Jump to content
Evolution Fairytale Forum

Marian

Member
  • Content Count

    8
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Marian

  1. Marian

    Suggested Reading?

    I just got "The Blind Watchmaker" by Richard Dawkins the other day, and just started reading it. It seems really good so far. There are a few other books I've picked up as well which were suggested by various friends. I'm curious what other books people here would recommend for reading, regarding either evolution or intelligent design.
  2. Marian

    Suggested Reading?

    If you wouldn't mind and have time, could you give a brief explaination on why you'd recommend it? Not so much a summary (I can google that or look on Amazon, though I'm familiar with one of your recommendations ) but why you think it's good and would recommend it, and what you got out of it.
  3. Marian

    Intelligent Design- Is It Scientific

    #1: The rigidity of science as outlined by JustTed is unrealistic. As was said, it's not his outline, it's the standards that science adheres to. It's not unrealistic standards, it's THE standards. #2: My contention is that in other branches of science that are well accepted conclusions are drawn based on observations. This is incorrect, there are no 'well accepted conclusions' based solely on observation. Unless you have some to offer? #3: There is no absolute proof that 1+2 = 2+1. Everyone accepts it because it is logical. You've heard of mathematical proofs right? It's not correct and accepted because it 'looks' correct. It's not correct because it's 'logical' (There are things in mathematics which DO NOT look correct, and seem illogical to most people, such as .99999to infinity =1). It's correct because it can be demonstrated with a mathematical proof. It has nothing to do with logical conclusions, looking 'right', or sounding good. If another mathematical proof came along that disproved that, it would no longer be valid, no matter 'how good' it looks. #4: I'm saying ID can stand on its own as well as many other scientific disciplines Great. I'm really interested in seeing that. I've asked questions in this thread which still remain unanswered. Can you address them? Can you show where Intelligent Design is falsifiable for a start?
  4. Marian

    Why Humans?

    I was just going to add to what Chance said (this is, like almost everything I'll post, from memory ) but climate change had a lot to do with it. You also have after the ice age an interesting thing occur. Those groups which can do agriculture thrive. Hunter/gatherers have a very hard life. Infant mortality is high. Injuries from hunting are severe. The average life expectancy is low. Farmers have an edge. First, because their food source is something they can actively control and plan for, more infants survive. They also thrive better on the diet of a farmer. So you have healthier children and more of them survive. They also had an edge on life span. It wasn't a tremendous edge as we would consider it today. Going off memory avg. expectancy was something like 30 years for hunters but 38 years for farmers. That's a huge edge. You can also support a larger group. In fact you need a larger group for a farming society. This has numerous advantages, work is divided, there is more leisure time, there is safety in numbers. Then you see a massive culture explosion because of these factors: -More people living together (you need laws to get along. You need to plan, you develop more complex language skills, etc) -More lesiure time (this allows for time to think and communicate. 'Why?' starts to be asked a lot. Probably you had a more complext religious structure form just because of these questions. Specialists start to develop, since there's enough people to do the work, one person can devote their time to pottery full time, instead of everyone making their own. Another to weaving and so forth). I'm sure you can go from there and imagine the many things that then develop from this new lifestyle. This didn't exist previously for two main reasons. First, there wasn't a huge need for it. It's not to say that groups didn't starve, some did. But it's difficult to plan agriculture the minute you start to starve. Especially when another option is to pack up and find new hunting grounds. Second the climate wasn't such that they could stay in a location long enough to promote farming, nor was it a climate in which farming would be successful. Oh another advantage with farming versus hunting, smaller tracts of land could support more poeple. Another huge advantage since you need smaller numbers per square mile if you're hunting game to support people than you do if you're farming and using game only as a supplimental. And if you look at world culture, there are still tribal groups in modern day which have never made a transition to agriculture. They're still hunter gatherers, and never farmed. They simply had no need to make the transition, hunting was successful for them, and they had no exposure to farming, so they didn't have to deal with competition from more successful farming groups of people, and since they had no need to develop it, didn't learn it from a culture which did have that need. Anyway hope that provides a little more information.
  5. Marian

    Intelligent Design- Is It Scientific

    Title of this thread: "Intelligent Design- Is It Scientific" You keep wanting to attack evolution, that's not what this thread is about. I've been lurking here on and off for months, there are lots of threads which pretty much do just that. This thread is asking if Intelligent Design is scientific. Seems pretty straightforward, or so I would think. Here's an example: So? Assuming that's true (only for the sake of discussion) what does that have to do with intelligent design, and whether or not it's scientific? I could go on and on and on pulling out things and asking what exactly it has to do with this topic, but I think that should suffice. I'm just hoping someone (um anyone?) can address the questions that have been raised about Intelligent Design. I'm extremely interested in seeing answers to some questions that have been posed, including the ones I've asked.
  6. Do you mean "more complex" rather than "advanced"? Or would "more complex" be a more accurate term (or equal description) for what you're describing? I ask because it seemed so in reading your posts.
  7. Marian

    Intelligent Design- Is It Scientific

    Einstein's beliefs (whatever they were, which is often debatable) doesn't matter. Just as it doesn't matter if another scientist made the same statement but from an atheistic point of view. Neither opinion is scientific. Science speaks only to the evidence. It's not "evolutionary reasoning" that ID is not scientific. It's that ID cannot stand up to scientific requirements. As JustTed pointed out, one example is that it's not falsifiable (and he pointed out where evolution can be falsifiable). If Intelligent Design is falsifiable, and you can present such, I'd also like to see it. Instead I see the argument turned back around to attacking evolution, but again as JustTed pointed out previously in a post, that's not what this thread is about. It's about whether Intelligent Design on it's own can stand up to scientific merit. And now more specifically, is Intelligent Design falsifiable? So far I have yet to see information which demonstrates it can stand on it's own as science. Does anyone have that information? Can anyone even demonstrate that it's falsifiable?
  8. Marian

    Intelligent Design- Is It Scientific

    You missed something. Specifically: "If it could be proved that any part of the structure of any one species had been formed for the exclusive good of another species A symbotic relationship HAS benefit to the original organism. You would have to find an example where a species had a structure formed for the exclusive good of another (NO self benefit). Symbotic relationships by definition do not exist solely for the good of another, but are mutually beneficial. So you would need to find a part of the structure of one species which exists for the benefit of another species, for which it has absolutely no benefit.
×

Important Information

Our Terms