water

[20:10] Miyam Letov: and the ancient egyptians had batteries..i don't understand your point, rue

[20:10] Rue Moonwall: anti biotics

[20:10] Elizabeth Spieler: to say I am happier working a machine that standing at the foot of a great pyramid is not evolving to me

[20:11] Elizabeth Spieler: Rue ok but those are all stories

[20:11] MargaretGrace Sapphire: Night all facsinating discussion!!!

[20:11] Myriam Brianna: "The ones that survive within a particular environmental circumstance as it evolves survive andthose that have the most adaptive traits have the greatest probability of surviving." ... and there complex structures arise

[20:11] Elizabeth Spieler: Rue those in africa living without technology are equally happy

[20:11] Miyam Letov: once again..a presumption..we presume to be the most advanced of our species

[20:11] Myriam Brianna: gn8 Margaret

[20:11] Rue Moonwall: Elizabeth the good old days where cruel, bruthish, and short

[20:11] Elizabeth Spieler: Rue there are no good ole days - there are only days with stories

[20:12] Birric Forcella: I wonder if anybody is awake to the fact that all you have displayed so far is (amialble) BELIEF in evolution and (nebulously) science. Just believing it isn't enough - that is what the religious crowd has done for millenia. Just believing that somehow something is "random" as Elizabeth so firmly believes isn't good enough, since it proves nothing. Randomness can just as well be used by a designer.

[20:12] Miyam Letov: how do you know that?

[20:12] Miyam Letov: explain how egyptians had batteries...how we have just now caught up to the mayan's knowlegde of mathematics

[20:12] Elizabeth Spieler: Birric even science questions itself in the age of water being 13,000-14,000 years old

[20:12] Elizabeth Spieler: no thing living lived or can live without water

[20:13] Birric Forcella: Believing in things and quoting Nietzsche just isn't good enough. Really, are you willing to build your worldview on so little? Don't you at least want some clear hard proof?

[20:13] Elizabeth Spieler: science has a twister on that topic

[20:13] Elizabeth Spieler: there is no difference between me and the woman that lived 5000 years ago

[20:13] RobsterRawb Jaxxon: so.. how bout flat earth?? any takerz

[20:13] Rue Moonwall: Eliabeth water 13,000-14000? ha try 4 billion years old

[20:13] Elizabeth Spieler: both equally able to love live have kids and be happy or sad what ever

[20:13] BrainCrave OHare: but disproving evolution doesn't necessarily mean that there was a designer - could be little green men

[20:14] Elizabeth Spieler: sorry Rue google that

[20:14] Birric Forcella: The Egyptians did NOT have batteries. The Mayan math knowledge was unspeakably primitive to European math of the year 1000. Come on. Miriam, you are now just showing New Age superstition and credulity.

[20:14] Miyam Letov: flat earth as in we once KNEW the earth was flat..just as they KNEW we were heading into a period of global warming, rob?

[20:14] Elizabeth Spieler: ok but evolution is not machinery

[20:14] Miyam Letov: The did have batteries birric

[20:14] Elizabeth Spieler: that is a story appearing in the mind told by humans

[20:14] Miyam Letov: read much, hon?

[20:14] RobsterRawb Jaxxon: oh we are all doomed to global warming for sureeeee

[20:14] Miyam Letov: hahaha

[20:15] Myriam Brianna sighs and copies the "4 challenges" into a notecard, since she has to go to bed sometime soon, at 5 am. And btw, it is MyRiam and Miyam. Two different people, srsly

[20:15] Birric Forcella: What is this about the age of water? Water is a compaound and once compounded - it remains until - well - destroyed.

[20:15] Miyam Letov: gobal warming is a myth

[20:15] Elizabeth Spieler: the myans understood the law of reflection as seen in their ampitheatre which is also in my model in Oz

[20:15] Xeno Octavia: an i thought it made intells hot

[20:15] Elizabeth Spieler: a sound studio understands the law of reflection very well

[20:16] Elizabeth Spieler: bounce

[20:16] Elizabeth Spieler: can't see it but it's there

[20:16] RobsterRawb Jaxxon: well global warming is true.. it defaintly gets hot n cold.. but humans dooming mankind at an alarming rate.. nahh

[20:16] Birric Forcella: No, the Mayans did not understand that. They just observed how certain things sound. There is a huge difference. This is New Age credulity - the exact opposite of an understanding of evolution

[20:16] Miyam Letov: thanks miryam for saying that

[20:16] Miyam Letov: and yes, we're not the same person

[20:16] Xeno Octavia: noit destroyed just bak ta hydro and oxy

[20:16] Elizabeth Spieler: Birric recently that was reported on the history channel what I just said : /

[20:16] Rue Moonwall: Rob theres been alredy more species extint, then there is alive today

[20:17] Miyam Letov: mathematically the mayans were very advanced

[20:17] Elizabeth Spieler: acoustics = Law of reflection = ld style quantum mechinics - Einstein OLD information we learn in 2nd grade

[20:17] Birric Forcella: ???

[20:17] Rue Moonwall: 4.3 billion years will extint lot of creature, and besides the planet did bounce back

[20:17] Myriam Brianna: Oo

[20:17] Rue Moonwall: lol

[20:17] Elizabeth Spieler: wireless technology is using what ?

[20:17] Elizabeth Spieler: air?

[20:17] Myriam Brianna: "old style quantum mechanics" = "law of reflection" = "Acoustics" ... what?!

[20:18] Elizabeth Spieler: Myrian it's on wikipedia quantum mechanics if you care to take a peek

[20:18] Rue Moonwall: Elizabeth La smog is compiting with the generation of oxygen!

[20:18] Rue Moonwall: La

[20:18] Birric Forcella: Well, if you believe in the Old Egyptions and the Mayans, I really don't understand why you wouldn't believe in a Designer . . .

[20:18] Miyam Letov: i DO believe in God

[20:18] Myriam Brianna: I'm questioning the equal-sign ...

[20:18] Elizabeth Spieler: Rue due to the universe as a whole being alive I don't ever see LIFE ceasing - eternal birth and death is all we can prove at this time

[20:18] Miyam Letov: lol

[20:19] Miyam Letov: God and science are NOT mutually exclusive

[20:19] Rue Moonwall: LA, what 60 oxygen, 40 smog?

[20:19] Desire Guru: when the sun becomes a red dwarf, the earth's orbit (and that of Gor) will be inside the dwarf

[20:19] Elizabeth Spieler: God is a term man uses to figure out science - all invented labels and stories trying to understand the NOW

[20:19] Rue Moonwall: Running out of oxygen in LA

[20:19] Birric Forcella: ID and Evolution ARE mutually exclusive - How do you decide which is right.

[20:19] Miyam Letov: that is an opinion, elizabeth

[20:20] Elizabeth Spieler: Miyam let's test it - DO NOT think of a pink elephant

[20:20] Miyam Letov: wait

[20:20] Miyam Letov: what are we testing?

[20:20] Miyam Letov: lol

[20:20] Elizabeth Spieler: giggles you saw one didn't you

[20:20] Miyam Letov: and birric, they are not mutually exclusive

[20:20] Nathalia Schmooz: through scientific testing and observation Birric

[20:20] Birric Forcella wonders if anybody understands WHY ID and Evolution are mutually exclusive . . .

[20:20] Miyam Letov: no, i was trying to decipher what yo umeant

[20:21] RobsterRawb Jaxxon: i think we all have subconcious knowlege of right and wrong regarldes of indoctrines, not throwing a blow for ID but it does question my mind

[20:21] Rue Moonwall: Elizabeth, I was walking in NYC side walk the other day, and through the little cracks of the concrete a little blade of grass was sticking out, growing, LIFE IS RELANTLES!

[20:21] Xeno Octavia: well folkes it been fun but gotta get home!!

[20:21] Elizabeth Spieler: I can point at a tree and say that is a tree but I know nothing about the tree

[20:21] Elizabeth Spieler: Rue yes I tried to kill grass once, the grass won

[20:21] Rue Moonwall: Life is RElentless

[20:21] Miyam Letov: the're only mutually exclusive in your mind, birric

[20:22] Birric Forcella: Is life RELENTLESS by design or by chance?

[20:22] Elizabeth Spieler: LIFE is all powerful YES and without beginning and end when the seed of it is studied under a micrscope

[20:22] Elizabeth Spieler: ALL seeing to

[20:22] BrainCrave OHare: (raises his hand) - i don't understand why evolution and ID are mutually exclusive; theoretically, you could have a designer who designs in randomness

[20:22] Elizabeth Spieler: if it were not all seeing I would fall through my chair

[20:22] Rue Moonwall: I believe by desing

[20:23] Rue Moonwall: Some one, some creator, some alien life, planted the seeds of life on earth,

[20:23] Elizabeth Spieler: Brain Jesus made aged wine out of old water : //

[20:23] Miyam Letov: this is what drives me crazy abotu creationsism

[20:23] Elizabeth Spieler: lots of fake atiques out there giggles

[20:23] Miyam Letov: everyone thinks they KNOW God

[20:23] Myriam Brianna: and where did this some-one come from? It formed in a blast of light and laughter?

[20:24] Elizabeth Spieler: Miyam that is due to the instinct

[20:24] Elizabeth Spieler: the will to live

[20:24] Elizabeth Spieler: survival of the fittest

[20:24] Elizabeth Spieler: the food chain

[20:25] Rue Moonwall: Myrian we are putting all our best minds, and speding billions of dollars to reach the heavens, WE ARE TRYING TO FIND OUT WHERE WE CAME FROM, The ultimate philisophycal question

[20:25] Miyam Letov: so you think ..you're smarter because you are sure that there is no God, elizabeth?

[20:25] Elizabeth Spieler: Miyam when did I say there is no God?

[20:26] Nathalia Schmooz: I would love to think out creator is an alien

[20:26] Rue Moonwall: The question that has been ask for millions of years by our species, where di we come from, the stars?

[20:26] Elizabeth Spieler: God = 10,000 definitions - I got one like everyone else

[20:26] Miyam Letov: then i misread what you typed.

[20:26] Nathalia Schmooz: and our solar system is a big greenhouse

[20:26] Elizabeth Spieler: Rue it's the instincts attempt to change the now

[20:26] Elizabeth Spieler: even if we knew that answer then what?

[20:27] Elizabeth Spieler: no difference atomic structure stays the same

[20:27] Elizabeth Spieler: birth and death eternall occuring on a rock floating in space

[20:27] Birric Forcella: Evolution and design are exclusive because - simply - if they weren't, as Brain just stated - it would all be design - even if the designer worked in randomness. The question is: Does the randomness work by "itself" as it were - or is a designer NEEDED? If any designer is NEEDED, then evolution is FALSIFIED, as I tried to show - if NO designer is needed, then, by definition DESIGN IS FALSIFIED. So the existence of the one necessarily FALSIFIES the other. Please ask more questions if you don't undertand this point, since it is the central crucial point. I thought educated, philosophy-minded people knew this . . .

[20:27] BrainCrave OHare: but why does not being able to prove the facts supporting evolution (i know there are disagreements here) mean that there was a designer?

[20:27] Rue Moonwall: Elizabeth we don't live in the now, even what i'm going to type in a few seconds, is the future

[20:28] RobsterRawb Jaxxon: unlesss we got time fucked up

[20:28] Rue Moonwall: I live projecting into the future even if is a few seconds

[20:28] Elizabeth Spieler: sorry to hear that Rue because now is all thre is . . . it's self evident were the end result right Now

[20:28] Birric Forcella: BTW., what I just said is also the reason why Evolution, by nature, demands atheism

[20:28] Elizabeth Spieler: if you are in the future or the past your missing the gift of right now

[20:29] RobsterRawb Jaxxon: mmm if theres nothing after life is it like having hot sex and not remembering it?

[20:29] Rue Moonwall: Elizabeth your always acting on what you hope to be in the future

[20:29] Birric Forcella: Well, Brain, that question will have to wait to the part where we PROVE Evolution to be true . . .

[20:29] RobsterRawb Jaxxon: makes it not worth living

[20:29] BrainCrave OHare: ok, that makes sense birric

[20:29] RobsterRawb Jaxxon: *shoots myself

[20:29] Rue Moonwall: YOur acting now for the future

[20:29] Elizabeth Spieler: Brain a male and female entity we call God collided and became what we find to be the ATOM and it multiplied to what it is now - simplest way to say it in a language most understand

[20:29] Myriam Brianna: no, it does not. Evolution is not concerned with biogenesis. Though of course a god compatible with evolution would not be the babylonian despot described by Genesis etc

[20:30] Elizabeth Spieler: Rue whatever I focus on does effect my future yes but the future is never happening now

[20:30] Elizabeth Spieler: you can't be in the future and now at the same moment - mentally

[20:30] Elizabeth Spieler: you can not speak and read at the same time

[20:30] Elizabeth Spieler: you can't tell me what you will be thinking in an hour

[20:31] Elizabeth Spieler: anything is possible

[20:31] Rue Moonwall: Elizabeth you focuse on the future plan, and you work toward does goal you have in mind of the furture, be it, sec hours, tomorrow, next year

[20:31] BrainCrave OHare: but birric, you can never prove definitive randomness

[20:31] Elizabeth Spieler: Rue when you die where is the future for you ?

[20:32] Rue Moonwall: Depends on your religion

[20:32] Rue Moonwall: On your believes

[20:32] Elizabeth Spieler: what happens to all the plans ? goals ? the stories here ?

[20:32] Elizabeth Spieler: is there a uhaul behind the hurst?

[20:32] Rue Moonwall: Elizabeth, everything in this planet also dies with you,

[20:32] Elizabeth Spieler: were born with no thing we die with no thing - there is nothing to get

[20:33] BrainCrave OHare: if you can never prove randomness (at least definitively), the best thing you can do is run more tests until your confidence levels go up - that's basic statistics

[20:33] Rue Moonwall: some people think their going to go to heaven

[20:33] Birric Forcella: Definite randomness is not needed - since the mechanisms claimed for Evolution really don't depend on absolute randomness - actually the technical term is "natural variation" - you really only need a wide variation, as surmised by Darwin. Since today we know that the driving force actually is radiation (even from outer space) which creates the mutations, it is generally called randomness because it is really very close to random - if not perfectly random

[20:33] Myriam Brianna: yes, exactly BrainCrave. Pure randomness is never provable, which perhaps is the reason for our human love towards the Bell Curve etc

[20:33] Rue Moonwall: or hell,

[20:33] Rue Moonwall: Or on pregotory

[20:33] Elizabeth Spieler: rue without a brain what will or could they know ? there would be no knowledge or reason or thinking or attachment

[20:33] Rue Moonwall: some thingk their going to be reincarnated

[20:33] Elizabeth Spieler: no passion no desire

[20:33] Rue Moonwall: Some think their are going to be worm food

[20:34] Elizabeth Spieler: yes many thinks here about then - the future they can't prove

[20:34] Elizabeth Spieler: they miss the point of NOW then don't they

[20:34] Elizabeth Spieler: it's like ignoring the flowers when they bloom

[20:34] Birric Forcella: Darwin himself had no idea what was at the base of variation. All he asserted was what he saw - the appearance of variation.

[20:34] Rue Moonwall: So some do worry about even that future event, Some are speding billions off dollars to prevent deaf

[20:34] Miyam Letov: night everyone. thank you for the very interesting discussion

[20:34] Rue Moonwall: Men will not rest until he conquers death!

[20:34] Elizabeth Spieler: Night Miyam

[20:35] Elizabeth Spieler: Rue and that is just a thought

[20:35] Elizabeth Spieler: LIFE has never ended for anyone

[20:35] Rue Moonwall: no,

[20:35] Elizabeth Spieler: as no one is in sole possession of it

[20:35] Rue Moonwall: We spend trillions on trying to ward off death

[20:35] Elizabeth Spieler: thought tries to live forever

[20:35] BrainCrave OHare: so, though we can't explain "natural variation", it could be based on a designer

[20:35] Elizabeth Spieler: it will lose

[20:35] Rue Moonwall: Cell do regenerate,

[20:35] Rue Moonwall: is a fact

[20:36] Birric Forcella: Maybe one should first get the misconceptions about Evolution and ID out of the way.

[20:36] Elizabeth Spieler: will to live

[20:36] Rue Moonwall: they can be reginerating indefenetly

[20:36] Elizabeth Spieler: it's a fact every human ever born will die - but the life was neither born or died

[20:36] Elizabeth Spieler: the life was never touched for even a second

[20:37] Rue Moonwall: Elizabeth, we have double the ages, and we will tripple, quadruble, and indefinetly, Walt dissney had his body frozen for that reason

[20:37] Elizabeth Spieler: oh dear Rue

[20:37] Birric Forcella: Well, Brain, again, there is a conceptual problem. Either variation works autonomously or not. In a way, you could say that it makes not much difference if the variation is produced by a creator - since what makes the difference (as should actually be reserved for another time) is made by the "selection" not the variation.

[20:37] Elizabeth Spieler: Rue is your flesh body really what you are ?

[20:38] Rue Moonwall: Even the farels momified then self, for that reason

[20:38] Elizabeth Spieler: good point Birric

[20:38] Elizabeth Spieler: Rue but Life hasn't ended

[20:38] Elizabeth Spieler: Rue you can't say life ended at any time

[20:38] BrainCrave OHare: ok, that makes sense birric

[20:38] Rue Moonwall: Inmortality, has been humanitis bigges dream

[20:38] Elizabeth Spieler: the flesh ended

[20:38] Elizabeth Spieler: the flower fades

[20:39] Elizabeth Spieler: but life still goes on strong as ever

[20:39] Rue Moonwall: The dimin of the ligh

[20:39] Rue Moonwall: light

[20:39] Elizabeth Spieler: no one has a different life force

[20:39] Elizabeth Spieler: there is only one

[20:39] Elizabeth Spieler: shared by it all

[20:40] Rue Moonwall: okay Eliabeth, beautifull conversation with you, night, and Merry Christmas

[20:40] Elizabeth Spieler: my puppy is hungry I need to go now

[20:40] Elizabeth Spieler: you also Rue thank you

[20:40] BrainCrave OHare: but, with randomness/variation, you're always going to see things outside the bell (i.e., at the extremes); so, from a statistical perspective, humanity meets the definition of randomness

[20:40] Elizabeth Spieler: Happy sweet day or night to you all

[20:41] Birric Forcella: Yes, Brain, those are TWO strikes against ID

[20:42] Birric Forcella: But I am getting ahead of myself

[20:43] Susy Halcali: good night all

[20:45] BrainCrave OHare: so here's what i'm going to suggest - this has been a great discussion, but it seems like there is a lot of reading that we should do (i.e., going back over the chat log and thinking about what was said)- maybe we should get together again in a few days to continue the conversation

[20:45] BrainCrave OHare: after we've had a chance to review the logs - what do you think birric?

[20:46] BrainCrave OHare: that will give us a chance to re-organize our thoughts and maybe strengthen arguments

[20:46] Birric Forcella: It was a bit all over the place. Maybe we could concentrate on one or a few points.

[20:47] BrainCrave OHare: that's a great idea - let's you and i discuss privately what should be the 1 or 2 points you think best to focus on in the follow-up conversation

[20:47] BrainCrave OHare: i'd like to thank birric so very much for contributing this - this was a VERY difficult conversation to keep straight, and there are clearly a lot of passions there

[20:48] BrainCrave OHare: i hope you will all do the same

[20:48] Birric Forcella: I want to thank all of you. It was very enjoyable

[20:48] Nathalia Schmooz: thanks - fascinating discussion ;-)))

[20:50] Myriam Brianna shrugs - I would suggest a moderated discussion next time around. This was in parts just chaos. Not of the good kind.

[20:51] BrainCrave OHare: thanx myriam for the suggestion - it's a good one

[20:51] Birric Forcella: Whatever you like

[20:52] Myriam Brianna: and yeah, thank you. For good or bad it gave me a new incentive to translate a number of texts I wanted to translate anyway at some point

[20:53] BrainCrave OHare: :)

You need to be logged in to comment.
search only within braincrave

About braincrave


We all admire beauty, but the mind ultimately must be stimulated for maximum arousal. Longevity in relationships cannot occur without a meeting of the minds. And that is what Braincrave is: a dating venue where minds meet. Learn about the thoughts of your potential match on deeper topics... topics that spawn your own insights around what you think, the choices you make, and the actions you take.

We are a community of men and women who seek beauty and stimulation through our minds. We find ideas, education, and self-improvement sexy. We think intelligence is hot. But Braincrave is more than brains and I.Q. alone. We are curious. We have common sense. We value and offer wisdom. We experiment. We have great imaginations. We devour literacy. We are intellectually honest. We support and encourage each other to be better.

You might be lonely but you aren't alone.

Sep, 2017 update: Although Braincrave resulted in two confirmed marriages, the venture didn't meet financial targets. Rather than updating our outdated code base, we've removed all previous dating profiles and retained the articles that continue to generate interest. Moving to valME.io's platform supports dating profiles (which you are welcome to post) but won't allow typical date-matching functionality (e.g., location proximity, attribute similarity).

The Braincrave.com discussion group on Second Life was a twice-daily intellectual group discussions typically held at 12:00 PM SLT (PST) and 7:00 PM SLT. The discussions took place in Second Life group chat but are no longer formally scheduled or managed. The daily articles were used to encourage the discussions.

Latest Activity