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 Is Just As Valid A Theory As Evolutionism

page: 14
1
<< 11  12  13    15  16  17 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 7 2006 @ 08:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by Rren

Does not knowing the identity of the designer make testing IC impossible? Which tenants of ID, specifically, cannot be tested due to a lack of knowledge about the designer?


I do not have an issue with the lack of knowledge surrounding the identity of 'the designer', rather, I have an issue with the proof that a 'designer' ever existed. I find that people are not direct enough in these forms; so if you could provide in point form the tangible evidence that demonstrates that there must have been a designer, that would be much appreciated. Or am I miss understanding your position completely and you also agree that there is no evidence for a designer and that it is based on faith? Sorry if I'm screwing that up.


Originally posted by Rren
FYI there's no such thing as a "strong" or "weak" theory it's a Theory or it's not, opinions are irrelevant.


I disagree with this, because lets suppose that we had two competing theories regarding gravity(or whatever). If theory A was able to make a large number of predictions and was very simple in nature, while theory B was not able to make as many predictions and was very complicated, theory A would be a stronger theory regarding gravity. We must always keep in mind Ockham's razor. I mean, it makes sense too; if a simpler theory could accurately make the same or even more predictions then a much more complicated theory, then the simpler theory would be stronger. Of course, in no way am I implying that we should throw out the more complex theory, but I'm just saying this to make my point that I believe there are strong and weak theories. Also, here is a quote from Steven Hawking:

"According to Stephen Hawking in A Brief History of Time, "a theory is a good theory if it satisfies two requirements: It must accurately describe a large class of observations on the basis of a model that contains only a few arbitrary elements, and it must make definite predictions about the results of future observations."
en.wikipedia.org...


Originally posted by Rren

Why is it infinite (in the past i mean/no start point/timeless) and how is that tested?



Well, what I am saying is that the cyclical theory of the universe dictates that the universe has been in an infinite number of expansions and contractions. In other words, the universe has simply existed, and was not created. Now, I wouldn't even pretend to tell you that I can understand that; humans cannot really grasp the concept of infinity, I mean, we need a start and an end. But I can accept the idea that something can exist and was not created, because we can prove that infinity exists in nature.

Also, I took a look at the blog link you sent and it was very interesting. I forget the exact number and im to lazy to go and look for it again, but I think it was something to the effect that the odds of life forming are like 1 to a trillion, trillion, trillion, etc. All I am saying is, consider that the universe has always existed; that it has been around for an infinite period of time. Then despite the slightest of chances of life forming, it would have occurred, because there are an inifinite number of trials; even if the chances were one to a trillion^trillion^trillion.............. it doesnt matter, because probability is no longer a factor. This is the nature of infinity, it is weird, but very interesting to ponder.


[edit on 7-8-2006 by James_Moriarty]




posted on Aug, 7 2006 @ 09:57 PM
link   
Rren, are you now claiming that you are not familiar with the founders of the ID cult?

Moreover, you inability to comprehend a simple mathmatical example is testament only to your lack of ability to reason. Since you so harshly demand another source, as a pimp demands a whore to sell her vagina, I will bite, but just this one time.

The previously mentioned statements, the ones that you do not understand, are simply a sophomoric summary of the work of John Allen Paulos. "...rarity by itself shouldn't necessarily be evidence of anything. When one is dealt a bridge hand of thirteen cards, the probability of being dealt that particular hand is less than one in 600 billion. Still, it would be absurd for someone to be dealt a hand, examine it carefully, calculate that the probability of getting it is less than one in 600 billion, and then conclude that he must not have been dealt that very hand because it is so very improbable. --- Innumeracy: Mathematical Illiteracy and its Consequences

It is a complete refutation that "life as we know it" is mathmatically impossible because the odds say that it is as such. Just like the rolls of the dice and the hands of cards, we were delt the current universe, DNA, and planet. To argue that the odds are realivant to prove that something that did happen did not happen is a kin to arguing that it is impossible that the Earth orbit the sun because the sky gives the impression that the sun orbits the Earth.

You have nothing more in your arsenel than childish name-calling. Your refusal to deny that you are an agent in the ID cult conspiracy along with your beloved leader, George W. Bush, suggests that you are such a person. Do you disagree? Do you deny it?



posted on Aug, 11 2006 @ 12:29 AM
link   

Originally posted by Rev Paine
Rren, are you now claiming that you are not familiar with the founders of the ID cult?


I'm familiar with the history, yes. Are you still claiming to not understand the definition of cult or pluralistic democracy for that matter?



Moreover, you inability to comprehend a simple mathmatical example is testament only to your lack of ability to reason.



You came up with a very large, and completely random, string of (11,000+) numbers. Are you still not seeing it? Pretend you did your experiment and wrote down the numbers. Now you have a target... ever play the lottery? I don't believe it's I who fails to comprehend here. Would every (different) string of numbers also be meaningful? Sinking in yet?


Since you so harshly demand another source, as a pimp demands a whore to sell her vagina, I will bite, but just this one time.


Mom, is that you? *drops the pimp hand on 'em* You got my source now [censored]!


*cough* Here's the source for your cut&paste *cough* ('odds in a bridge game') - en.wikipedia.org... Although I do see that exact argument and quote on several sites... perhaps you've read the book. Either way mods are pretty hard on plaguarism/un-sourced text, FYI.


For arguments sake the estimate (Crick's) for life happening by chance is: 1:10^2,000,000,000. Here's a critique of another, yet similar, argument against the design inference. Covers the playing card analogy/argument also. Specification is key; mechanism is key... the card analogy is weak imo, because it glosses over the actual issues/details (eg: the search space/possible configuration, mechanism.) ~ s-p-e-c-i-f-i-c-a-t-i-o-n ~

At what point would the inference be warranted in your opinion? For some critics I think never.

You should read this one first: Intelligent Design Theory – An Overview. If you choose to reduce the whole argument to the brainwashing of ID 'cultists' so be it man, really. You should, atleast, read what they have to say first though... else you just look silly *shrug*





You have nothing more in your arsenel than childish name-calling. Your refusal to deny that you are an agent in the ID cult conspiracy along with your beloved leader, George W. Bush, suggests that you are such a person. Do you disagree? Do you deny it?


Look bigot. I'm a registered democrat. I haven't been around all that long but so far I've voted for: Clinton, Gore and Kerry (not too proud of that last one but no WAY would I vote Bush.) I have never donated money to the DI. I do not support teaching ID in public schools. I have no desire to live under a theocracy (FYI neither do the DI if you actually read their arguments) I didn't call you names (prior to "bigot" and that's just an observation based on the way you sterotype those who disagree with you.)

Did I miss anything? What you doin' after this, going to a klan meeting?

'Well you must be an "agent in the ID cult conspiracy'"
If your serious you've got issues, if not you're mildy funny... I guess... for an evillutionist that is.



But hey I knew you were BSin' when you started with your 'cults and dice' conspiracy nonsense.

I had fun too
Now back on that corner [censored] or it's five across the eyes!

Onward brave soldier...

Gooooose fraba, goooose fraaaabaaa.
-Rren

[edit on 11-8-2006 by Rren]

[edit on 11-8-2006 by Rren]



posted on Aug, 11 2006 @ 01:32 AM
link   
Rren - great signature and link.


IMO - the text and secondary links debunk Mendellian-based eugenics theory but not evolutionary theory.



posted on Aug, 11 2006 @ 03:30 AM
link   


I do not have an issue with the lack of knowledge surrounding the identity of 'the designer', rather, I have an issue with the proof that a 'designer' ever existed.


I'm not sure I understand the distinction (design=designer) or why it's necessary. I said that ID makes no comment about the idenity/nature of the designer (it's incapable of doing so) and your reply to that was: 'Well then ID is a weak theory'. It's seems your saying the same thing here without answering the question (eg: Why do you reject ID based on who or what the designer is.) The "designer" isn't identified therefore nobody is offering "proof" of him. It's a question that is, by defintion, outside of the scope of ID.

Try this page and see if that helps.

Yet to place this demand on design hypotheses is ill-conceived. We infer design regularly and reliably without knowing characteristics of the designer or being able to assess what the designer is likely to do. In his 1999 presidential address for the American Philosophical Association Sober himself admits as much in a footnote that deserves to be part of his main text (Testability, Proceedings and Addresses of the APA, 1999, p. 73, n. 20): "To infer watchmaker from watch, you needn't know exactly what the watchmaker had in mind; indeed, you don't even have to know that the watch is a device for measuring time. Archaeologists sometimes unearth tools of unknown function, but still reasonably draw the inference that these things are, in fact, "tools".


"Intelligent design theory makes no claim as to "how" the design occurred, whether it was by natural, or even supernatural causes. In fact, all you can detect through intelligent design theory is that an object was designed--not the metaphysical nature of its causation." [source .pdf]




I find that people are not direct enough in these forms; so if you could provide in point form the tangible evidence that demonstrates that there must have been a designer, that would be much appreciated. Or am I miss understanding your position completely and you also agree that there is no evidence for a designer and that it is based on faith? Sorry if I'm screwing that up.


I find it suprising that you would be here arguing against ID and not be familiar with any of the arguments. I may be paranoid but I think I'm being set up here lol. Here's a good place to start:
Scientific Publications Supporting the Theory of Intelligent Design

TeleoLogic Background Considerations

TeleoLogic: Biotic Reality

Those last two links are lists of essays from Mike Gene and cover alot of the arguments. Hope you find it useful.






"According to Stephen Hawking in A Brief History of Time, "a theory is a good theory if it satisfies two requirements: It must accurately describe a large class of observations on the basis of a model that contains only a few arbitrary elements, and it must make definite predictions about the results of future observations."
en.wikipedia.org...


I misunderstood what you meant by weak/strong theory then. Seems you're conceding that ID is a theory, if only a weak one, then no? Just kidding, I get your point now.
However I think if you follow the logic of many ID critics most hypotheses are incorrectly labled Theories. Like I said this isn't an area I'm all that interested in, so I haven't got much fight in me on it.





But I can accept the idea that something can exist and was not created, because we can prove that infinity exists in nature.


I was with you 'til here. How did we "prove that infinity exists in nature?" I'm willing to concede this is probably over both our heads (conceptualizing infinity) but I'm pretty sure it's never been "proved."



Also, I took a look at the blog link you sent and it was very interesting. I forget the exact number and im to lazy to go and look for it again, but I think it was something to the effect that the odds of life forming are like 1 to a trillion, trillion, trillion, etc. All I am saying is, consider that the universe has always existed; that it has been around for an infinite period of time. Then despite the slightest of chances of life forming, it would have occurred, because there are an inifinite number of trials; even if the chances were one to a trillion^trillion^trillion.............. it doesnt matter, because probability is no longer a factor. This is the nature of infinity, it is weird, but very interesting to ponder.


The numbers/variables are debateable for sure and, if I'm not mistaken, M-theory (variables there-of) came about as a way to explain the 'fine tuning' of the cosmos. I like pondering this stuff myself.
Technically a multiverse (or infinite universe) is an inference just as ID is. Also given that it exists outside our universe (ability to observe) makes it, by definition, supernatural. Same data/evidence, different conclusions/interpretations.

I'm going to be out of town alot for the next few weeks (work stuff) so if I don't get back to you soon I will eventually. Thanks for your comments.




Originally posted by soficrow
Rren - great signature and link.


Thanks sofi, I din't realize you followed the debate much. What's your opinion? I know you like to research protein folding and mutations wrt disease but figured you didn't care for ID (or the debate which would be understandable.) We have another supporter? *crosses fingers*




IMO - the text and secondary links debunk Mendellian-based eugenics theory but not evolutionary theory.


I can agree with that. Like I said in an earlier post (previous page) ID stands in opposition to undirected origins/evolution (not in the special creation sense) and not say common ancestry for example. Assuming we can call neoDarwinian evolution Mendel+ (modern synthesis) then no, ID does not dispute "evolution."

We on the same page?

Regards,
-Rren



posted on Aug, 11 2006 @ 05:17 AM
link   

Originally posted by Paul_Richard
Evolutionary theory is just that...a theory. It is not a proven fact, as there are flaws in the basic, unproven premise -- like the never found missing link between apes and man --


What missing link?

There is no missing link between apes and humans, they evolved simultaneously and also in a parralel way at the same time



If the Universe were a chaotic mess of matter and energy, there could never be life on this planet.


Suggest you read Bryson's A Short History of Everything as a brief primer...


An argument against Intelligent Design is that it is really just a clever form of Creationism. Yet many of the leaders of the French and American revolutions were able to separate Creationism from Deism, while also being instrumental in furthering the principle of separation of church and state. So the argument that ID is simply Creationism in disguise and that it threatens the separation of church and state, simply doesn't wash.


Except that Robespierre was an avowed Republican and anti-papist who made his decision based (according to him) on logical reason, whereas Bush is an avowed Christian who makes his decisions as CEO of USinc based on his faith.


The main strength of Intelligent Design is that it logically points to a higher power having been responsible for the creation of an orderly Universe that enabled life to emerge


The main strength of ID is that it is the thin end of the wedge the bible belt and all they stand for has been looking for with which to shoehorn open the US constitution and separation of church and state they have been forced to endure since The Monkey Trial.

The current vogue for ID is purely political, nothing more and nothing less. A strategy by an unrepresentative minority of Americans to allow them to reshape the nation to their vision as revealed to them by their God.

A lot like the Taliban's mission, really.

[edit on 11-8-2006 by HowlrunnerIV]



posted on Aug, 11 2006 @ 09:06 AM
link   

Originally posted by Rren
FYI there's no such thing as a "strong" or "weak" theory it's a Theory or it's not, opinions are irrelevant.


Yo - Great posts above. FYI, ID opponents have coined the phrases 'strong ID' vs. 'weak ID.' I've not heard it referred to much, but I believe Jerry Coyne's essay in Intelligent Thought: Science vs. the ID movement is the first and perhaps only time I've ever heard it used.

Perhaps this yahoo has read this book... doesn't seem likely, but it would explain a lot.

In any case, for those looking for a good anti-ID book, the abovementioned ain't it. I plan on reviewing it soon... the regurgitated, misrepresented, and otherwise not-actually-anti-ID-anti-ID arguments were horrible... nothing new to see here folks. In any case watch for the review on my blog.

I believe the distinction between the two 'forms' of ID is that the 'weak' form is more-or-less the version I would support, whereas the 'strong' form identifies the designer as the Christian God.

In any case, it obvious that despite all his rantings against it, Jerry Coyne still doesn't understand the very essence of the ID movement. That he describes the 'weak' and 'strong' forms is perfect evidence of this. Coyne can't seem to separate a philosophical assumption from a testable hypothesis based on a design perspective.
Yes, WmAD, Behe, Johnson, and others associated with the ID movement do believe that the designer is Jesus Christ; however, this is their philosophical assumption, and it has nothing to do with ability to test for design scientifically. The same group of people has repeatedly, until blue in the face insisted that the designer, including all philosophical assumptions re: the designer must be left out of the equation; there is simply no scientific way to test for, determine things about, etc. the designer.

To continuously harp on this is just foolish.

So, Rren, let's not be too hard on this chap, eh? Not that I would be accused of practicing any restraint with my keyboard, but perhaps this poor fellow did actually read some real honest to goodness literature that's critical of ID from a 'reliable source.' you know something besides his 'Archie' comics. But when the real ID critics are this confused about the ID movement, what hope is there for poor suckers who read these books and articles, considering them reliable critiques?

I mean check this out:

I disagree with this, because lets suppose that we had two competing theories regarding gravity(or whatever). If theory A was able to make a large number of predictions and was very simple in nature, while theory B was not able to make as many predictions and was very complicated, theory A would be a stronger theory regarding gravity.

Here he is trying to prove his point with an argument from analogy. The point is this: There are two 'forms' of ID, strong and weak.

He then goes on to describe a hypothetical scenario. The scenario contains two competing theories, as opposed to the single theory with two forms he is trying to validate.

So there are actually two problems with this argument from analogy. Firstly, the analogy is totally inappropriate; that is the situations aren't analogous, and secondly, you can't logically 'prove' your argument from analogy by offering hypothetical scenarios.

Perhaps he should be commended for offering:

We must always keep in mind Ockham's razor. I mean, it makes sense too; if a simpler theory could accurately make the same or even more predictions then a much more complicated theory, then the simpler theory would be stronger.

Ockham's razor... it's one of those 'sounds smart' kind of things to throw out there...

And perhaps it would be, if you could somehow demonstrate that the argument from abiogenesis is somehow a more parsimonious and thus, is a superior assumption relative to that of the design perspective.

This is interesting, in a trivial kind of way:

"According to Stephen Hawking in A Brief History of Time, "a theory is a good theory if it satisfies two requirements: It must accurately describe a large class of observations on the basis of a model that contains only a few arbitrary elements, and it must make definite predictions about the results of future observations."
en.wikipedia.org...

This particular reference has been brought up inappropriately - that is in support of something it cannot possibly support, twice within a week's time on the O&C forum.

What are the chances of specifying that one, Rren? I suppose we'd have to consider all the science books there are, and have some sort of correction factor for each book based on the number of copies in print, and the overall popularity of the book. Probably the best thing in determining whether or not something gets cited inappropriately in the O&C forum at ATS is how much it appears in wikipedia, which I believe I hate more everyday.

Wiki's kind of like Wal-mart in that respect though, I hate to go there, but it is often the easiest and most convenient source for a variety of things.



Well, what I am saying is that the cyclical theory of the universe dictates that the universe has been in an infinite number of expansions and contractions.

There's a pretty good reason that no one subscribes to this anymore. It's a significant concept in thermodynamics, and precludes 'infinite expansions and contractions of the universe.' It's called entropy, now run to wiki and look it up, and before you come back ranting about how it doesn't apply, think about it in context with enthalpy and 'infinite expansions and contractions of the universe.'


In other words, the universe has simply existed, and was not created.

Pretty much everyone, science and religion, the entire world over disagrees with you. All available evidence suggests that the universe did not exist at some point in the distant past, and arose quite instantaneously from what would essentially be described as nothing. The first cause of this is of course debatable, whether or not the universe had a beginning is a closed case in the minds of just about everyone. But it does take all kinds here at ATS.

Remember ONLY at ATS can you find that the same individual believes human beings are engineered by aliens from a mysterious planet in an abberant orbit around our sun, and that ID is 'rubbish.' Go figure *shrug*

However, I would like to see this.

But I can accept the idea that something can exist and was not created, because we can prove that infinity exists in nature.

Where does infinity exist in nature, and how can you prove this?


I am saying is, consider that the universe has always existed; that it has been around for an infinite period of time.

Why should this be considered? It's not what science believes, and the only reason you're using this argument is to make life seem inevitable. The cyclical theory is garbage, no one believes it, likely including yourself and you're using it only to make your argument easier.

Fact is you've got about 300 million years or so... MAX. For COMPLEX life, that is fully formed metabolisms etc., to form.



posted on Aug, 11 2006 @ 07:49 PM
link   
as a physicist viz-a-viz a biologist i find myself drawn to a firm belief in "g"od/s (small g, but maybe big g) compared to my genome-obsessed counterparts in the profession which is science. maybe it has something to do with all that time travel, singularities, quantum physics, and relativity et al, i'm not sure.

not one to draft an essay here. but what i feel i know from my studies in maths and physics, coupled with some "daydreaming" (inspired by the great albert einstein) is as follows:

you go in one direction in space and you won't ever find an end, hence, "space" is "infinite." most mathematicians and theoretcal physicists agree on this. likewise, following the other dimension, time appears to have no beginning and end, hence, "time" is . . . "eternal" (to borrow a religious term which is very applicable in maths and physics too).

since time can only be measured as it "relates" to matter and energy, matter and energy are infinite and eternal too. again, most scientists agree upon this. matter can only change its state and energy can only be transferred. but nothing disappears really.

all these things have no beginning and no end - space, time, matter, and energy. this is pretty established scientific orthodoxy. no creation or destruction ex nihilo or whatever catholics believe. interestingly, ancient hebrew texts for the old testament support the interpretation that god"s" (plural) "formed" or "organized" the "universe" out of disorganized "matter", but matter which always existed in one form or another.

my hunch is that "mind" (and/or spirt, soul, self-awareness, consciousness etc) has no beginning and end, just like time, space, matter, and energy.

continual and perpetual existence with mere transformations, but no annihilations. something cannot become nothing nor vice versa. that is physics.

now if mankind can one day be able to travel through time (einstein), surpass the speed of light and travel instantaneously from one point in space/time to another (quantum physics), discover immortality (perhaps utilizing the singularity), design and "create" life by channeling "mind" into matter embryos etc etc - all of this supported by scientific theory and one day a reality - that's the beauty of theoretical physics ie., everything is possible, it's just a matter of time - then mankind will be god, or to borrow hawkins' phrase "will know the mind of god".

the deeper and deeper one studies the mysteries of the universe, the more this becomes evident. darwin, not once, addressed the interplay between his theories and theoretical physics (perhaps because not a lot was known until the 20th century), but his theories have absolutely nothing to say about god, infinity, eternity, and the neverending perpetualness of all dimensions and states of matter, mind, and energy.



posted on Aug, 11 2006 @ 09:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by jackvance88
you go in one direction in space and you won't ever find an end, hence, "space" is "infinite." most mathematicians and theoretcal physicists agree on this.


Most mathematicians and physicists may agree with the idea that a human can't find the end of space via any known travel medium during his life, but that is an entirely different issue than space itself being infinite. While I can't walk to Europe, neither I nor anyone else I can think of doubts that it exists.

Similarly, most mathematicians and theoretical physicists DON"T doubt that the universe had a beginning, and continues to expand into areas it wasn't before, hence it also has an end. Something that has both a beginning and an end is distinctly not infinite.


likewise, following the other dimension, time appears to have no beginning and end, hence, "time" is . . . "eternal" (to borrow a religious term which is very applicable in maths and physics too).

What physics books are you reading? Time definitely has a beginning. I shouldn't have to tell a 'physicist' that spacetime is currently believed to be more or less inseparable. Time exists only as a function of the big bang, has a beginning, and is thus not infinite.


since time can only be measured as it "relates" to matter and energy, matter and energy are infinite and eternal too.

Matter and energy, and hence time are not thought to have existed prior to the big bang, -unless of course you want to count the 'singularity,' a point of infinite spacetime curvature, something that is completely outside the realm of known mathematics and physics, as 'existence,' thus matter, time and energy have a beginning, and are not infinite.


again, most scientists agree upon this. matter can only change its state and energy can only be transferred. but nothing disappears really.

I wholeheartedly disagree. Most scientists agree that time and the universe had a beginning, thus most scientists agree that neither time nor the universe are infinite.


all these things have no beginning and no end - space, time, matter, and energy. this is pretty established scientific orthodoxy.

Again, I'd like to inquire as to which physics books you're referring to. While physics isn't my specialty, I've read a fair amount of this stuff, and no physicist I am familiar with currently subscribes to a theory that the universe is infinite. While there are theories involving infinite, as in an unending number of universes, no mainstream theory currently en vogue subscribes to the idea of an eternal universe, and the theory of infinite parallel universes is something else entirely.

Where are you getting this stuff from?


no creation or destruction ex nihilo or whatever catholics believe. interestingly, ancient hebrew texts for the old testament support the interpretation that god"s" (plural) "formed" or "organized" the "universe" out of disorganized "matter", but matter which always existed in one form or another.

Again, this isn't my area of expertise, but even a loose reading of Genesis argues against this. God may be and have been infinite, but Judaism, and hence Christianity subscribe to doctrines of divine creation... that is God created the universe.

In addition to providing refs. detailing those scientists that believe the universe and time are eternal, please provide refs that demonstrate hebrews believe that universe wasn't created but has always existed. Thanks.


my hunch is that "mind" (and/or spirt, soul, self-awareness, consciousness etc) has no beginning and end, just like time, space, matter, and energy.

Then your hunches stand in stark opposition to what pretty much all of science, including those in your professed area of expertise, physics, believe. Perhaps you'd care to elaborate on why your opinion stands in such stark opposition to that of mainstream, and even non-mainstream sciences, yet you describe it as well accepted.


continual and perpetual existence with mere transformations, but no annihilations. something cannot become nothing nor vice versa. that is physics.

Something may not become nothing, but somethings certainly become unusable. Perhaps you should read up on the concepts of entropy and 'heat death.' A heat death is specifically the type of concept that argues against your infinite universe.

While it's not physics, it is thermodynamics, which is maybe kind of physics... it's physical chemistry anyway... and is pretty hard to argue against, but I anxiously await your response.


now if mankind can one day be able to travel through time (einstein), surpass the speed of light and travel instantaneously from one point in space/time to another (quantum physics), discover immortality (perhaps utilizing the singularity), design and "create" life by channeling "mind" into matter embryos etc etc - all of this supported by scientific theory and one day a reality - that's the beauty of theoretical physics ie., everything is possible, it's just a matter of time - then mankind will be god, or to borrow hawkins' phrase "will know the mind of god".

A theory that can account for everything actually explains nothing.


the deeper and deeper one studies the mysteries of the universe, the more this becomes evident. darwin, not once, addressed the interplay between his theories and theoretical physics (perhaps because not a lot was known until the 20th century), but his theories have absolutely nothing to say about god, infinity, eternity, and the neverending perpetualness of all dimensions and states of matter, mind, and energy.
Probably mostly because dimensions, states of matter, mind, and energy are not perpetual or infinite. They are properties or features of the universe that were not infinite, but appear to have had a beginning as far back as 15 billion years ago. While I've not had any hypno sessions as of recently. I am pretty convinced that my mind didn't exist before the summer of love.

Darwin likely didn't comment on physics because he wasn't a physicist, and the lines between biology, chemistry, and physics were not sufficiently blurred during his life.

[edit on 11-8-2006 by mattison0922]



posted on Aug, 12 2006 @ 12:48 AM
link   

Originally posted by Rren

I din't realize you followed the debate much.




I don't really - just peripherally. Too many interests, other priorities, too little time.





What's your opinion? I know you like to research protein folding and mutations wrt disease but figured you didn't care for ID (or the debate which would be understandable.) We have another supporter? *crosses fingers*





The debate concerns me because I think it's designed to obscure the impact of industrial contamination on proteins, hence microbes and diseases and the genetic code.

...Ie., if there were no 'evolution debate' then we could cut to the chase, and deal with the very real health problems the world now faces.

As it is, we're stuck on a red herring...





IMO - the text and secondary links debunk Mendellian-based eugenics theory but not evolutionary theory.


I can agree with that. Like I said in an earlier post (previous page) ID stands in opposition to undirected origins/evolution (not in the special creation sense) and not say common ancestry for example. Assuming we can call neoDarwinian evolution Mendel+ (modern synthesis) then no, ID does not dispute "evolution."




IMO - neoDarwinian evolution Mendel+ (modern synthesis) is inaccurate spin. imo Darwin was propped up to promote and support ideas of genetic superiority later refined by Galton. OTOH, Lamarck was really onto something when he was looking at the congenital effects of industrial contamination - now supported by observations of RNA interference etc.

imo - accurate evolutionary theory would integrate key concepts from Mendel, Darwin and Lamarck.




We on the same page?



Not sure. IMO - the basic ideas of ID and evolution are entirely compatible, and NOT mutually exclusive. imo - the polarization is almost completely synthetic - designed to obscure the real crises we face.



.



posted on Aug, 12 2006 @ 01:06 AM
link   
Without getting into details, I just want to address the original Topic at hand.

As a concept, I see nothing wrong with Intelligent Design. Its a theory of creation, and deserves as much respect as Vedic creation, alternate creation theories, scientology, etc. Because in the end, we have no right to judge one another for a set of beliefs.


Now I do have a problem trying to pass ID off as science. There is no science involved. No theories or postulations of any scientific kind, leaving only one solution for every answer: God did it.


Thats not science, thats religious philosphy at best, and to try to push that off into science classes is insane, and personally, physically disgusting



posted on Aug, 12 2006 @ 07:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by mattison0922
The cyclical theory is garbage, no one believes it, likely including yourself and you're using it only to make your argument easier.


Dunno Mattision, Steinhardt & Turok's model is seen as a valid avenue of enquiry for some physicists.


Big crunches wipe the slate clean
12 August 2006
Zeeya Merali
Magazine issue 2564
THERE is no such thing as karma, at least not for stars and galaxies in a universe cycling through a series of big bangs and big crunches. Apparently whatever happens to stars and galaxies in the present universe doesn't affect them in their next incarnation.

The cyclic universe model was proposed in 2002 by Paul Steinhardt of Princeton University and Neil Turok of the University of Cambridge. In their model, the universe bounces through a series of big bangs and crunches, with each cycle lasting about a trillion years. The model solves some of the problems with the standard big bang theory, and the researchers have also used it to explain the mystery of why the cosmological constant, which governs the rate of acceleration of the universe's expansion, is so small (New Scientist, 15 May 2006, p 10).

www.newscientistspace.com...

Although, I wouldn't think anyone would believe that organic molecules could pass from one cycle to another and help extend the timeframe for abiogenesis.



[edit on 12-8-2006 by melatonin]



posted on Aug, 12 2006 @ 08:55 PM
link   
To bad ID isn't a THEORY!!! ID is

"I'm right because I said so, no proof, not even going to try and show proof because I know there isn't any. But I'm still right because I said so."

Sorry, Evolution is a Scientific Theory, Religon isn't.



posted on Aug, 13 2006 @ 09:20 AM
link   

Originally posted by melatonin
Dunno Mattision, Steinhardt & Turok's model is seen as a valid avenue of enquiry for some physicists.


Nice to see you, Mel. It's nice to find someone else who actually follows this stuff, even if we don't agree.

I did look at this New Scientist article. Since there wasn't much there, I can't really comment on the validity of their idea... also because I'm not much of a physicist.

While I suppose Steinhardt and Turok should be commended for not fearing science orthodoxy, I can't that I personally could see myself subscribing to such a model until they solve the entropy problem.

The entropy issue, and specifically loss of matther/energy via heat death are extremely difficult problems for the big crunch to overcome. This article doesn't address the issue of entropy at all. The article further doesn't even mention the Omega value thought to be required to initiate a big crunch. Currently most physicists don't believe Omega is adequate to initiate a big crunch, even considering undiscovered dark matter.

I can't subscribe to such a theory until these questions are addressed in detail.

I find it interesting that Tipler (a creationist) who proposed this theory years ago, was labeled a pseudoscientist, mostly because of what the thought Omega was evidence of, while these scientist propose the exact same theory, yet these guy propose more-or-less the same idea, and now it's described as a valid avenue of inquiry. Weird.



posted on Aug, 13 2006 @ 09:26 AM
link   

Originally posted by WolfofWar
Now I do have a problem trying to pass ID off as science. There is no science involved. No theories or postulations of any scientific kind, leaving only one solution for every answer: God did it.


Thats not science, thats religious philosphy at best, and to try to push that off into science classes is insane, and personally, physically disgusting


And these statements, more-or-less perfectly demonstrate how much ID you've actually read or considered: None.

No theories or postulations? I would suggest you actually read an ID article, visit a pro-ID website, or hell, click on one of the many ID links that Rren has provided right here in this forum on ATS before making such a ridiculous and untrue blanket statement. Whether or not one agrees with the 'theories and postulations' of ID is certainly up for debate, whether they exist isn't.

To claim they don't exist simply unmasks your near complete ignorace re: this issue.



posted on Aug, 13 2006 @ 10:31 AM
link   

Originally posted by soficrow

Originally posted by Rren

I din't realize you followed the debate much.




I don't really - just peripherally. Too many interests, other priorities, too little time.


Understood. I know you're familiar with the science (protein folding etc.) and that's why I asked.






What's your opinion? I know you like to research protein folding and mutations wrt disease but figured you didn't care for ID (or the debate which would be understandable.) We have another supporter? *crosses fingers*





The debate concerns me because I think it's designed to obscure the impact of industrial contamination on proteins, hence microbes and diseases and the genetic code.

...Ie., if there were no 'evolution debate' then we could cut to the chase, and deal with the very real health problems the world now faces.

As it is, we're stuck on a red herring...


Interesting. Never thought of it that way before (I may be worst conspiracy theorist on the planet though.) I do not agree that the debate over ID/evolution is "designed" to cover up health issues... says the world's worst CT.









IMO - the text and secondary links debunk Mendellian-based eugenics theory but not evolutionary theory.


I can agree with that. Like I said in an earlier post (previous page) ID stands in opposition to undirected origins/evolution (not in the special creation sense) and not say common ancestry for example. Assuming we can call neoDarwinian evolution Mendel+ (modern synthesis) then no, ID does not dispute "evolution."




IMO - neoDarwinian evolution Mendel+ (modern synthesis) is inaccurate spin. imo Darwin was propped up to promote and support ideas of genetic superiority later refined by Galton. OTOH, Lamarck was really onto something when he was looking at the congenital effects of industrial contamination - now supported by observations of RNA interference etc. imo - accurate evolutionary theory would integrate key concepts from Mendel, Darwin and Lamarck


Are you saying that the modern synthesis (mainstream orthodoxy) is spin? If so I don't follow, could you elaborate on that (may warrant another thread but I'd definately be interested in the 'long version' if you have the time/inclination.) Could you recommend some reading re: "Lamarck was really onto something..."? I'm not adverse to buying a book if there's nothing online you feel covers it adequately. I have an interest in the history of evolution theory and its advocates. You feel Lamarckian evolution is closer to the truth than Darwin? Many IDers would agree with that to the best of my knowledge.






We on the same page?



Not sure. IMO - the basic ideas of ID and evolution are entirely compatible, and NOT mutually exclusive. imo - the polarization is almost completely synthetic - designed to obscure the real crises we face.


I whole-heartedly agree with the first part ("NOT mutually exclusive") but you should know that makes you a 'psuedoscientific "God did it" creationist' according to the [il]logic of some critics (see above posts.) I posted umpteen links to ID arguments to be followed by yet another [ignorant] critic saying 'no arguments/postulations - only "God did it" psuedoscientific philosophies.' You can lead them to the information but you can't make them read it *shrug*

Welcome to the club.


As I stated above I can't agree with your latter statement but mostly 'cause I'm ignorant of the position/argument. I have enough respect for you, and your knowledge of the science, to consider your perspective. Where should I start?

Sorry for the fluff post, I was just dropping in when I had an, unexpected, free minute. Thanks for replying sofi, talk to you soon.

Hey mattison, having fun?



posted on Aug, 13 2006 @ 11:16 AM
link   
interestingly enough, the proponents of nonintelligent design who tend to show the most respect for intelligent design arguments are those who are actual scientists, as opposed to those with an emotional/social/political bias who have never delved into quantum physics

there are many credentialed scientists (most of them physicists i'll admit, rather than microbiologists or organic chemists) who, without necessarily believing in the literal biblical account of creation (why does the anti-ID brigade insist that that be our argument?) who see certain aspects to the universe which suggest, not that creationism is true, but that there may be higher life forms, that mind continues to exist after dissolution of the body, that space is infinite etc - this is all very different from arguing that "G"od created the universe in 7000 yrs just because the bible says so.

maybe i'm getting onto a completely different argument altogether and one which is very different from the nonID v ID debate.

for some reason (and i believe it's a political one), many have concluded as a result of evolutionary theory that there are no higher superior intelligent beings in this universe, that there is no consciousness after bodily dissolution, and that space is finite, and that matter and energy will someday just disappear in the same "mysterious" way they appeared. the latter being a vedry medieval almost orthodox religious belief too. ironic that.

of course, the theory of evolution has absolutely nothing to say about those things, and all of them are perhaps the best argument for ID - my source? none other than Richard Dawkins, who freely admits that the real probability of myriads of intelligent life forms coupled with the nonendedness of space/time are the best challenges and most troubling questions to nonID.

finally, to fully embrace nonID, we must admit to ourselves that under no circumstances, and given millions of years of human development, mankind will never EVER be capable of creating artificial intelligence i.e., intelligence that is self aware and conscious in the way that we are, or that mankind will never EVER be capable of 'creating' human life in a laboratory environment, from scratch. which begs the question - if harnessing the very elements of life is beyond the reach of advanced human civilization millions of years hence, then it's very unlikely unintelligent unguided accidents billions of years ago could have sussed it. and, where is this 'life force' so-to-speak from. it cannot just vanish at death. the body doesn't vanish at death, just disappear into thin air.

in sum, like the integers, nothing has any beginning or end. it's the simplest explanation i'll admit, but the most mathematically sound one, unless you can tell me what the last integer is. i tend to be of the persuasion that mathematics can and will explain absolutely everything about the universe and who we are, and that the answers are and will be simple, and shocking.



posted on Aug, 13 2006 @ 12:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by mattison0922

And these statements, more-or-less perfectly demonstrate how much ID you've actually read or considered: None.

No theories or postulations? I would suggest you actually read an ID article, visit a pro-ID website, or hell, click on one of the many ID links that Rren has provided right here in this forum on ATS before making such a ridiculous and untrue blanket statement. Whether or not one agrees with the 'theories and postulations' of ID is certainly up for debate, whether they exist isn't.

To claim they don't exist simply unmasks your near complete ignorace re: this issue.


While I don't have time to sift through several pages of pseudo-scientific double talk on these pro-creationist sites, maybe you can enlighten me on what ID is all about? Give me a rough synopsis on the theory.

Because according to the basic theory Intelligent Design is this. "Certain features within the universe and living things are best explained as created by an intelligent force (god) and not natural selection."

How is that, in any way, contradictory to my slimmer, more slicker summary of the I.D. Beliefs? "God did It."

If its wrong, please enlighten me, really, I love to learn, teach me oh wise one.



posted on Aug, 13 2006 @ 03:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by WolfofWar


While I don't have time to sift through several pages of pseudo-scientific double talk on these pro-creationist sites, maybe you can enlighten me on what ID is all about? Give me a rough synopsis on the theory.


It seems you haven't had the time to sift through any of the material at all (books, papers, websites) so why post as if you have some knowledge on the subject? Try the 'ID overview' link I gave above, or look up one of the papers used to support it... you'll notice there's just a bit more to it than "God did it." Where did you learn about the design paradigm and arguments/evidence in support of it? IF you haven't even had the time or inclination to read a website page yet.



according to the basic theory Intelligent Design is this. "Certain features within the universe and living things are best explained as created by an intelligent force (god) and not natural selection."

How is that, in any way, contradictory to my slimmer, more slicker summary of the I.D. Beliefs? "God did It."

If its wrong, please enlighten me, really, I love to learn, teach me oh wise one.


Ok... can I reduce your position to: "God didn't do it"

Or would I just be a troll ignorant of the issues but likes to pretend to be the logical intellectual whom has weighed the various arguments - FYI that would require you actually read them - and come to my decision based on the veracity of those arguments (pro and con.)



posted on Aug, 13 2006 @ 03:33 PM
link   
And through all that babble you just posted, you have yet to answer my simple and only question.

Enlighten me. Tell me the basics of Intelligent design, tell me its general synopsis beyond what even the Discovery Institute proclaims as "God Did it"

Tell my why I'm wrong, not just that I'm wrong.

Please, enlighten me. I'm waiting.



new topics

top topics



 
1
<< 11  12  13    15  16  17 >>

log in

join