On Fri, 06 May 2005 00:06:12 -0700, Frank Gilliland
wrote:

On Thu, 05 May 2005 09:44:26 -0400, Dave Hall
wrote in :

On Wed, 4 May 2005 11:20:49 -0400, (I
AmnotGeorgeBush) wrote:

Dave Hall (N3CVJ) wrote:
Quite contrary. Logic supports the existence of
a creator or, more generally, the concept of

intelligent design.


Science is based on logic. Nowhere does science support your position.

Well, one of two possibilities exist. Either the earth cooled, formed
water, created primordial amino acids which somehow morphed into
single celled life, which then somehow determined the need to further
specialize and diversify, and all species evolved from there. Somehow
they knew that we'd need plants to make oxygen, for the animals that
need it. Some species would become food for others. All of this raises
many questions, the biggest of which is what force drove these single
celled organisms to improve and specialize themselves? What drives
evolution? Can accidental random mutation answer these questions
satisfactorily.


That's about the most ignorant pseudo-scientific argument I have ever
heard in favor of creationsim. If you are going to play biochemist at
least show a little knowledge of the subject. You could at least
address the fact that an imbalance in a complex equilibrium will
result in a more complex equilibrium. Or that an ocean full of
primordial soup doesn't just sit there and stew in a state of
homeostatis -- it's under a constant barrage from a large number of
ionizing radiations that can change it's chemistry. After a couple
billion years it's hardly inconceivable that symbiotic relationships
not only could exist on a planetary scale, but that a threshold of
self-sustaining complexity could occur. In fact, it's far more
plausible than concluding that everything was willed into existence by
some super-ghost.

Your anti-God bias is showing. You would rather believe that the
complexity of our ecosystem occurred due to just the right random,
combinations of factors and events to produce all the diversified
species, which all have a key part to play in the total picture,
rather than consider the likelihood that an intelligent force was
somehow responsible for guiding it.



The other possibility is that our existence was carefully guided by an
intelligent force. Applying Occam's razor, which scenario is easier
to believe?


See above.

Yes, see above.



snip
But keeping with that, who said it was random? Natural evolution and
selection explains away any coincidental occurrences that you may
mistake for "random".

But what motivates natural evolution? Who decides whether a mutation
is "beneficial" or not? Natural selection, otherwise known as
survival of the fittest, assumes that gene mutations which result in a
"better" species, would survive while the "lesser' versions of the
species would die out. Yet, it is said that homo-sapiens evolved from
apes. Why then are apes still around if we are the "new and improved"
version of the ape?

Evolution only explains a small part of the puzzle.


But what drives evolution? If random mutations are the basis for
evolution, then what prevents "bad mutations" or several different
mutations from leading us down even more diverse paths?


A little concept called "survival of the fittest".

Then why are smaller mammals still here? Why are apes still here? Why
do humans have self-awareness? Why do we posses an intelligence that
allows us to contemplate the unknown, and live beyond the programming
of instinctive behavior? What about the concept of a soul?


Natural selection only answers some of those questions.


Only if you slept through the class like you did during American
History and Social Studies.

I have an open mind. Something you evidently do not.


There is much scientific evidence to support the theory of evolution.
I am not trying to discount it at all. Quite the opposite, I totally
endorse the concept of evolution. The difference is that I believe
that evolution was "helped" along by an outside intelligence.


Instead of being wishy-washy about the issue, why not consider the
possibility that evolution is, very simply, one of God's creations?

It very well might be. It's all part of the bigger plan. Like I said,
I totally accept the concepts of evolution. I just believe that the
process has been "managed" by a higher order intelligence, the
definition of which, has yet to be revealed. I am not advocating any
specific religious interpretation of "God", only that one exists.


Dave
"Sandbagger"
http://home.ptd.net/~n3cvj