It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Intelligent Design: An Insult to Gods Intelligence?

page: 5
0
<< 2  3  4    6 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 15 2006 @ 02:35 AM
link   
the_patriot2004:

"I do, I just dont take my sources from the internet or other sites, I take mine from nature"

LCKob:

Well you see, thats part of the rub, you say that your sources are "from nature" ... okay, I have no problem with that ... but observation is just the first step in a methodology ... to be followed by the formation of an observational assertion as in a hypothesis or theory ... which in turn requires a rigorous set of testing and the acumulation of data to support any such claims ... then the cycle repeats on a continual basis to refine working models in regards to consistent interactive integration into a larger schema ...


the_patriot2004:

"you have a problem with taking evidence from nature, yet that is what we have, I don't mean to be disrespectful, but maybe you need to redefine science...."

LCKob:

Actually no, as I said ... I have no problems with observing nature ... but its what you do after that makes it a point of science ... and ID lacks the follow through (as the leading expert proponents revealed under examination).

LCKob:

So, you make an assertion, you pose a hypothesis .... now where is the data, testing and peer review for such material?????

the_patriot2004:

I have presented such evidence multiple times so have other people...

LCKob:

Really... I did a scan of the ENTIRE thread and found that Mattison and Zipdot posted points on Abiogenesis ... but in regards to what you provided ... hmmmm... data??? where I can't find it ... testing ... again where is it? Peer review material ... hey you could give what you have to Behe and company ... becuase they did not have much to provide the court with ... (see transcript)

the_patriot2004

"The courts have been known to be wrong,"

LCKob:

Please read carefully... the ID proponents themselves made no claims for science... quite the opposite in fact ... thus I don't think "changing" the nature of science to include the supernatural as a given is such a keen idea ... and obviously neither does the judge ...

the statement of the few doesnt not mean its not science, but to be technical, both ID and Evolution is a hypothesis and that is it, and its funny your definition of the nature of science. you think that adding the supernatural is changing the nature of science, yet if the earth was made by the supernatural your not changing it, and to be totally honest, for you to totally preclude ID is not science thats Bias, science is the honest search for truth, looking at the facts and determining from what the evidence what is true. this statement that the supernatural is changing the nature of science is telling me that your biased and that you really dont care what I have to say, since it isnt science to you. Now I have shown you respect, and shown the evolution to be just as much of a theory as ID, now, I never accused it of changing science, yet that is what you accuse me of doing.

LCKob:

Excuse me? I am taking facts from the expert testimonial of MAJOR proponents for ID... you subscribe to ID yes? Well these EXPERTS IN YOUR "SCIENCE" have made these statements ... not me ... if you have a problem with these individuals (who by the way have credibility and standing with ID) and you rank with them as a collegue perhaps? A contributing member of "scientific" core for ID research? So to put it bluntly, you are at odds with these recognized proponents of ID? Remember I am referencing THEIR DOCUMENTED STATEMENTS.

Here is a list of the major players to ID: See any familiar names?

www.stnews.org...

... and so once again, I am left with no data, no body of research, no peer endorsed publication detailing a methodical process of testing and refinement

...all I get from you is assertions.

the_patriot2004:

no, I have shown you time and time again figures, actual animals that disprove the evolution theory, even the laws of physics-what more do you want.

LCKob:

Hmmmmmm ... lets see the one example I recall off hand was STINKBUG ... as in explain the STINKBUG? ... and even then I recall distinctly asking you for the research data and findings ... hmmmmmmmmm still waiting.

What I want, is the complete process that embodies SM everything from observation to best guess working theory and everything inbetween ... you are very fond of throwing out the mysterious example ... but is is not followed by research or data or sources ... you merely claim to "observe nature"

the_patriot2004:

... if you look at it, neither Evolution or ID is actual science, since neither one follow the scientific method, none of us saw an animal evolving nor an supreme being make the world,

LCkob:

Specious argument ... in that yes, no one was around to see the beginning of things ... true, but does that mean that one has free license to "fill in the blanks" and call it science ... no. and the court and your proponents agree.

The_patriot2004
correct, but if you look at evolution they do just that. Im going to bring in Nebraska man for example. scienists found a single tooth and drew up a being they called the missing link, "Nebraska man" the funny part was the same scientists later found the rest of the skeleton the tooth belonged to later on, and it wasnt the missing link at all but a then thought extinct form of pig. shortly after that that breed of pig was found living in the congo. and Nebraska man is still taught in our public schools as the missing link, when proved its not, how is that science? its a lie that we're teaching to your kids, that is what I call filling in the blanks. You want articles for that, go to www.drdino.com I believe you can find it there, as well as a 2 million reward for impirical proof of evolution. or go to google, and type in Answers in Genesis you will find a site there that will contain links to this article. the court is right, we dont have the right to fill in the blanks and call it science, ID scientists dont and neither do evolutionists, yet this is what we see in our public schools across the nation.

LCKob:

Well, let me see how should I put this... hmmmm... I was a highschool teacher for a period of 10 years (and ranged in most if not all of the school curriculum... including biology, history, social studies, ... in Hawaii and I can assure you NEBRASKA MAN WAS NOT TAUGHT in our highschool curiculum as ratified scienfific findings for evolution. Note that this is not opinion, this is fact based upon personal firsthand experience in the public school system.

Here are some additional sites to your "Nebraska Man"

members.cox.net...

Which explicitly states that public schools other than those in Hawaii did not promote the myth of "Nebraska Man".

Or this article which does more elaboration ...

www.talkorigins.org...


the_patriot2004:

Its funny how the evolution theory changes from year to year with new ideas, often contradicting the old ones, i have seen public school textbooks that contradict themselves, its always "evolving" so to speak, yet ID always stays the same, something to be said there ....

LCKob:

The process of SM is dynamic ... new information/data , and better assessment techniques and technologies promote the change and evolution to existing working predictor models ... so yes, in order to seek the truth, as I have said repeatedly, conclusions cannot be fixed "as gospel" so to speak.
As for ID always staying the same ... well its of no consequence to me if you continue to adhere to the notion of a "supernatual" science whichis a rather amusing oxymoron.


ID= God!

SM=?? hmmm I would like to find out ...

The thing is that I am not opposed to the POSSIBILITY of a creator... but in the case of ID ... Proponents for ID have a built in desire to confirm a Diety instead of gathering information and data to determine if the evidence supports such a creator.

Hmmmmm ... to recap:

ID:

1. Observation
2. Assertion/theory
3. ........ ?????

Evolution by way of SM:

1. Observation
2. Assertion/theory
3. Very large body of research in multiple overlapping fields with documented method aquired data and ongoing evaluation of findings ... validate findings with global scientific community by way of publication/info distribution including raw data.
4. Refinement of working predictor models with ever increasing accuracy and greater global integration into larger causal schema.
5. working hypotheis/theory
6. Repeat steps 1-5

... where are these things for ID???

the_patriot2004

"again these things have been viewed, but before i jump back into this again, let me ask, what will you accept as science or evidence, if you wont accept my arguments because you are against ID and biased for evolution, which you are you have said as much in your earlier statement that we are adding the supernatural into science, then what will you accept? am I wasting my time here?

LCKob:

Let me put it this way ... I am in agreement with the court decision for the very reason that it was plain that the ID experts were defining ID with the
inclusion of the supernatural ... no vagueness, no misunderstanding, clear candid straitforward statement. Really, their statements left no room for doubt as to the intent ... which was to "redefine" science so that it could incorporate the supernatural ... in order to gain the legitimacy of "science" in order to pose ID as a valid alternative in public schools.

its all there in black and white and very plain to read ... no legalese or lawspeak ... Note there is a definite difference in allowing for the possibility and "confirming the existence of" ... where God is a "given" ... which is what ID is trying to do.


LCKob:

you see, even to this point, you apparently duck the issue on hard research and findings which have passed the scrutiny of the global scientific community ... and I can see why ... even the experts on trial admitted to such lacks ...

... and yet, with all of this, you still claim that ID is a valid science ...

the_patriot2004:

and yet again, I have thoroughly researched it, Not what the court says or some expert, but I see in nature, and you accuse me of ducking, when I brought up the law of entropy you gave me this entire long speech on why it doesnt apply which was confusing to the average reader, and when one scrutinized it found that it contradicted itself. if your going to contradict yourself on something as simple as the law of entropy, and not accept that as even remote evidence, then again what will you accept?

LCKob

It did not contradict itself ... you merely refused the accepted scientific answer ... which was that entropy relies on what is known as a "closed system" ... where there is no real closed system save for the entire universe itself (and even this is not absolute) ... but within the universe there can be pockets of self contained growth ... or as i posted earlier (which you ignored) ...

Ring any bells?

Hmmmm ... this sounds very familar ....

When I was in my first or second year of college, a friend of mine who belonged to a fundamentalist Christian church in Sri Lanka said that he had heard of a convincing scientific proof against the theory of evolution. He said the proof centered on the concept of entropy. I had already heard of the term entropy at that time, but I definitely did not understand the concept, since I had not as yet studied thermodynamics in any detail.

Anyway, my friend told me that there was this law of physics that said that the total entropy of a system had to always increase. He also said that the entropy of a system was inversely related to the amount of the order and complexity in the system, so that the greater the order, the lower the entropy. Since I did not have any reason (or desire) to challenge my friend, I accepted those premises.

Then came the killer conclusion. Since it was manifestly clear that the theory of evolution implied increasing order (under the theory, biological systems were becoming more diversified, complex, and organized from their highly disordered primeval soup beginnings) this implied that the entropy of the Earth must be decreasing. This violated the law of increasing entropy. Hence evolution must be false.

It was a pretty good argument, I thought at that time. But in a year or two, as I learned more about entropy, that argument fell apart. The catch is that the law of increasing entropy (also known as the second law of thermodynamics) applies to closed, isolated systems only, i.e., systems that have no interaction with any other system. The only really isolated system we have is the entire universe and the law is believed to apply strictly to it.

For any other system, we have to make sure that it is isolated (at least to a good approximation) before we apply the law to it, and this is where my friend's argument breaks down. The Earth is definitely not a closed system. It continuously absorbs and radiates energy. It especially gains energy from the Sun and radiates energy into empty space and it is this exchange of energy that is the engine of biological growth.

So nothing can be inferred from the entropy of the Earth alone. You have to consider the entire system of the Sun, the Earth, and the rest of the universe, and you find that this leads to a net increase of the entire closed system. So the second law of thermodynamics is not violated.


blog.case.edu...

Let me clarify ... If your point is to promote the defacto presense of a creator as a "given" in your "science" (which once again I contend is not a science as defined by our legal system, leading ID Proponents and the scientific community ) then you are wasting your time.

I have said it many times before ... if you have a conclusion that you are trying to prove ... then you are rationalizing ... if you seek the truth you have no preconcieved ideas.

The difference between you and me here is that I concede possibilities including a creator ... you on the other hand presuppose divine elements into your cosmology and work to make it all fit ... the proverbial cart before the horse.

Still waiting for that research data (raw please) and ratified publications in respected scientific sources ... hmmmmmm ...


[edit on 15-1-2006 by LCKob]




posted on Jan, 16 2006 @ 03:22 PM
link   
lckbob, I am sorry i missed your post asking for my research on the stinkbug, I will look it up I assumed the anatomy of a stinkbug was common knowledge, but I state again the other evidence, and observation is just one part of science, what we observe today, is all we got-we cant test or repeat evolution or creation, so that leaves evolution in the same boat. You ask me for research, well what more do I need besides to go outside and look at the complexity of life? I can bring up loads of "research" but i doubt you would read it or believe it, did you go to that site I told you about, www.drdino.com? serious, I bring forth stuff that is real, and observed today, seen today, and you bring forth what, that some guy who was a proponent for ID said that it wasnt science? well Im sure the same guy will tell you that evolution isnt science either, and last i checked we were debating the origins of the world using scientific evidence not statements made by people in court or "experts" now stop using all these court cases and "even this guy says its not" I dont mean to be rude, disrespectful or even make a rub, but thats childish and not scientific. you asked me to bring forth evidence, I did, like you said I brought forth the stink bug, which I shouldnt have to provide evidence for how its made you should have learned about it in school, the only thing i added in was the odds. then I brought forth the law of entropy, which like I said you made this long confusing reply to that contradicted itself, theres to examples of of evidence for creation science, just two, and all I get from you is this link to a site where a proponent for ID said that Id wasnt a science-thats not scientific proof for evolution or against ID. and Im glad they didnt teach Nebraska man in your school, but it is taught in dozens of other schools across the nation. though I have to wonder, you sound as if you have knowledge about him, where did you learn about him? and what "missing link" did they teach you? now you want to debate science, ok, debate science, bring forth some evidence for evolution, not another court case.



posted on Jan, 16 2006 @ 04:27 PM
link   
the_patriot2004:

I have been thinking on how best to respond given the "back and forth nature"

... and it really boils down to this ...

As I have said, I am open to possibilities ... I am Agnostic and thus hold to the possibility of some sort or creator in origins ... what I have been objecting to and I have stated this time and again is that ID claims to be science and yet by definition is only at hypothesis stage ... remember my step comparison to the Scientific process????????

Likewise, as I said, provide (as per established scientific guidelines) the FULL PROCESS not just the Observation and Hypotheisis ... and yes this does include (as I requested the data, testing and peer assessment)

The basic idea is this ... if you propose that ID is a science, which is as impartial as you imply ... then use the acepted methodology to prove your scientific hypothesis. Remember Scientific Methodology is neutral by design (haha funny intended) as a method to assess and promote an idea (hypothesis) ... so I have no problems at all if you use science AS SCIENCE with accepted protocols to lend credence to your assertion of premeditated design with inference to an intelligent designer.

Simple really ... but I still have to ask, why promote a "science" that is predisposed towards the intrinsic notion of "intelligent" design ... which works against neutrality... SM on the otherhand does not presuppose anything but what you can find and prove.

So please, go ahead and make your case. Just be sure that if you want the scientific community and the court to take it seriously, you have to use established methods.

Do this successfully and you will have little problem or objection from me and I suspect the scientific communtiy as well.

LCKob


[edit on 16-1-2006 by LCKob]



posted on Jan, 17 2006 @ 12:19 AM
link   
you say your open to all possibilities but yet you arnt-you have stated that ID isnt a science, and that even mentioning the supernatural isnt science, thats totaly bias...not to be rude, at least thats how Im reading it. If im misinterpreting your statements I apologize, but I dont think I am. , I read your article where proponents for ID claimed it wasnt science, well please read this article for me www.drdino.com...
you might find it interesting. read that and tell me what you think.

[edit on 17-1-2006 by the_patriot2004]



posted on Jan, 17 2006 @ 01:12 AM
link   
Also, for further reading on the whole law of entropy question go here
www.answersingenesis.org...



posted on Jan, 17 2006 @ 01:44 AM
link   

Originally posted by the_patriot2004
you say your open to all possibilities but yet you arnt-you have stated that ID isnt a science, and that even mentioning the supernatural isnt science, thats totaly bias...not to be rude, at least thats how Im reading it. If im misinterpreting your statements I apologize, but I dont think I am. , I read your article where proponents for ID claimed it wasnt science, well please read this article for me www.drdino.com...
you might find it interesting. read that and tell me what you think.

[edit on 17-1-2006 by the_patriot2004]


I am open ... just as the scientfic community is "open" to new ideas ... you just have to follow the estabished guidelines that ALL scientists do in order to promote their hypothesis, no more no less.

You want to legitimize ID yes? Well now here is your chance the_patriot2004 ... this is exactly what you asked for... you want the world to acknowledge that ID is a science ... well then use the rules of science to make your case ...

KEEP IN MIND, THIS DISPUTE WAS OVER WHETHER ID WAS AS SCIENCE GO BACK AND LOOK FOR YOURSELF IT IS IS DOCUMENTED IN THE THREAD ... SO NOW I AM GIVING YOU YOUR CHANCE ... OR ARE YOU BACKING OUT OF YOUR CLAIM OF SCIENCE?

.. and by the way ... as for my explanation our issue on thermodynamics ... since we seem to be at an impass, I call on the authorities on ATS to either verify which answer is valid (if any) ... I am open to CRITICAL scrutiny ... are you the_Patriot2004?

... but back to the main issue ... MAKE YOUR SCIENTIFIC CASE FOR ID (with all the required elements and protocols).

The world is waiting ... either you can, or you cannot ... please don't make excuses or try to divert this challenge to your documented assertion that [B] Intelligent design is a science

To recap

1. The assertion by the_patriot2004 that "ID is a science" is being challenged by LCKob. Criteria: The rules and protocols for the execution of the comprehensive and global process of Scientific Method as per established steps within said method.


A request to authorities on Entropy and the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics ...

2. For any and all authorities on Entropy and the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics, please review both answers as provided by LCKob and the_patriot2004. to determine validity of one, both or none. ... with given assessment criteria.

LCKob


[edit on 17-1-2006 by LCKob]



posted on Jan, 17 2006 @ 02:50 AM
link   

Originally posted by the_patriot2004
you say your open to all possibilities but yet you arnt-you have stated that ID isnt a science, and that even mentioning the supernatural isnt science, thats totaly bias...not to be rude, at least thats how Im reading it. If im misinterpreting your statements I apologize, but I dont think I am. , I read your article where proponents for ID claimed it wasnt science, well please read this article for me www.drdino.com...
you might find it interesting. read that and tell me what you think.

[edit on 17-1-2006 by the_patriot2004]


I am open ... just as the scientfic community is "open" to new ideas ... you just have to follow the estabished guidelines that ALL scientists do in order to promote their hypothesis, no more no less.

the_patriot2004
yet your not, do I need to refer to your previous statement that ID is adding the supernatural into science, and therefore not science. and the "scientific" world these days often times, on both the ID side and the evolution side get so worked up in "their" ideas that they automatically reject any thing that goes against their idea of "science"

You want to legitimize ID yes? Well now here is your chance the_patriot2004 ... this is exactly what you asked for... you want the world to acknowledge that ID is a science ... well then use the rules of science to make your case ...

the_patriot2004
I thought that was what I was doing, I have brought forth both natural evidence, although I must apologize I still havent had time to look up my research on the stink bug, the laws of physics which I posted research material for your pleasure in an earlier post, and an article about why ID is a science, I doubt you read either.

KEEP IN MIND, THIS DISPUTE WAS OVER WHETHER ID WAS AS SCIENCE GO BACK AND LOOK FOR YOURSELF IT IS IS DOCUMENTED IN THE THREAD ... SO NOW I AM GIVING YOU YOUR CHANCE ... OR ARE YOU BACKING OUT OF YOUR CLAIM OF SCIENCE?

the_patriot2004
refer to earlier statement.

.. and by the way ... as for my explanation our issue on thermodynamics ... since we seem to be at an impass, I call on the authorities on ATS to either verify which answer is valid (if any) ... I am open to CRITICAL scrutiny ... are you the_Patriot2004?

the_patriot2004
I am always open to scrutiny and I look forward to ATS's reply, and will give them as much respect, read their reply, and give it as much consideration as I would any other argument made by anyone, ID proponent or not, and then decide if I agree or disagree with them.

... but back to the main issue ... MAKE YOUR SCIENTIFIC CASE FOR ID (with all the required elements and protocols).

the_patriot2004
actually I have, you have not. while I have brought forth evidence and arguments supporting my theory, all you have done as argued with my argument for the law of thermodynamics and brought forth the statement of a few people and that ID is not science, which I think is weak, and I have asked this before in this thread, if evolution is such a science and so true where is your evidence, you have yet to present any evidence. show me some evidence, perhaps some empirical proof that evolution is true. a missing link, proof of millions of years, anything. if evolution is true after all you should have more then enough material to show me, yourself, without giving me a link to another site. after all, nature should speak for itself, why do you need someone else to do the talking for you?

The world is waiting ... either you can, or you cannot ... please don't make excuses or try to divert this challenge to your documented assertion that [B] Intelligent design is a science

the_patriot2004
I have made no excuses, and I believe put forth a solid argument for ID, whether you accept it or not is up to you. I look forward to ATS reply to this debate, and hope to continue this intellectual discussion with the hope that we both can learn from it.

To recap

1. The assertion by the_patriot2004 that "ID is a science" is being challenged by LCKob. Criteria: The rules and protocols for the execution of the comprehensive and global process of Scientific Method as per established steps within said method.


A request to authorities on Entropy and the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics ...

2. For any and all authorities on Entropy and the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics, please review both answers as provided by LCKob and the_patriot2004. to determine validity of one, both or none. ... with given assessment criteria.

LCKob



posted on Jan, 17 2006 @ 03:06 AM
link   

Originally posted by the_patriot2004


Originally posted by the_patriot2004
you say your open to all possibilities but yet you arnt-you have stated that ID isnt a science, and that even mentioning the supernatural isnt science, thats totaly bias...not to be rude, at least thats how Im reading it. If im misinterpreting your statements I apologize, but I dont think I am. , I read your article where proponents for ID claimed it wasnt science, well please read this article for me www.drdino.com...
you might find it interesting. read that and tell me what you think.

[edit on 17-1-2006 by the_patriot2004]


I am open ... just as the scientfic community is "open" to new ideas ... you just have to follow the estabished guidelines that ALL scientists do in order to promote their hypothesis, no more no less.

the_patriot2004
yet your not, do I need to refer to your previous statement that ID is adding the supernatural into science, and therefore not science. and the "scientific" world these days often times, on both the ID side and the evolution side get so worked up in "their" ideas that they automatically reject any thing that goes against their idea of "science"

You want to legitimize ID yes? Well now here is your chance the_patriot2004 ... this is exactly what you asked for... you want the world to acknowledge that ID is a science ... well then use the rules of science to make your case ...

the_patriot2004
I thought that was what I was doing, I have brought forth both natural evidence, although I must apologize I still havent had time to look up my research on the stink bug, the laws of physics which I posted research material for your pleasure in an earlier post, and an article about why ID is a science, I doubt you read either.

KEEP IN MIND, THIS DISPUTE WAS OVER WHETHER ID WAS AS SCIENCE GO BACK AND LOOK FOR YOURSELF IT IS IS DOCUMENTED IN THE THREAD ... SO NOW I AM GIVING YOU YOUR CHANCE ... OR ARE YOU BACKING OUT OF YOUR CLAIM OF SCIENCE?

the_patriot2004
refer to earlier statement.

.. and by the way ... as for my explanation our issue on thermodynamics ... since we seem to be at an impass, I call on the authorities on ATS to either verify which answer is valid (if any) ... I am open to CRITICAL scrutiny ... are you the_Patriot2004?

the_patriot2004
I am always open to scrutiny and I look forward to ATS's reply, and will give them as much respect, read their reply, and give it as much consideration as I would any other argument made by anyone, ID proponent or not, and then decide if I agree or disagree with them.

... but back to the main issue ... MAKE YOUR SCIENTIFIC CASE FOR ID (with all the required elements and protocols).

the_patriot2004
actually I have, you have not. while I have brought forth evidence and arguments supporting my theory, all you have done as argued with my argument for the law of thermodynamics and brought forth the statement of a few people and that ID is not science, which I think is weak, and I have asked this before in this thread, if evolution is such a science and so true where is your evidence, you have yet to present any evidence. show me some evidence, perhaps some empirical proof that evolution is true. a missing link, proof of millions of years, anything. if evolution is true after all you should have more then enough material to show me, yourself, without giving me a link to another site. after all, nature should speak for itself, why do you need someone else to do the talking for you?

The world is waiting ... either you can, or you cannot ... please don't make excuses or try to divert this challenge to your documented assertion that [B] Intelligent design is a science

the_patriot2004
I have made no excuses, and I believe put forth a solid argument for ID, whether you accept it or not is up to you. I look forward to ATS reply to this debate, and hope to continue this intellectual discussion with the hope that we both can learn from it.

To recap

1. The assertion by the_patriot2004 that "ID is a science" is being challenged by LCKob. Criteria: The rules and protocols for the execution of the comprehensive and global process of Scientific Method as per established steps within said method.


A request to authorities on Entropy and the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics ...

2. For any and all authorities on Entropy and the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics, please review both answers as provided by LCKob and the_patriot2004. to determine validity of one, both or none. ... with given assessment criteria.

LCKob




Okay if such is your reply then we shall see what others say on this matter ... because at this point it has become "Tit for Tat" with no third party objectivity.

What we are lacking is some semblence of "peer review" ... so I look foreward to such imput by others.

... and remember, you are making the assertion that ID is a science ... so its up to you to make a case for it. with the very requirements that embody the discipline.

LCKob

[edit on 17-1-2006 by LCKob]



posted on Jan, 17 2006 @ 04:37 AM
link   
I wont even pretend to be an expert, but I will say that in my experience anyone who uses the works of Kent Hovinid or Answers in Genesis is using the wrong sources.

AIG and DrDino are both creationist sites that do not participate in mainstream scientific discourse. If they did that then ID might be accepted by some scientists.



posted on Jan, 17 2006 @ 08:11 AM
link   

Originally posted by LCKob
.. and by the way ... as for my explanation our issue on thermodynamics ... since we seem to be at an impass, I call on the authorities on ATS to either verify which answer is valid (if any) ... I am open to CRITICAL scrutiny ... are you the_Patriot2004?

the_patriot2004
I am always open to scrutiny and I look forward to ATS's reply, and will give them as much respect, read their reply, and give it as much consideration as I would any other argument made by anyone, ID proponent or not, and then decide if I agree or disagree with them.

1. The assertion by the_patriot2004 that "ID is a science" is being challenged by LCKob. Criteria: The rules and protocols for the execution of the comprehensive and global process of Scientific Method as per established steps within said method.


A request to authorities on Entropy and the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics ...

2. For any and all authorities on Entropy and the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics, please review both answers as provided by LCKob and the_patriot2004. to determine validity of one, both or none. ... with given assessment criteria.

LCKob

I would be happy to fufill this role. LCKob, I would imagine that you have some reservations with respect to allowing me to be involved in this assessment. Irrespective of my particular position on IDT as a science, I think I can be a fair judge of your arguments. I have really only been loosely following what you two have been going back and forth about, so I am unaware of which 2nd law arguments have been put forth.

My qualifications to speak on the 2nd Law: I think most in the O & C forum are reasonably familiar with my background as a scientist. In particular, a large portion of my doctoral dissertation was research involving enzyme thermodynamics, ie: thermodynamics in biological systems. There was a bunch of biophysics stuff too, but that's not really relevant here. In particular, my research involved significant probing of the 2nd law, and my dissertation contains several sections where entropy are relevant to the my thesis. A good portion of the work involved the interaction between enthalpy and entropy as per the Gibbs Free energy equations.

At this point, I've not read through the entire thread. I will refrain from doing so. In the interest of maintaining a semblance of objectivity, it might be better were I not too read arguments from thepatriot or LCKob. If I am going to evaluate your thermodynamic aruguments, reading the other stuff could potentially affect my objectivity. It might be better if LCKob and thepatriot co-operatively assemble a compendium of their thermodynamic arguments specifically.

LCKob, please feel free to U2U me with reservations/concerns. We've spoken privately before, and I think you'll agree that I am a reasonable individual... perhaps a little quirky, but I'm a scientist... what do you expect?

Honestly, I am perfectly capable of evaluating information purely based on its accuracy, irrespective of my particular feelings with respect to the arguments being offered. Let me know what you two think.



posted on Jan, 17 2006 @ 11:25 AM
link   
Mattison0922:

"LCKob, please feel free to U2U me with reservations/concerns. We've spoken privately before, and I think you'll agree that I am a reasonable individual... perhaps a little quirky, but I'm a scientist... what do you expect?

Honestly, I am perfectly capable of evaluating information purely based on its accuracy, irrespective of my particular feelings with respect to the arguments being offered. Let me know what you two think."



LCKob:

Okay, will send u2u ... although, I would still like multiple sources (no disrepect intended) ... merely from the standpoint that it minimizes the "single source contention".



posted on Jan, 17 2006 @ 12:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by LCKob
Okay, will send u2u ... although, I would still like multiple sources (no disrepect intended) ... merely from the standpoint that it minimizes the "single source contention".

No offense taken... the more the merrier... would encourage you to contact maybe Zipdot... he's professed to know a good deal about entropy. Of course melatonin says he has a degree in chemistry... he might know a good deal about thermodynamics also.



posted on Jan, 17 2006 @ 12:40 PM
link   
I have seen many arguments about entropy from both sides, using Gibbs equations. What it seems is that depending on how you frame the issue, you can get whatever answer you want. So, not convinced by either side. I definitely have a grasp of physical chem, but it depends on what you put in the equation (GIGO), so unless we know the conditions we are modelling, you can't model.

But I have seen the arguments of order to disorder given as genome issues and information issues and this, I believe, suggests there is probably no intelligent guidance, unless we see nature's selection processes as ID, which is really just D.

So we have the argument that...

"As loose information is diffused, information entropy will tend to increase unless energy, guided by intelligence, is added into the system to stabilize it"

Observation: Information is not decreasing.
Conclusion: There must be intelligence guiding the energy that is being added to the system.

BUT: No energy guidance has been observed. It has also been shown that loose information, coupled with a selection mechanism, increases information. It has yet to be shown that natural selection cannot be a suitable selection method. (schnieder's Ev alogorithm shows exactly this, given it's extreme selection, but it follows the mechanism of NS; Schneider T.D., (2000). Nucleic Acid Research, 28, 2794).

OR alternatively....

"As loose information is diffused, information entropy will tend to increase unless guided by a selection method"

Observation: Information is not decreasing.
Conclusion: There must be a selection method.

So take your pick, lol. It's either external guidance or NS. Until NS is shown to be insufficient or we can find evidence of external guidance, then NS will be the best explanation. Genetic algortithms consistently show that information can increase when not guided by intelligence (just selection rules suffice).

As for the genome business, I think mattison would have a better idea, but a point I have seen made is - bacteria have been under the same process as all organisms and they are very streamlined and show no signs of degradation. So if bacteria are ID'ed why have they not degraded? But again, this is not my area of speciality.

But I will raise the issue of origins as I see it - the aim of science is to show if, and how, life can develop from the basic molecules of the universe, under the physical laws of this universe. We could apply ID with supernatural powers anywhere, at anytime, and get the same evidence we see today. Even if we show that abiogenesis from basic molecules is a fact, we cannot rule out ID, but science should not be about the supernatural unless we can test for positive evidence of it.





[edit on 17-1-2006 by melatonin]

[edit on 17-1-2006 by melatonin]

[edit on 17-1-2006 by melatonin]



posted on Jan, 17 2006 @ 12:55 PM
link   
Here is the basis for contention in regards to the issue on Entropy

(please see thread context if there is any doubt as to meaning, verbage or intent.)

In a nutshell, the_patriot2004 stated the following: (note that none of the thread verbage has been altered within qoutes and to the best of my ability has not been taken out of context.

Says the_patriot2004

"only strictly increases in an Isolated system? where did you get that, I can walk outside and tell you that thats false. leave a house for 40 years without takin care of it and come back and it will fall apart. People with genetics will tell you that every time a baby is born it has lost DNA from its parents. to say that entropy only increases in Isolated systems is an outright lie and is not science, any braniac can tell you that ..."


I replied with the following quote that I thought was particularly appropriate in context:


"When I was in my first or second year of college, a friend of mine who belonged to a fundamentalist Christian church in Sri Lanka said that he had heard of a convincing scientific proof against the theory of evolution. He said the proof centered on the concept of entropy. I had already heard of the term entropy at that time, but I definitely did not understand the concept, since I had not as yet studied thermodynamics in any detail.

Anyway, my friend told me that there was this law of physics that said that the total entropy of a system had to always increase. He also said that the entropy of a system was inversely related to the amount of the order and complexity in the system, so that the greater the order, the lower the entropy. Since I did not have any reason (or desire) to challenge my friend, I accepted those premises.

Then came the killer conclusion. Since it was manifestly clear that the theory of evolution implied increasing order (under the theory, biological systems were becoming more diversified, complex, and organized from their highly disordered primeval soup beginnings) this implied that the entropy of the Earth must be decreasing. This violated the law of increasing entropy. Hence evolution must be false.

It was a pretty good argument, I thought at that time. But in a year or two, as I learned more about entropy, that argument fell apart. The catch is that the law of increasing entropy (also known as the second law of thermodynamics) applies to closed, isolated systems only, i.e., systems that have no interaction with any other system. The only really isolated system we have is the entire universe and the law is believed to apply strictly to it.

For any other system, we have to make sure that it is isolated (at least to a good approximation) before we apply the law to it, and this is where my friend's argument breaks down. The Earth is definitely not a closed system. It continuously absorbs and radiates energy. It especially gains energy from the Sun and radiates energy into empty space and it is this exchange of energy that is the engine of biological growth.

So nothing can be inferred from the entropy of the Earth alone. You have to consider the entire system of the Sun, the Earth, and the rest of the universe, and you find that this leads to a net increase of the entire closed system. So the second law of thermodynamics is not violated."


blog.case.edu...






LCKob

[edit on 17-1-2006 by LCKob]



posted on Jan, 17 2006 @ 01:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by melatonin
I have seen many arguments about entropy from both sides...

Melatonin, I am sure that both thepatriot and LCKob will appreciate the info.. .
but allow me to clarify briefly: LCKob and thepatriot are interested in a specific evaluation of their claims re: entropy and the 2nd Law contained in this thread.


As for the genome business, I think mattison would have a better idea, but a point I have seen made is - bacteria have been under the same process as all organisms and they are very streamlined and show no signs of degradation. So if bacteria are ID'ed why have they not degraded? But again, this is not my area of speciality.


Ultimately, there is no debate here. If you evaluate extant organisms specifically in terms of what the 2nd law the obvious conclusion is that cells in general are 'organized systems' that decrease local entropy at the expense of systemic (ie: universal, in the sense of the universe, not ubiquitous) entropy. Or IOW, maintaining order, ie: not devolving to randomness is what cells DO. Cells prohibit or minimize local entropic increases via the enthalpic output of other systems that are increasing entropy. The 2nd law argument is pretty much invalid the context of extant biological systems. Whether or not genomes have 'degraded' is debatable, but the essence of your argument is true. Organisms for the most part maintain their genomic integrity for the reason I have stated above. Again IOW, they are utilizing the energy (enthalpic output) of systems that ARE increasing in entropy to minimize their own degradation due to entropy laws.



posted on Jan, 17 2006 @ 01:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by Uncle Joe
I wont even pretend to be an expert, but I will say that in my experience anyone who uses the works of Kent Hovinid or Answers in Genesis is using the wrong sources.

AIG and DrDino are both creationist sites that do not participate in mainstream scientific discourse. If they did that then ID might be accepted by some scientists.


so you wil discount the information based on the fact that they are presented by kent Hovind and Aig, I present to you this is not science but scientific Bias. what they have is scientific research, and stating that they dont participate in scientific discourse shows a lack of research on your part. I would like to bring forth 2 points, the first is there is that science is science, and just because someone isnt going along with everyone else does not that their wrong. the second point is this, they do participate in mainstream scientific discourse, especially Kent Hovind. He regularly meets and debates with mainline College professors and scientists who are pro-evolution and debates them in public forums. all of these debates are documented and many of which are also video taped and released to the public. Kent Hovind will meet with any professor to debate ID and evolution, all you have to do is ask. He also has a 2 million dollar reward for empirical proof of evolution on his site, and to this point no one has been able to collect it. AiG does participate in mainstream scientific discourse as well, though not to the point that Kent Hovind does since AIG tends to focus on educating those who already believe in ID, and teaching them how to defend it. Difference in roles. but to simply discount an argument because of the reason you stated is extreme scientific prejudice and should not be allowed in the scientific community. now if you can prove scientifically that their arguments are wrong, thats one thing, but discounting the argument because of the source is something completley different.



posted on Jan, 17 2006 @ 01:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by LCKob
In a nutshell, the_patriot2004 stated the following: (note that none of the thread verbage has been altered within qoutes and to the best of my ability has not been taken out of context.

Says the_patriot2004

"only strictly increases in an Isolated system? where did you get that, I can walk outside and tell you that thats false. leave a house for 40 years without takin care of it and come back and it will fall apart. People with genetics will tell you that every time a baby is born it has lost DNA from its parents. to say that entropy only increases in Isolated systems is an outright lie and is not science, any braniac can tell you that ..."

I won't address the issue of an isolated system here and now. The fallacy with the 'house' argument is the same as why entropy arguments really aren't relevant in the context of existing biological systems... or at least why they're hard to argue with. If you use an ineffective or false entropy argument, you're likely to get burned... hard by someone who really does understand this stuff.

Let me begin by asking you this: Why do you have to leave the house for it to fall apart?

Because you're not expending any 'energy' to upkeep the house.

Cells are engaged in constant energy expenditure in their own upkeep.

I personally would never say that a baby has 'lost' DNA from it's parents. It only receives half of a parents DNA, but the missing half is made up for by the other parent. Humans that lost DNA, even a single base with every reproduction of the full organism wouldn't last too many generations.


I replied with the following quote that I thought was particularly appropriate in context:

[snip]
Then came the killer conclusion. Since it was manifestly clear that the theory of evolution implied increasing order (under the theory, biological systems were becoming more diversified, complex, and organized from their highly disordered primeval soup beginnings) this implied that the entropy of the Earth must be decreasing. This violated the law of increasing entropy. Hence evolution must be false.

The false statement is contained in bold, leading the false conclusion (underlined); I'm not good at these things but I believe the fallacy is known as non causa, pro causa


It was a pretty good argument, I thought at that time. But in a year or two, as I learned more about entropy, that argument fell apart. The catch is that the law of increasing entropy (also known as the second law of thermodynamics) applies to closed, isolated systems only, i.e., systems that have no interaction with any other system. The only really isolated system we have is the entire universe and the law is believed to apply strictly to it.

For any other system, we have to make sure that it is isolated (at least to a good approximation) before we apply the law to it, and this is where my friend's argument breaks down. The Earth is definitely not a closed system. It continuously absorbs and radiates energy. It especially gains energy from the Sun and radiates energy into empty space and it is this exchange of energy that is the engine of biological growth.

So nothing can be inferred from the entropy of the Earth alone. You have to consider the entire system of the Sun, the Earth, and the rest of the universe, and you find that this leads to a net increase of the entire closed system. So the second law of thermodynamics is not violated."

Pretty much everything stated here is true. You can't consider the 2nd law as an argument against evolution in this manner.



posted on Jan, 17 2006 @ 01:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by the_patriot2004
so you wil discount the information based on the fact that they are presented by kent Hovind

the_patriot, I know this isn't directed at me, but Kent Hovind really is a fool. He's for the most part an outcast even among the young-earth crowd. His Ph.D. is from a diploma mill. 'Dr.' Hovind's dissertation isn't even available for review, which is pretty much unprecedented. You'd be better off not associating with him... not because he's a creationist, but because... and I don't say this very often... he's a moron, and an A@#$&*^, on top of that. This is speaking from personal experience. I've attended his seminars and chatted him up quite a few times. He's a jerk, and an uneducated fool. Sorry.


and Aig,

Not as familiar with these guys... but you might want to check out www.reasons.org... I think maybe .com. Hugh Ross is a respectable guy with a real degree and interest in science.



posted on Jan, 17 2006 @ 01:51 PM
link   
well I didn't even want to approach the entropy of a closed system by finding Atkins' Physical chem. and get a reliable quote, "the earth as closed" is patently false, even wikipedia can tell you this. As a n00b, I didn't want to be cruel (I left that to someone else) and so approached from a different, more sophisticated ID angle, lol.

The arguments from some ID'ers focus on entropy of genomes and have produced equations to support it, they are totally unreliable and use arbitrary values, there is no evidence to support this assertion....

CLAIM: Mathematical calculations and evidence show that nature has a tendency to disorganize: As loose information is diffused, information entropy will tend to increase unless energy, guided by intelligence, is added into the system to stabilize it.

FACT: This shows the human genome to be DEVOLVING not EVOLVING. This is what ID predicts. Darwinism predicts the exact opposite tendency. This devolving tendency in vertebrate genomes is direct evidence for intelligent design.

Don't know if you'd want to even approach this issue Matt, lol.



[edit on 17-1-2006 by melatonin]

[edit on 17-1-2006 by melatonin]



posted on Jan, 17 2006 @ 02:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by melatonin
CLAIM: Mathematical calculations and evidence show that nature has a tendency to disorganize: As loose information is diffused, information entropy will tend to increase unless energy,guided by intelligence, is added into the system to stabilize it.

FACT: This shows the human genome to be DEVOLVING not EVOLVING. This is what ID predicts. Darwinism predicts the exact opposite tendency. This devolving tendency in vertebrate genomes is direct evidence for intelligent design.

Don't know if you'd want to even approach this issue Matt, lol.

The unnecessary portion of this claim is bolded.

Are you claiming that genomes are in a state of de-evolution?



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 2  3  4    6 >>

log in

join