| Home |
| Search |
| Today's Posts |
|
#521
|
|||
|
|||
Some Thought On Intelligent Design - WAS: OT Is George BushDrinking?
Fletis Humplebacker wrote:
"Duane Bozarth" Fletis Humplebacker wrote: "Duane Bozarth" ... IOW, does this "nonaccident" have consequences that aren't explicable by known physical laws? The problem is that known physical laws don't account for the physical world's existence, the mind or life in general. I don't think that's yet proven. It's an assertion. What's an assertion? That the laws of nature don't account for us being here? The math doesn't work out for the big bang's beginning. You're about 20 years behind, it sounds like. Have you been reading on current research areas? That has been known from early cosmological theories that there is an infinity in some formulations. Prime areas of current research are in fact, fundamentally concerned w/ finding ways to handle them. It's from this area that such things as string theory have been found to be potentially useful. Is it done yet? No. Will it eventually succeed? Too early to tell. Is it guaranteed to fail? That, too, we don't yet know. That's why the above is an assertion--it isn't yet known where continued research will lead, but it certainly hasn't yet reached an absolute impasse. The math also doesn't explain how life formed or why it happened so quickly. Even if the assertions of a natural causes are true, there doesn't seem to be sufficient time, the last I heard life happened as the earth cooled enough to support it. It isn't ignorance that guides one to the possiblity of ID and it isn't scientific facts that lead them away from it. "Doesn't seem to be enough time" for whom? I thought in general the problem was that folks who are opposed to natural evolution seem to think it's proposed that it took too much time... |
|
#522
|
|||
|
|||
|
Some Thought On Intelligent Design
World Traveler wrote:
"Tim Daneliuk" wrote in message ... ....snip preceding which ends up w/ reference to Greene... And these preconditions arose from where? Read the book. It looks like you'd prefer an endless loop, which can just as well be tied to the ID nonsense. If there's an intelligent designer, then who created the intelligent designer? And if that, then who created . . . etc. I think "the turtles all the way down" explanation would work...  |
|
#523
|
|||
|
|||
|
Some Thought On Intelligent Design - WAS: OT Is George BushDrinking?
Fletis Humplebacker wrote:
"Duane Bozarth" Fletis Humplebacker wrote: "Duane Bozarth" Steve Peterson wrote: ... ... the real debate here is if ID was applied to the universe we see and study today, when did that happen. If ID is only the initiator ... [then] since everything we observe came after, ... the designer is ... out of the realm of science. ... if the designer keeps being involved, ... That's the crux of the argument I've been carrying on w/ Fletis who continues to refuse to see the question and dancing around the request to explain the role of the "I" in ID... I'm not much of a dancer but your asking for creeds and dogma when there isn't any leads me to believe that you don't see the answers. No, you still haven't answered the fundamental question I asked--does this "I" in the ID still keep intervening in physical processes we observe or doesn't it? Hint--it's a "yes" or "no" question... No, it's like asking if you've stopped beating your mom yet. You're question presupposes a false premise. Which false premise is that? The question is simply that if one presupposes there were an IDer either the design was complete prior to beginning construction or not--I'm merely trying to find out which is the hypothesis. Intelligent Design doesn't specify when or how something was designed, just *if* it had been. How, precisely, can that be determined? |
|
#524
|
|||
|
|||
|
Some Thought On Intelligent Design - WAS: OT Is George Bush Drinking?
Well, it wasn't before Darwin wrote and published "Origin of the Species,"
and pretty shortly after that it became clear to most scientists that evolution by natural selection could account for an awful lot of observations. Then, about a hundred years later, the structure and function of DNA began to be understood, and a bunch of other pieces fell into place. Paleontology began to make sense and present a coherent picture. But none of that will impress the dedicated anti-Darwinists. Steve wrote in message oups.com... Odinn wrote: On 10/6/2005 3:25 PM Tim Daneliuk mumbled something about the following: John Emmons wrote: In a similiar vein, I haven't seen any scientists or educators beating down the doors of churches claiming that biological evolution MUST be taught along with the story of creationism in Sunday school. Sunday School is not funded at the point of a government gun via tax dollars. Big difference. The people attempting to change their school systems are doing so because they are being forced to fund something with which they do not agree and they are using their democratic rights to make the changes they want. This is getting traction because an overwhelming majority of people affirm some kind of intelligent cause to the universe. This doesn't make them right, of course, but this means that the *majority of taxpayers* see it that way. No, Sunday School is funded by NON taxation. No real difference. It seems fair to expect those wishing to join the debate, ie, the "Intelligent Design" proponents, to provide some evidence that can be proven before they get a seat at the table. "Evidence" that is acceptable to today's science establishment may well be impossible. The nature of the debate is philosophical and the IDers, in part, argue that today's rules of evidence may be wrong. You should speak with the IDers around here then. It's not a philisophical debate, it's a right/wrong debate. Evolution is wrong, ID is right. How long ago was it that Evolution was wrong and 'creation science' was right? -- FF |
|
#525
|
|||
|
|||
|
Some Thought On Intelligent Design - WAS: OT Is George Bush Drinking?
I have to point out that survival, at least in the sense of surviving to an
old age is concerned, is not the issue in evolution, having offspring is. There is about another 15 years after you have kids to consider, while you raise them until they can reproduce. After that, evolution is through with you, although I can attest there is a lot of joy in getting to know your grandchildren. Steve "Larry Blanchard" wrote in message ... Duane Bozarth wrote: Larry Blanchard wrote: ... ...So warfare is now, in all senses, bad for the species. Not absolutely necessarily...there are still areas where overpopulation could be alleviated by such means, resulting in better standard of living for the surviving. True, but there would be no mechanism to ensure that the survivors were among the smarter or stronger. Ensure may be too strong, facilitate might be a better. |
|
#526
|
|||
|
|||
|
Some Thought On Intelligent Design - WAS: OT Is George BushDrinking?
Steve Peterson wrote:
Well, it wasn't before Darwin wrote and published "Origin of the Species," Actually, Darwin wrote "The Origin of Species"--no "the" before "Species". .... |
|
#528
|
|||
|
|||
|
Some Thought On Intelligent Design - WAS: OT Is George Bush Drinking?
Huh? What I said?
"Duane Bozarth" wrote in message ... Steve Peterson wrote: Well, it wasn't before Darwin wrote and published "Origin of the Species," Actually, Darwin wrote "The Origin of Species"--no "the" before "Species". ... |
|
#529
|
|||
|
|||
|
Some Thought On Intelligent Design - WAS: OT Is George BushDrinking?
On 10/10/2005 9:01 PM Steve Peterson mumbled something about the following:
Huh? What I said? You said "Origin of the Species" Darwin wrote "The Origin of Species" -- Odinn RCOS #7 SENS(less) "The more I study religions the more I am convinced that man never worshiped anything but himself." -- Sir Richard Francis Burton Reeky's unofficial homepage ... http://www.reeky.org '03 FLHTI ........... http://www.sloanclan.org/gallery/ElectraGlide '97 VN1500D ......... http://www.sloanclan.org/gallery/VulcanClassic Atlanta Biker Net ... http://www.atlantabiker.net Vulcan Riders Assoc . http://www.vulcanriders.org rot13 to reply |
|
#531
|
|||
|
|||
|
OT Intelligent Design and is this really way way off topic
|
|
#532
|
|||
|
|||
|
Some Thought On Intelligent Design - WAS: OT Is George BushDrinking?
wrote:
Fletis Humplebacker wrote: Fletis Humplebacker wrote: Please name one scientist that gave up on research because of ID. Maybe this will help you get started, it's a pdf page that takes about 15 seconds with a dialup ... http://www.discovery.org/scripts/vie...ownload&id=443 There is no mention of ID in the statment those on that list ostensibly supports. If they are suspect of random mutation and natural selection as the cause what do you suppose is left? Everything else, of course. Like what? Like the ones I stated below. Crimony! You didn't state any. False. You split my comment up in an unethical way. I said that you didn't say any in the post I had responded to. In your response you mentioned one evolution alternative to Darwinian Evolution, one that has been taken seriously for some time. Let' not play games. You mention one, Lamarck, in this post. So you believe those who are questioning the validity of Darwinian Evolution would favor a pre-Darwinian model instead? Uh, I thought that was your position. No, I made my position clear, if the scientists are skeptical of Darwinian Evolution it doesn't leave much besides ID, since no other evolution model seems to be taken seriously. I don't think it is seriously considered as part of evolution nor has been for some time. Certainly, DNA testing can shoot it down these days. ID is not seriously considered as a part of evolution nor has been for some time. How does that refute what I said? The statement reads: "We are skeptical of claims for the ability of random mutation and natural selection to account for the complexity of life. Careful examination of the evidence for Dawinian theory should be encouraged." No mention of ID or any other variant of creationsim nor any mention of any of the variations on transmutation theory. Not being an expert in the field, I don't now how many others there may be. Wouldn't they all pretty much fall under those general descriptions? Don't those general descriptions extend beyond ID? They all fall under Darwinian Evolution a far as I can tell. That is because you do not understand them, even after looking up Lamarck. I understand that Lamarck was pre-Darwinian and isn't taken seriously, especially since his claim was within a generation and modern DNA testing can dismiss it. But it has been out of favor before recent times. Evidently you don't either. I did some serching and there doesn't seem to be a distinction between evolution and Darwinian Evolution. I don't see any others. Try searching for 'Lamarck'. Surely you remember Lamarck from high school biology. Nope. I must have missed that day. Evidently, if you ever studied biology at all, you never got up to a normal high school level of understanding. Evidently you ran out of ammo a few posts back. You don't see as much about transmutation because transmutation does not have the financial support that is behind 'ID'. Huh??? Surely you jest? |
|
#533
|
|||
|
|||
|
Some Thought On Intelligent Design - WAS: OT Is George BushDrinking?
|
|
#534
|
|||
|
|||
|
Some Thought On Intelligent Design - WAS: OT Is George BushDrinking?
|
|
#535
|
|||
|
|||
|
Some Thought On Intelligent Design - WAS: OT Is George BushDrinking?
Duane Bozarth wrote:
Fletis Humplebacker wrote: "Duane Bozarth" Fletis Humplebacker wrote: "Duane Bozarth" ... IOW, does this "nonaccident" have consequences that aren't explicable by known physical laws? The problem is that known physical laws don't account for the physical world's existence, the mind or life in general. I don't think that's yet proven. It's an assertion. What's an assertion? That the laws of nature don't account for us being here? The math doesn't work out for the big bang's beginning. You're about 20 years behind, it sounds like. Have you been reading on current research areas? That has been known from early cosmological theories that there is an infinity in some formulations. Prime areas of current research are in fact, fundamentally concerned w/ finding ways to handle them. It's from this area that such things as string theory have been found to be potentially useful. ^^^^^^^ You misspelled hopeful. Is it done yet? No. Will it eventually succeed? Too early to tell. Is it guaranteed to fail? That, too, we don't yet know. In other words, the math doesn't work out yet. That's why the above is an assertion--it isn't yet known where continued research will lead, but it certainly hasn't yet reached an absolute impasse. Who said it did????? The math also doesn't explain how life formed or why it happened so quickly. Even if the assertions of a natural causes are true, there doesn't seem to be sufficient time, the last I heard life happened as the earth cooled enough to support it. It isn't ignorance that guides one to the possiblity of ID and it isn't scientific facts that lead them away from it. "Doesn't seem to be enough time" for whom? I thought in general the problem was that folks who are opposed to natural evolution seem to think it's proposed that it took too much time... Do you mean literal 6 day creationists? Are they the only ones who don't agree that life bubbled up on its' own? Never the less.... http://calspace.ucsd.edu/virtualmuseum/litu/02_2.shtml Some scientists have suggested that the origin of life is such an improbable event it is hard to believe that it could have happened in the early youth of the planet, in the relatively short period of several hundred million years. One possible solution to the conundrum of improbability is the idea that Life came from outer space. In this scenario, named "panspermia" by the famous Swedish chemist Svante Arrhenius, life forms are traveling around in space, frozen within rocks, until they happen to hit a planet environmentally ready to take on the task of hosting living things. |
|
#536
|
|||
|
|||
|
Some Thought On Intelligent Design - WAS: OT Is George BushDrinking?
Fletis Humplebacker wrote:
Duane Bozarth wrote: Fletis Humplebacker wrote: "Duane Bozarth" Fletis Humplebacker wrote: "Duane Bozarth" ... IOW, does this "nonaccident" have consequences that aren't explicable by known physical laws? The problem is that known physical laws don't account for the physical world's existence, the mind or life in general. I don't think that's yet proven. It's an assertion. What's an assertion? That the laws of nature don't account for us being here? The math doesn't work out for the big bang's beginning. You're about 20 years behind, it sounds like. Have you been reading on current research areas? That has been known from early cosmological theories that there is an infinity in some formulations. Prime areas of current research are in fact, fundamentally concerned w/ finding ways to handle them. It's from this area that such things as string theory have been found to be potentially useful. ^^^^^^^ You misspelled hopeful. That's what science is---one certainly is hopeful that one's area of research will turn out to be fruitful. It's never certain a priori, but there has been much progress and I see no reason to think it will not eventually reach fruition. Is it done yet? No. Will it eventually succeed? Too early to tell. Is it guaranteed to fail? That, too, we don't yet know. In other words, the math doesn't work out yet. See above...that's what physics is. Remember that Newtonian physics "didn't work out yet" when pushed beyond certain limits--but it works pretty darn well for most ordinary daily purposes. Why is current cosmological physics required to be so fundamentally different in your mind? That's why the above is an assertion--it isn't yet known where continued research will lead, but it certainly hasn't yet reached an absolute impasse. Who said it did????? Your argument has that as a logical conclusion when you imply there becomes a point at which physical processes can not _possibly_ explain the mechanisms we observe--which is the crux of what I'm understanding you to believe. The math also doesn't explain how life formed or why it happened so quickly. Even if the assertions of a natural causes are true, there doesn't seem to be sufficient time, the last I heard life happened as the earth cooled enough to support it. It isn't ignorance that guides one to the possiblity of ID and it isn't scientific facts that lead them away from it. "Doesn't seem to be enough time" for whom? I thought in general the problem was that folks who are opposed to natural evolution seem to think it's proposed that it took too much time... Do you mean literal 6 day creationists? Are they the only ones who don't agree that life bubbled up on its' own? Never the less.... http://calspace.ucsd.edu/virtualmuseum/litu/02_2.shtml Some scientists have suggested that the origin of life is such an improbable event it is hard to believe that it could have happened in the early youth of the planet, in the relatively short period of several hundred million years. One possible solution to the conundrum of improbability is the idea that Life came from outer space. In this scenario, named "panspermia" by the famous Swedish chemist Svante Arrhenius, life forms are traveling around in space, frozen within rocks, until they happen to hit a planet environmentally ready to take on the task of hosting living things. Which simply transfers the question to where/how did those forms get on the bus? |
|
#537
|
|||
|
|||
|
OT Intelligent Design and is this really way way off topic
"Andrew Barss" wrote in message ... Andrew Barss wrote: : wrote: : While I agree with most everything you've said in this thread, I beg to : differ. I'm a former smoker, and know a lot of other former smokers. I : can't think of a one who misses the positive aspects of smoking: the ^^^^^^ doesn't miss Duh! -- AB I think Freud had a definition for that type of slip-- :-) |
|
#538
|
|||
|
|||
|
Some Thought On Intelligent Design - WAS: OT Is George Bush Drinking?
"Odinn" wrote in message ... On 10/10/2005 9:01 PM Steve Peterson mumbled something about the following: Huh? What I said? You said "Origin of the Species" Darwin wrote "The Origin of Species" Accepted. My humble apologies. -- Odinn RCOS #7 SENS(less) "The more I study religions the more I am convinced that man never worshiped anything but himself." -- Sir Richard Francis Burton Reeky's unofficial homepage ... http://www.reeky.org '03 FLHTI ........... http://www.sloanclan.org/gallery/ElectraGlide '97 VN1500D ......... http://www.sloanclan.org/gallery/VulcanClassic Atlanta Biker Net ... http://www.atlantabiker.net Vulcan Riders Assoc . http://www.vulcanriders.org rot13 to reply |
|
#539
|
|||
|
|||
|
Some Thought On Intelligent Design - WAS: OT Is George BushDrinking?
Fletis Humplebacker wrote: wrote: Fletis Humplebacker wrote: ... The math doesn't work out for the big bang's beginning. ... What math is that? Could you please show your work? I could ... Go ahead then. but it has nothing to do with math or physics. If your claim is that they have finally worked it out, let us know. In Basic notation: H^2 = 8(pi)G(rho)/3 - 1/((R^2)(a^2)) You got a problem with that? -- FF |
|
#540
|
|||
|
|||
|
Some Thought On Intelligent Design - WAS: OT Is George BushDrinking?
"Duane Bozarth" Fletis Humplebacker Duane Bozarth wrote: Fletis Humplebacker wrote: "Duane Bozarth" Fletis Humplebacker wrote: "Duane Bozarth" ... IOW, does this "nonaccident" have consequences that aren't explicable by known physical laws? The problem is that known physical laws don't account for the physical world's existence, the mind or life in general. I don't think that's yet proven. It's an assertion. What's an assertion? That the laws of nature don't account for us being here? The math doesn't work out for the big bang's beginning. You're about 20 years behind, it sounds like. Have you been reading on current research areas? That has been known from early cosmological theories that there is an infinity in some formulations. Prime areas of current research are in fact, fundamentally concerned w/ finding ways to handle them. It's from this area that such things as string theory have been found to be potentially useful. ^^^^^^^ You misspelled hopeful. That's what science is---one certainly is hopeful that one's area of research will turn out to be fruitful. It's never certain a priori, but there has been much progress and I see no reason to think it will not eventually reach fruition. True, but we don't teach that string theory will explain everything any more than we should teach that everything will have a materialistic answer...someday...hopefully. Is it done yet? No. Will it eventually succeed? Too early to tell. Is it guaranteed to fail? That, too, we don't yet know. In other words, the math doesn't work out yet. See above...that's what physics is. Remember that Newtonian physics "didn't work out yet" when pushed beyond certain limits--but it works pretty darn well for most ordinary daily purposes. Why is current cosmological physics required to be so fundamentally different in your mind? It isn't. I made a statement of fact, the math doesn't work out yet. You affirmed it while taking issue with me. I don't get it. That's why the above is an assertion--it isn't yet known where continued research will lead, but it certainly hasn't yet reached an absolute impasse. Who said it did????? Your argument has that as a logical conclusion when you imply there becomes a point at which physical processes can not _possibly_ explain the mechanisms we observe-- When exactly did I make that argument? My belief is that we can never explain, with certainty, the creation event. You can speculate that we eventually will but that isn't certain and it isn't science, it's a belief. So we shouldn't leave students with that impression, we should be honest and say we may never be able to explain it with science, some think we will but some leading scientists see evidence for deliberate design. Then the student can decide, if they even want to decide. All parties should be happy. If a 'materialistic answer will be found' dogma is taught, it is doing so unethically, unscientifically and unscholarly. It is instead indoctrinating students with a secular system of beliefs. which is the crux of what I'm understanding you to believe. The math also doesn't explain how life formed or why it happened so quickly. Even if the assertions of a natural causes are true, there doesn't seem to be sufficient time, the last I heard life happened as the earth cooled enough to support it. It isn't ignorance that guides one to the possiblity of ID and it isn't scientific facts that lead them away from it. "Doesn't seem to be enough time" for whom? I thought in general the problem was that folks who are opposed to natural evolution seem to think it's proposed that it took too much time... Do you mean literal 6 day creationists? Are they the only ones who don't agree that life bubbled up on its' own? Never the less.... http://calspace.ucsd.edu/virtualmuseum/litu/02_2.shtml Some scientists have suggested that the origin of life is such an improbable event it is hard to believe that it could have happened in the early youth of the planet, in the relatively short period of several hundred million years. One possible solution to the conundrum of improbability is the idea that Life came from outer space. In this scenario, named "panspermia" by the famous Swedish chemist Svante Arrhenius, life forms are traveling around in space, frozen within rocks, until they happen to hit a planet environmentally ready to take on the task of hosting living things. Which simply transfers the question to where/how did those forms get on the bus? Yes, but should that be taught and not the possibility of an Intelligent Designer? |
|
#541
|
|||
|
|||
|
Some Thought On Intelligent Design
"World Traveler" wrote in message nk.net... "Tim Daneliuk" wrote in message ... World Traveler wrote: "Tim Daneliuk" wrote in message ... Duane Bozarth wrote: Tim Daneliuk wrote: wrote: [snip] Oh really. Then do clarify my obvious lack of cosmological sophistication. Just where, pray tell, did the massive amounts of energy/mass/gooey-stuff-that-populated-the-universe come from? Last I looked, the Big Bang is posited to be the demarcation of the Beginning Of The Universe -i.e., It is the moment in time when things got rolling. [snip] Not so. The best and clearest explanation I've seen is in Greene's The Fabric of the Cosmos. The Big Bang took place after some preconditions were met, and he includes a timeline in the explanation. Regards -- And these preconditions arose from where? -- ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Tim Daneliuk PGP Key: http://www.tundraware.com/PGP/ Read the book. It looks like you'd prefer an endless loop, which can just as well be tied to the ID nonsense. If there's an intelligent designer, then who created the intelligent designer? And if that, then who created . . . etc. It's silly to believe in a God because you assume he needs a moment in time to have begun but it makes sense to believe unguided forces led to everything coming into existence? Makes sense to me! To have any rationale discussion of ID, there first has to be a rationale hypothesis explaining the ID format. What would a ID format be. The Intelligent Designer was/is intelligent? So far, I've only seen snippets that basically repeat items from the Old Testament, for which fossil records, cosmological tests and observations, etc., are in disagreement. No one can force you to look but why profess your unfamiliarity? Now, if someone wanted to develop an ID scenario that some intelligent designer created the structure that led to the Big Bang, and kept hands off from that point, as the universe evolved in a unified way, that would be one thing, but so far, no one is suggesting that See above. But how would that be less supernatural? I don't follow. and there's no evidence to support it. There is a wonderful symmetry about the coordination between gravity, time, energy, space, etc., that ties everything together. No there isn't. Look up 'unified theory' sometime. ID doesn't fit in the observable development of the universe. That's you opinion, of course. The current arguments for ID are contradicted by physical observation of the development of species, fossil records, and a variety of tests and experiments on the behaviour of energy, time and gravity. ID is irrelevant to the testing, experimentation and results in cosmology that have been taking place since early in the 20th Century. Can you name some of the conradictions? And if you're actually interested in this subject rather than passing time in an uninformed way, do take a look at Greene's works and others that have good discussions on time, gravity, the Big Bang and related theories. Fabric of the Cosmos is not only a good read, but it's a credible and understandable explanation of the interaction between gravity, time, energy, etc. Why are physicists still struggling for a unified theory if someone has it published already? |
|
#542
|
|||
|
|||
|
Some Thought On Intelligent Design - WAS: OT Is George Bush Drinking?
"Duane Bozarth" Fletis Humplebacker wrote: "Duane Bozarth" Fletis Humplebacker wrote: "Duane Bozarth" Steve Peterson wrote: ... ... the real debate here is if ID was applied to the universe we see and study today, when did that happen. If ID is only the initiator ... [then] since everything we observe came after, ... the designer is ... out of the realm of science. ... if the designer keeps being involved, ... That's the crux of the argument I've been carrying on w/ Fletis who continues to refuse to see the question and dancing around the request to explain the role of the "I" in ID... I'm not much of a dancer but your asking for creeds and dogma when there isn't any leads me to believe that you don't see the answers. No, you still haven't answered the fundamental question I asked--does this "I" in the ID still keep intervening in physical processes we observe or doesn't it? Hint--it's a "yes" or "no" question... No, it's like asking if you've stopped beating your mom yet. You're question presupposes a false premise. Which false premise is that? The question is simply that if one presupposes there were an IDer either the design was complete prior to beginning construction or not--I'm merely trying to find out which is the hypothesis. That's the false premise. You assume ID demands a simple yes no answer. Intelligent Design doesn't specify when or how something was designed, just *if* it had been. How, precisely, can that be determined? Through observation, according to those scientists that unhold the view. |
|
#543
|
|||
|
|||
|
Some Thought On Intelligent Design - WAS: OT Is George BushDrinking?
Fletis Humplebacker wrote: wrote: Mike Marlow wrote: wrote in message roups.com... Try searching for 'Lamarck'. Surely you remember Lamarck from high school biology. Holy Cow! No, that's religion again. We have to go back *that* far??? Man, this is getting hard! It is VERY hard for those who clearly were not paying attention the first time around. But you never explained the relevance in the first place. Do you know of any contemporary scientists that take Lamarck's theory seriously? The relevance is this: To 'dissent from Darwinsim' does not require support of any alternative. -- FF |
|
#544
|
|||
|
|||
|
OT Intelligent Design and is this really way way off topic
Andrew Barss wrote: wrote: : You have fallen for the nicotine cartel propoganda. Smokers : find smoking 'pleasurable' the same way that migraine sufferers : find imitrex 'pleasurable'. Smoking temporarily relieves : suffering that is brought on by the addiction itself. Perhaps : the biggest lie about smoking is that people want to smoke. : Very few people do, most smoke exclusively to relieve the : symptoms of withdrawal sickness. While I agree with most everything you've said in this thread, I beg to differ. I'm a former smoker, and know a lot of other former smokers. I can't think of a one who misses the positive aspects of smoking: the ability to concentrate profoundly on one thing, the nicety of lighting up in a cafe with a friend, the sense of energy and focus nicotine brings. The withdrawal symptoms are awful, and that's ONE reason to light up, but the other aspects need to be recognized. Nictine is a wonderful stimulant, and a decade plus after quitting smoking, I still remember it fondly. While being really, really happy I no longer smoke. Every ex-smoker I know feels the same way. There was a very insightful scene in a recent movie about the early carreer of Robin Williams, dealing largely with his struggle with drug addiction. At the end of the movie, someone back stage asks Williams if he wants to so some 'good Peruvian'. He says "yes", and walks away. I think that someone who has been addicted will always miss the drug, always want to do it again. This is recognized by use of the term 'recovering addict' in lieu of 'recovered addict'. You refer, in part, to the social context of drug abuse, rituals shared with friends (and sometimes strangers) and so on. That I think is common to all drug abuse, whether it is heroin addicts sharing needles or cow-orkers gathering at the coffee pot in the morning. Now what you say about nicotine goes beyond that, and I do not have the experience to comment on it personally. My experience with other stimulants is that they help keep me awake, but contribute nothing to concentration. Maybe nicotine is different, or maybe people react differently to stimulants, or maybe both. I think anyone who has ever been addicted to anything will agree with most of what you say, especially that they felt better, in somke way, when they were doing the drug the drug than they do now. -- FF |
|
#545
|
|||
|
|||
|
Some Thought On Intelligent Design - WAS: OT Is George Bush Drinking?
Duane Bozarth wrote: Fletis Humplebacker wrote: "Duane Bozarth" Steve Peterson wrote: ... ... the real debate here is if ID was applied to the universe we see and study today, when did that happen. If ID is only the initiator ... [then] since everything we observe came after, ... the designer is ... out of the realm of science. ... if the designer keeps being involved, ... That's the crux of the argument I've been carrying on w/ Fletis who continues to refuse to see the question and dancing around the request to explain the role of the "I" in ID... I'm not much of a dancer but your asking for creeds and dogma when there isn't any leads me to believe that you don't see the answers. No, you still haven't answered the fundamental question I asked--does this "I" in the ID still keep intervening in physical processes we observe or doesn't it? Hint--it's a "yes" or "no" question... Even if that is a false dichotomy, it is still a question that can be answered. Mr Humplebacker, it would seem is loathe to do so. -- FF |
|
#546
|
|||
|
|||
|
Some Thought On Intelligent Design
"Fletis Humplebacker" ! wrote in message ... [snip] What would a ID format be. The Intelligent Designer was/is intelligent? [snip] The "conventional view" of the Universe's development is supported by a variety of experiments and measurements in a variety of disciplines. There are testable experiments which work (or not) and which give us a greater understanding of the unity of space, time, energy, gravity, etc. The primary public support for a concept of Intelligent Design is for the biblical description in Genesis, to have taken place 6,000-10,000 years ago. The ID hypothesis that follows from that includes Noah and the flood, with all of the animals getting on the Ark, to include dinosaurs (from which Noah chose only juveniles, for reasons of space (!)), etc. These precepts don't agree with fossil records, nor do they agree with the body of knowledge that has been built up about our physical world. So far, when these disparities have been brought up here, the ID proponents have simply reversed course, and said they meant some other, unspecified type of ID. If you don't subscribe to that version of Intelligent Design, then to what version of the ID hypothesis do you agree, and what physical evidence is there that you're correct. If you have a concept that's supportable, lets hear what it is! So far, no one has. |
|
#547
|
|||
|
|||
|
Some Thought On Intelligent Design - WAS: OT Is GeorgeBushDrinking?
Fletis Humplebacker writes:
No, I made my position clear, if the scientists are skeptical of Darwinian Evolution it doesn't leave much besides ID, since no other evolution model seems to be taken seriously. How can ID be taken seriously when there are almost NO scientific papers discussing it? PubMed has 11 million papers in their database. Only 6 mention the phrase "Intelligent Design" when I checked this morning. (25 if you include press releases, etc.) I don't even think there is consensus as to what it IS exactly. And to what it is NOT. -- Sending unsolicited commercial e-mail to this account incurs a fee of $500 per message, and acknowledges the legality of this contract. |
|
#548
|
|||
|
|||
|
Some Thought On Intelligent Design - WAS: OT Is George BushDrinking?
Fletis Humplebacker wrote: wrote: Fletis Humplebacker wrote: Fletis Humplebacker wrote: Please name one scientist that gave up on research because of ID. Maybe this will help you get started, it's a pdf page that takes about 15 seconds with a dialup ... http://www.discovery.org/scripts/vie...ownload&id=443 There is no mention of ID in the statment those on that list ostensibly supports. If they are suspect of random mutation and natural selection as the cause what do you suppose is left? Everything else, of course. Like what? Like the ones I stated below. Crimony! You didn't state any. False. You split my comment up in an unethical way. I said that you didn't say any in the post I had responded to. That statement was false. That you didn't understand that I had referred to alternatives does not change the fact that I did. _YOU_ split your own comments in the article to which I replied. I addressed them in order. In your response you mentioned one evolution alternative to Darwinian Evolution, one that has been taken seriously for some time. Let' not play games. Transmutation theory is not one alternative, it is a school of alternatives. Your reply indicated that you mistakenly thought transmution theory was 'Darwinian'. That is why I suggested you look up 'Lamarck'. Now you seem to think that because you didn't understand that transmution theory is not 'Darwinian', I never mentioned it, even though it appears in plain English in the article in question. You mention one, Lamarck, in this post. So you believe those who are questioning the validity of Darwinian Evolution would favor a pre-Darwinian model instead? Uh, I thought that was your position. No, I made my position clear, if the scientists are skeptical of Darwinian Evolution it doesn't leave much besides ID, since no other evolution model seems to be taken seriously. ID is a pre-Darwinian model. If you are aguing that 'dissent from Darwin' implies support for ID then you are arguing that 'dissent from Darwin' implies support for a pre-Darwinian model. Regardless, dissent does not require support of any alternative. To conclude that signing onto a 'dissent from Darwin' statement that mentions NO alternative implies support for a specific alternative is a serious error of logic. I don't think it is seriously considered as part of evolution nor has been for some time. Certainly, DNA testing can shoot it down these days. ID is not seriously considered as a part of evolution nor has been for some time. How does that refute what I said? Who said I was refuting what you said? Since ID is not seriously considered as a part of evolution nor has been for some time, by YOUR logic, the signatories of that list surely are no more likely to support ID than they are Lamarckism. The statement reads: "We are skeptical of claims for the ability of random mutation and natural selection to account for the complexity of life. Careful examination of the evidence for Dawinian theory should be encouraged." No mention of ID or any other variant of creationsim nor any mention of any of the variations on transmutation theory. Not being an expert in the field, I don't now how many others there may be. Wouldn't they all pretty much fall under those general descriptions? Don't those general descriptions extend beyond ID? They all fall under Darwinian Evolution a far as I can tell. That is because you do not understand them, even after looking up Lamarck. I understand that Lamarck was pre-Darwinian and isn't taken seriously, especially since his claim was within a generation and modern DNA testing can dismiss it. But it has been out of favor before recent times. So? ID fell out of favor long before transmution theory did. Evidently you don't either. I did some serching and there doesn't seem to be a distinction between evolution and Darwinian Evolution. I don't see any others. Try searching for 'Lamarck'. Surely you remember Lamarck from high school biology. Nope. I must have missed that day. Evidently, if you ever studied biology at all, you never got up to a normal high school level of understanding. Evidently you ran out of ammo a few posts back. Nah, DAGS on macromutation theory. Also, random mutation and natural selection may be inadequate to explain the developement of antibiotic resistance among bacteria. And while 'ID' surely _could_ explain it, to my knowledge no researcher is approaching the problem using 'ID'. Do you know of any? You don't see as much about transmutation because transmutation does not have the financial support that is behind 'ID'. Huh??? Surely you jest? -- FF |
|
#549
|
|||
|
|||
|
Some Thought On Intelligent Design - WAS: OT Is George BushDrinking?
"Bruce Barnett" wrote in message ... Fletis Humplebacker writes: No, I made my position clear, if the scientists are skeptical of Darwinian Evolution it doesn't leave much besides ID, since no other evolution model seems to be taken seriously. How can ID be taken seriously when there are almost NO scientific papers discussing it? PubMed has 11 million papers in their database. Only 6 mention the phrase "Intelligent Design" when I checked this morning. (25 if you include press releases, etc.) I don't even think there is consensus as to what it IS exactly. And to what it is NOT. My point, exactly, but you've said it better. Regards -- |
|
#550
|
|||
|
|||
|
Some Thought On Intelligent Design - WAS: OT Is George BushDrinking?
Fletis Humplebacker wrote:
Duane Bozarth wrote: ....in response to Fletis's complaint that early formulations of "Big Bang" have one or more singularities... That's what science is---one certainly is hopeful that one's area of research will turn out to be fruitful. It's never certain a priori, but there has been much progress and I see no reason to think it will not eventually reach fruition. True, but we don't teach that string theory will explain everything any more than we should teach that everything will have a materialistic answer...someday...hopefully. What we teach of string theory is very dependent on the level--it takes a pretty well advanced student to have much of any chance to do more than read a popular synopsis of present state, and even those are not really readily accessible to many. This is unfortunate, but seems to be the way in which physics is leading us at present. Many, including myself, hope for an eventual path out of the wilderness, so to speak, that will indeed have some much less complex, elegant way of reaching the same eventual conclusion. At present, it doesn't seem possible. It is this inacessibility I think which contributes greatly to the lack of acceptance by many. Is it done yet? No. Will it eventually succeed? Too early to tell. Is it guaranteed to fail? That, too, we don't yet know. In other words, the math doesn't work out yet. But I don't see that that's any different than it was 200 or so years ago...there were things then that weren't explainable completely by Newtonian physics that were imponderables. Now we've simply moved what is unknown down a bunch of orders of magnitude than from where we were then. See above...that's what physics is. Remember that Newtonian physics "didn't work out yet" when pushed beyond certain limits--but it works pretty darn well for most ordinary daily purposes. Why is current cosmological physics required to be so fundamentally different in your mind? It isn't. I made a statement of fact, the math doesn't work out yet. You affirmed it while taking issue with me. I don't get it. That depends on what you mean by "the math" and in what context. I understodd your position to be that not only is the theory incomplete at the present time, you don't think it possible these present difficulties _can_ be overcome. That is the crux of the disagreement as I see it. I don't see any reason at least yet to think that there is an insurmountable impasse ahead. If I don't understand your position, you're at liberty to tell me what it is that I don't follow. That's why the above is an assertion--it isn't yet known where continued research will lead, but it certainly hasn't yet reached an absolute impasse. Who said it did????? See above--that's what I thought you've been arguing all along--that there is no possibility of there _ever_ being an "ultimate unified theory of everything". If you think there isn't such a limitation, I agree I really don't understand your position. Your argument has that as a logical conclusion when you imply there becomes a point at which physical processes can not _possibly_ explain the mechanisms we observe-- When exactly did I make that argument? My belief is that we can never explain, with certainty, the creation event. Isn't that the same thing as saying there is a limitation on what physics can ultimately discern as how things work? Sure seems like it to me. ...You can speculate that we eventually will but that isn't certain and it isn't science, ... Well, there's where I disagree...it is the presumption of science that such physical questions can be answered. As I have noted, it appears that there is at least a possibility that quantum fluctuations can cause the appearance of matter (read Hawking's Brief History of Time). shouldn't leave students with that impression, we should be honest and say we may never be able to explain it with science, some think we will but some leading scientists see evidence for deliberate design. I don't have too much a problem w/ the first premise, I do have a problem at the end---what, precisely is the "evidence"? ...the student can decide, if they even want to decide. All parties should be happy. If a 'materialistic answer will be found' dogma is taught, it is doing so unethically, unscientifically and unscholarly. It is instead indoctrinating students with a secular system of beliefs. I'm happy as long as you don't try to teach it in science class as "science". Philosophy and history of and comparative religion is another subject. Actual religious philosophy is yet another. .... One possible solution to the conundrum of improbability is the idea that Life came from outer space. In this scenario, named "panspermia" by the famous Swedish chemist Svante Arrhenius, life forms are traveling around in space, frozen within rocks, until they happen to hit a planet environmentally ready to take on the task of hosting living things. Which simply transfers the question to where/how did those forms get on the bus? Yes, but should that be taught and not the possibility of an Intelligent Designer? I'm unaware of anywhere that is seriously being taught as science. ID also isn't science. |
|
#551
|
|||
|
|||
|
Some Thought On Intelligent Design - WAS: OT Is George BushDrinking?
"Duane Bozarth" Fletis Humplebacker wrote: Duane Bozarth wrote: ...in response to Fletis's complaint that early formulations of "Big Bang" have one or more singularities... I didn't complain about it. I didn't even say it. That's what science is---one certainly is hopeful that one's area of research will turn out to be fruitful. It's never certain a priori, but there has been much progress and I see no reason to think it will not eventually reach fruition. True, but we don't teach that string theory will explain everything any more than we should teach that everything will have a materialistic answer...someday...hopefully. What we teach of string theory is very dependent on the level--it takes a pretty well advanced student to have much of any chance to do more than read a popular synopsis of present state, and even those are not really readily accessible to many. This is unfortunate, but seems to be the way in which physics is leading us at present. Many, including myself, hope for an eventual path out of the wilderness, so to speak, that will indeed have some much less complex, elegant way of reaching the same eventual conclusion. At present, it doesn't seem possible. It is this inacessibility I think which contributes greatly to the lack of acceptance by many. Acceptance of what? You aren't clear. Is it done yet? No. Will it eventually succeed? Too early to tell. Is it guaranteed to fail? That, too, we don't yet know. In other words, the math doesn't work out yet. But I don't see that that's any different than it was 200 or so years ago...there were things then that weren't explainable completely by Newtonian physics that were imponderables. Now we've simply moved what is unknown down a bunch of orders of magnitude than from where we were then. So you are basing your beliefs on a estimated learning potential? Fine, but that isn't science either. So why object to ID? See above...that's what physics is. Remember that Newtonian physics "didn't work out yet" when pushed beyond certain limits--but it works pretty darn well for most ordinary daily purposes. Why is current cosmological physics required to be so fundamentally different in your mind? It isn't. I made a statement of fact, the math doesn't work out yet. You affirmed it while taking issue with me. I don't get it. That depends on what you mean by "the math" and in what context. Any math. Any context. I understodd your position to be that not only is the theory incomplete at the present time, you don't think it possible these present difficulties _can_ be overcome. Which theory? The Big Bang? I don't know how far we can determine it's origins or if science can address it fully. I believe in a purposeful designer because that looks like the most likely to me. It would take more faith for me to believe in The Happy Accident. That is the crux of the disagreement as I see it. I don't see any reason at least yet to think that there is an insurmountable impasse ahead. You have more faith than me. If I don't understand your position, you're at liberty to tell me what it is that I don't follow. I'm doing my best. That's why the above is an assertion--it isn't yet known where continued research will lead, but it certainly hasn't yet reached an absolute impasse. Who said it did????? See above--that's what I thought you've been arguing all along--that there is no possibility of there _ever_ being an "ultimate unified theory of everything". If you think there isn't such a limitation, I agree I really don't understand your position. I don't know if there is or not. Wave Structure Matter sounds interesting to me but I just started looking into it. It ties everything up without fuzzy math. But even if that turns out to be true it still doesn't explain how it came to be. Your argument has that as a logical conclusion when you imply there becomes a point at which physical processes can not _possibly_ explain the mechanisms we observe-- When exactly did I make that argument? My belief is that we can never explain, with certainty, the creation event. Isn't that the same thing as saying there is a limitation on what physics can ultimately discern as how things work? Sure seems like it to me. Understanding how a car works doesn't make the manufacturer irrelevent. ...You can speculate that we eventually will but that isn't certain and it isn't science, ... Well, there's where I disagree...it is the presumption of science that such physical questions can be answered. Science doesn't presume things, people do. As I have noted, it appears that there is at least a possibility that quantum fluctuations can cause the appearance of matter (read Hawking's Brief History of Time). Does he explain where the quantum fluctuations came from? The theory may have a following but I don't think it has been canonized yet. shouldn't leave students with that impression, we should be honest and say we may never be able to explain it with science, some think we will but some leading scientists see evidence for deliberate design. I don't have too much a problem w/ the first premise, I do have a problem at the end---what, precisely is the "evidence"? The designs of everything. ...the student can decide, if they even want to decide. All parties should be happy. If a 'materialistic answer will be found' dogma is taught, it is doing so unethically, unscientifically and unscholarly. It is instead indoctrinating students with a secular system of beliefs. I'm happy as long as you don't try to teach it in science class as "science". Philosophy and history of and comparative religion is another subject. Actual religious philosophy is yet another. I'd rather they have a chance to see the whole truth in science as well as those classes. Science shouldn't be misused as a 'materialism is the answer' philosophy. One possible solution to the conundrum of improbability is the idea that Life came from outer space. In this scenario, named "panspermia" by the famous Swedish chemist Svante Arrhenius, life forms are traveling around in space, frozen within rocks, until they happen to hit a planet environmentally ready to take on the task of hosting living things. Which simply transfers the question to where/how did those forms get on the bus? Yes, but should that be taught and not the possibility of an Intelligent Designer? I'm unaware of anywhere that is seriously being taught as science. They don't discuss contemporary thoughts anymore? ID also isn't science. Neither is materialism. |
|
#552
|
|||
|
|||
|
Some Thought On Intelligent Design - WAS: OT Is George BushDrinking?
Fletis Humplebacker wrote:
"Duane Bozarth" Fletis Humplebacker wrote: Duane Bozarth wrote: ...in response to Fletis's complaint that early formulations of "Big Bang" have one or more singularities... I didn't complain about it. I didn't even say it. You wrote "In other words, the math doesn't work out yet." I interpreted that as you were talking of the commonly cited problem in cosmological models. That's what science is---one certainly is hopeful that one's area of research will turn out to be fruitful. It's never certain a priori, but there has been much progress and I see no reason to think it will not eventually reach fruition. True, but we don't teach that string theory will explain everything any more than we should teach that everything will have a materialistic answer...someday...hopefully. What we teach of string theory is very dependent on the level--it takes a pretty well advanced student to have much of any chance to do more than read a popular synopsis of present state, and even those are not really readily accessible to many. This is unfortunate, but seems to be the way in which physics is leading us at present. Many, including myself, hope for an eventual path out of the wilderness, so to speak, that will indeed have some much less complex, elegant way of reaching the same eventual conclusion. At present, it doesn't seem possible. It is this inacessibility I think which contributes greatly to the lack of acceptance by many. Acceptance of what? You aren't clear. Modern cosmological physics. Is it done yet? No. Will it eventually succeed? Too early to tell. Is it guaranteed to fail? That, too, we don't yet know. In other words, the math doesn't work out yet. But I don't see that that's any different than it was 200 or so years ago...there were things then that weren't explainable completely by Newtonian physics that were imponderables. Now we've simply moved what is unknown down a bunch of orders of magnitude than from where we were then. So you are basing your beliefs on a estimated learning potential? Fine, but that isn't science either. So why object to ID? That's the definition of science...the continual search for an explanation for physical processes by a following the scientific method. See above...that's what physics is. Remember that Newtonian physics "didn't work out yet" when pushed beyond certain limits--but it works pretty darn well for most ordinary daily purposes. Why is current cosmological physics required to be so fundamentally different in your mind? It isn't. I made a statement of fact, the math doesn't work out yet. You affirmed it while taking issue with me. I don't get it. That depends on what you mean by "the math" and in what context. Any math. Any context. 2+2 = 4. That seems to work. You're making absolutely no sense now... ..... Which theory? The Big Bang? I don't know how far we can determine it's origins or if science can address it fully. I believe in a purposeful designer because that looks like the most likely to me. It would take more faith for me to believe in The Happy Accident. I guess if you can't accept basic arithmetic, I have to respond "any theory". I was "underneath the impression" (to quote a malaprop from a former colleague ) that we were sorta' talking about the origin ofthe universe and whether it is theoretically possible to learn the "how" of that and the subsequent evolution of the solar system and what we observe around us. The difference is whether one has a fundamental belief that there is no possibility for a scientific explanation or not. I see nothing that implies to me that we are fundamentally prevented from coming to that understanding. The "why" and if there is a "who" is outside the realm of science. So I come back to the question I asked before. Did this designer do the design before the beginning of the construction phase or during it in your philosophy? That is the crux of the disagreement as I see it. I don't see any reason at least yet to think that there is an insurmountable impasse ahead. You have more faith than me. I don't know about that. Having been trained in physics and engineering, I have a pretty decent understanding of the issues even though my cosmological physics training is somewhat dated now--I do, however, as noted above, not see anything that so far makes me believe there is a fundamental reason that we can not determine the "how". If I don't understand your position, you're at liberty to tell me what it is that I don't follow. I'm doing my best. Well, you seem to keep shifting around and have as yet not answered the direct question of the role of this designer in the physical world we live in. I'll concede perhaps a "why", I'm just still not able to tell what you think of the "how". That's why the above is an assertion--it isn't yet known where continued research will lead, but it certainly hasn't yet reached an absolute impasse. Who said it did????? See above--that's what I thought you've been arguing all along--that there is no possibility of there _ever_ being an "ultimate unified theory of everything". If you think there isn't such a limitation, I agree I really don't understand your position. I don't know if there is or not. Wave Structure Matter sounds interesting to me but I just started looking into it. It ties everything up without fuzzy math. But even if that turns out to be true it still doesn't explain how it came to be. "How" or "why". I think maybe your mixing the two... Your argument has that as a logical conclusion when you imply there becomes a point at which physical processes can not _possibly_ explain the mechanisms we observe-- When exactly did I make that argument? My belief is that we can never explain, with certainty, the creation event. You haven't yet unequivocally answered the question straight out--did the design occur prior to the beginning of the construction phase or was there (or is there still) continuing intervention of a non-physical force or being? The conclusion I drew was that you thought there was, at which time it becomes impossible for there to be a natural explanation because you have just asserted it had unnatural intervention. Isn't that the same thing as saying there is a limitation on what physics can ultimately discern as how things work? Sure seems like it to me. Understanding how a car works doesn't make the manufacturer irrelevent. The manufactuer is really quite irrelevant to the understanding of the how....the Chinese did a quite good job of reverse engineering the Boeing 747 as the Russians did w/ some of the western IC technologies. Whether it was Boeing or an Airbus built aircraft didn't really matter at all--they could have done the same thing w/ the Airbus 300. You actually have hit on a pretty good simile here--wish I had thought of it earlier. Science is essentially the reverse engineering of the "how" of what we observe throughout the universe--both biological as well as non-biological processes. The "who" and "why" really isn't important to that exploration--not that they aren't important questions, but those aren't the questions of science which focusses entirely on the "how". ...You can speculate that we eventually will but that isn't certain and it isn't science, ... Well, there's where I disagree...it is the presumption of science that such physical questions can be answered. Science doesn't presume things, people do. People create science. Therefore, science is people. As I have noted, it appears that there is at least a possibility that quantum fluctuations can cause the appearance of matter (read Hawking's Brief History of Time). Does he explain where the quantum fluctuations came from? The theory may have a following but I don't think it has been canonized yet. That again is the way w/ science. Eventually it will either be accepted as the explanation because it fits w/ what we observe and cannot be and has not been negated by contrary evidence or it will be shown to be either incorrect or at least incomplete. If it turns out correct, it sorta' says that it was there all along. I really do recommend that you read Hawking. shouldn't leave students with that impression, we should be honest and say we may never be able to explain it with science, some think we will but some leading scientists see evidence for deliberate design. I don't have too much a problem w/ the first premise, I do have a problem at the end---what, precisely is the "evidence"? The designs of everything. But that is a heuristic belief, not evidence. That is, you haven't been able to negate that there was a physical process that caused it. Now you can postulate the "why" question all you wish and I won't argue. ...the student can decide, if they even want to decide. All parties should be happy. If a 'materialistic answer will be found' dogma is taught, it is doing so unethically, unscientifically and unscholarly. It is instead indoctrinating students with a secular system of beliefs. I'm happy as long as you don't try to teach it in science class as "science". Philosophy and history of and comparative religion is another subject. Actual religious philosophy is yet another. I'd rather they have a chance to see the whole truth in science as well as those classes. Science shouldn't be misused as a 'materialism is the answer' philosophy. That isn't the philosophy of science. As noted, science is the "how". "Why" and if perhaps "who" are the philosophical questions that aren't scientific questions. One possible solution to the conundrum of improbability is the idea that Life came from outer space. In this scenario, named "panspermia" by the famous Swedish chemist Svante Arrhenius, life forms are traveling around in space, frozen within rocks, until they happen to hit a planet environmentally ready to take on the task of hosting living things. Which simply transfers the question to where/how did those forms get on the bus? Yes, but should that be taught and not the possibility of an Intelligent Designer? I'm unaware of anywhere that is seriously being taught as science. They don't discuss contemporary thoughts anymore? Surely. But just as ID isn't considered science there are other areas of pseudo-science that aren't accepted, either. If there were to become a significant body of evidence that showed that explanation the best of all there were and the most consistent w/ all other evidence, then it would eventually become part of mainstream science. I suspect you don't think that is likely to occur any more than I do. ID also isn't science. Neither is materialism. No, I agree. "Materialism" is a philosophical viewpoint that many have used as a convenient tar brush to try to smear science. |
|
#553
|
|||
|
|||
|
Some Thought On Intelligent Design - WAS: OT Is George BushDrinking?
Duane Bozarth wrote:
.... No, I agree. "Materialism" is a philosophical viewpoint that many have used as a convenient tar brush to try to smear science. Or, more precisely, scientists... |
|
#554
|
|||
|
|||
|
Some Thought On Intelligent Design - WAS: OT Is George Bush Drinking?
Mike Marlow wrote: wrote in message ups.com... You can legitimately say that. The 'Iders' do not. The concomittant proposal for an alternative is paramount to them. Before 'ID' it was 'creation science'. They are not in this fight for the science. Check out their webpages and look into what other issues they support. Their agenda will be clear. The Creation Science guys (ICR) do have their own agenda Fred. They are however different from ID. Non Sequitor. Check out the 'Discovery Institute' webpages. Current articles, in addition to 'ID' and anti-evolution stuff include: Rediscovering Narnia: The Continuing Relevance of C.S. Lewis's Narnian Chronicles Miers: The Recusal Trap Why the Senate should reject Harriet Miers' nomination Have You Heard the Good News... ....about adult and umbilical cord blood stem cells? Probably not (actually, I had) Brace for the U.N. Tax Man That does not make 'ID' wrong, but it puts the present controversy in perspective. Without the Christian Coalition and its ilk, you would never have heard of ID. ID has been around for a lot longer than the Christian Coalition. It's been around for a lot longer than ICR as well. What is 'ICR'? Whom, aside from the Christian Coalition and their ilk, is involved in suing school boards to get 'ID' into the curriculum? WIhtout those suits, what publicity would 'ID' be getting? -- FF |
|
#555
|
|||
|
|||
|
Some Thought On Intelligent Design - WAS: OT Is George BushDrinking?
Duane Bozarth wrote:
Duane Bozarth wrote: ... No, I agree. "Materialism" is a philosophical viewpoint that many have used as a convenient tar brush to try to smear science. Or, more precisely, scientists... Your paranoia is showing. Materialism/Reductionism is at the heart of today's philosophy of science. That is a matter of fact. Anyone going after it isn't necessarily trying to "smear" science or scientists (a very few people fall into that category in my observation). They are questioning foundational presuppositions of a system of knowledge. Given how much science prides itself in constantly challenging its own findings, I would think such questions of first principle would be welcomed. But I would be dead wrong. It seems that science has an orthodoxy - at least in its underpinnings - that dare not be questioned. Questioners are shown the door with condescension, ad homina attack, and s******ing comments about their "idiocy". Mind you, all in an arena of first propositions that cannot be proven or disproven anyway. You can dance around this all you like, but the two threads over the past couple weeks that have dealt with these sorts of questions have demonstrated ample evidence that at least the scientists here on the wreck (and/or other defenders of the scientific status quo philosophically) don't like to be questioned about first order assumptions, presuppositions, or the very philosophy of their discipline. This smells suspiciously of other fundamentalist apologists I've known ... -- ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Tim Daneliuk PGP Key: http://www.tundraware.com/PGP/ |
|
#556
|
|||
|
|||
|
Some Thought On Intelligent Design - WAS: OT Is George Bush Drinking?
wrote in message oups.com... Mike Marlow wrote: wrote in message ups.com... You can legitimately say that. The 'Iders' do not. The concomittant proposal for an alternative is paramount to them. Before 'ID' it was 'creation science'. They are not in this fight for the science. Check out their webpages and look into what other issues they support. Their agenda will be clear. The Creation Science guys (ICR) do have their own agenda Fred. They are however different from ID. Non Sequitor. Check out the 'Discovery Institute' webpages. Current articles, in addition to 'ID' and anti-evolution stuff include: Well - here's a cut and paste from the website. This is from their position statement the current ACLU suit against the Dover, PA school which is requiring ID in the classroom... "Discovery Institute strongly opposes the ACLU's effort to make discussions of intelligent design illegal. At the same time, we disagree with efforts to get the government to require the teaching of intelligent design. Misguided policies like the one adopted by the Dover School District are likely to be politically divisive and hinder a fair and open discussion of the merits of intelligent design among scholars and within the scientific community, points we have made repeatedly since we first learned about the Dover policy in 2004. Furthermore, most teachers currently do not know enough about intelligent design or have sufficient curriculum materials to teach about it accurately and objectively. "Rather than require students to learn about intelligent design, what we recommend is that teachers and students study more about Darwinian evolution, not only the evidence that supports the theory, but also scientific criticisms of the theory." Hardly looks like a hiden ID agenda... Rediscovering Narnia: The Continuing Relevance of C.S. Lewis's Narnian Chronicles Please Fred - this is some sort of an upcoming event in what appears to be an organization which concerns itself with more than issues of ID vs evolution. Would you critique every university in America because of the arts-fartsy stuff that goes on within the campus? I noticed that you selected the more sensational events from their calendar and did not include the likes of... October 21, 2005 Darwin and Design, An International Science Conference Prague, Czech Republic Since the time of Darwin, scholars have resisted design in nature, but throughout the twentieth century new discoveries forced a reappraisal and revived an interest in design. The aim of this international science conference is to review evidence for intelligent design, drawing upon results in astronomy, physics, mathematics, biochemistry, biology, genetics, and paleontology. Speakers include: Jonathan Wells, Ph.D., molecular biologist; John C. Lennox, Ph.D., D.Sc. Fellow in Mathematics and Philosophy of Science, Green College, Oxford University; Charles B. Thaxton, Ph.D., FAIC chemistry, Visiting Professor, Charles University; Stephen C. Meyer, Ph.D.history and philosophy of science, Senior Fellow, Discovery Institute; and, Michael J. Behe, Ph.D, Biochemistry Professor, Lehigh University Miers: The Recusal Trap Why the Senate should reject Harriet Miers' nomination So - political opinions are now a component of validating a theory on the origins of life? What is 'ICR'? Institute For Creation Research. These are the guys who gained the most noteriety, and possibly are responsible for the current "movement" (bad choice of words in this discussion, perhaps) which is somewhat popular, or at least has gained a small following in churches, which attempted to completely dismiss evolution, discredit the scientists and the process they employed by means which have been brought under question to say the least, in the guise of applying science to their position. IOW - they are the folks who attempted to convince the world that they used science to disprove evolution. They are a highly visible organization, but they do not represent those who allow for the notion of an intelligent design. Fred - I'm kind of surprised at the stab at Discover Institute - coming from you. I didn't know a thing about DI before you raised the questions in your post, and I don't know a lot more now given that I've only spent a short time on their web site. What I did see though was a decent, thought provoking presentation. What I did not see was a crack pot site that I was prepared for based on your post. In short - I don't think you advanced any cause with your post. -- -Mike- |
|
#557
|
|||
|
|||
|
Some Thought On Intelligent Design
World Traveler wrote:
"Fletis Humplebacker" ! wrote in message ... [snip] What would a ID format be. The Intelligent Designer was/is intelligent? [snip] The "conventional view" of the Universe's development is supported by a variety of experiments and measurements in a variety of disciplines. There are testable experiments which work (or not) and which give us a greater understanding of the unity of space, time, energy, gravity, etc. That sounds pretty vague. But you demand specifics from ID? The primary public support for a concept of Intelligent Design is for the biblical description in Genesis, to have taken place 6,000-10,000 years ago. So far you've made some wild sweeping allegations without any support whatsoever. The ID hypothesis that follows from that includes Noah and the flood, with all of the animals getting on the Ark, to include dinosaurs (from which Noah chose only juveniles, for reasons of space (!)), etc. These precepts don't agree with fossil records, nor do they agree with the body of knowledge that has been built up about our physical world. So far, when these disparities have been brought up here, the ID proponents have simply reversed course, and said they meant some other, unspecified type of ID. Your argument is based on a false premise. If you don't subscribe to that version of Intelligent Design, then to what version of the ID hypothesis do you agree, and what physical evidence is there that you're correct. If you have a concept that's supportable, lets hear what it is! So far, no one has. You based your objections of ID on biblical literalism and then want to know which version I support? |
|
#558
|
|||
|
|||
|
Some Thought On Intelligent Design - WAS: OT Is George BushDrinking?
snip
Questioners are shown the door with condescension, ad homina attack, and s******ing comments about their "idiocy". Mind you, all in an arena of first propositions that cannot be proven or disproven anyway. Can we put this one to bed, it is continually annoying for you to keep making this charge erroneously, and it distracts from any meaningful point you may be trying to make. It is "ad hominem" and means to attack the person rather than the point that person may have made. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem Steve |
|
#559
|
|||
|
|||
|
Some Thought On Intelligent Design - WAS: OT Is George BushDrinking?
"Duane Bozarth" Fletis Humplebacker wrote: "Duane Bozarth" Fletis Humplebacker wrote: Duane Bozarth wrote: ...in response to Fletis's complaint that early formulations of "Big Bang" have one or more singularities... I didn't complain about it. I didn't even say it. You wrote "In other words, the math doesn't work out yet." How does that equate to what you said I said? I interpreted that as you were talking of the commonly cited problem in cosmological models. That's what science is---one certainly is hopeful that one's area of research will turn out to be fruitful. It's never certain a priori, but there has been much progress and I see no reason to think it will not eventually reach fruition. True, but we don't teach that string theory will explain everything any more than we should teach that everything will have a materialistic answer...someday...hopefully. What we teach of string theory is very dependent on the level--it takes a pretty well advanced student to have much of any chance to do more than read a popular synopsis of present state, and even those are not really readily accessible to many. This is unfortunate, but seems to be the way in which physics is leading us at present. Many, including myself, hope for an eventual path out of the wilderness, so to speak, that will indeed have some much less complex, elegant way of reaching the same eventual conclusion. At present, it doesn't seem possible. It is this inacessibility I think which contributes greatly to the lack of acceptance by many. Acceptance of what? You aren't clear. Modern cosmological physics. I think most people are more concerned about who's humping who in Hollywood but that it isn't relevent either. Is it done yet? No. Will it eventually succeed? Too early to tell. Is it guaranteed to fail? That, too, we don't yet know. In other words, the math doesn't work out yet. But I don't see that that's any different than it was 200 or so years ago...there were things then that weren't explainable completely by Newtonian physics that were imponderables. Now we've simply moved what is unknown down a bunch of orders of magnitude than from where we were then. So you are basing your beliefs on a estimated learning potential? Fine, but that isn't science either. So why object to ID? That's the definition of science...the continual search for an explanation for physical processes by a following the scientific method. I was addressing your assertion, not the scientific principle. See above...that's what physics is. Remember that Newtonian physics "didn't work out yet" when pushed beyond certain limits--but it works pretty darn well for most ordinary daily purposes. Why is current cosmological physics required to be so fundamentally different in your mind? It isn't. I made a statement of fact, the math doesn't work out yet. You affirmed it while taking issue with me. I don't get it. That depends on what you mean by "the math" and in what context. Any math. Any context. 2+2 = 4. That seems to work. You're making absolutely no sense now... To the contrary, you took issue with my comment that the math doesn't work out yet, you took issue with it, while reafirming my statement. Which theory? The Big Bang? I don't know how far we can determine it's origins or if science can address it fully. I believe in a purposeful designer because that looks like the most likely to me. It would take more faith for me to believe in The Happy Accident. I guess if you can't accept basic arithmetic, I have to respond "any theory". I see a pattern here. You can't seem to discuss this honestly. I was "underneath the impression" (to quote a malaprop from a former colleague ) that we were sorta' talking about the origin ofthe universe and whether it is theoretically possible to learn the "how" of that and the subsequent evolution of the solar system and what we observe around us. Yes, we were. So why the comment about simple math? The difference is whether one has a fundamental belief that there is no possibility for a scientific explanation or not. I see nothing that implies to me that we are fundamentally prevented from coming to that understanding. The "why" and if there is a "who" is outside the realm of science. I thought that why something happened was part of the scientific process. Your faith is greater than mine but I don't see your point here. So I come back to the question I asked before. Did this designer do the design before the beginning of the construction phase or during it in your philosophy? My personal views on how or why the designer worked is irrelevent to if one exists. I've said that many times now. I don't want to play the "my religious views are better than your religious views" game. That is the crux of the disagreement as I see it. I don't see any reason at least yet to think that there is an insurmountable impasse ahead. You have more faith than me. I don't know about that. Having been trained in physics and engineering, I have a pretty decent understanding of the issues even though my cosmological physics training is somewhat dated now--I do, however, as noted above, not see anything that so far makes me believe there is a fundamental reason that we can not determine the "how". But there are people with more training that do not think it's possible by material explanation alone, so once again, you are welcome to your faith. I don't know how many times you want to rehash the same point but it's getting old. If I don't understand your position, you're at liberty to tell me what it is that I don't follow. I'm doing my best. Well, you seem to keep shifting around No, you keep misrepresenting what I said. Whether it's a fluke of nature or by design I can't say. and have as yet not answered the direct question of the role of this designer in the physical world we live in. I'll concede perhaps a "why", I'm just still not able to tell what you think of the "how". I never claimed to know how. Why is that more serious than your inability to explain how? That's why the above is an assertion--it isn't yet known where continued research will lead, but it certainly hasn't yet reached an absolute impasse. Who said it did????? See above--that's what I thought you've been arguing all along--that there is no possibility of there _ever_ being an "ultimate unified theory of everything". If you think there isn't such a limitation, I agree I really don't understand your position. I don't know if there is or not. Wave Structure Matter sounds interesting to me but I just started looking into it. It ties everything up without fuzzy math. But even if that turns out to be true it still doesn't explain how it came to be. "How" or "why". I think maybe your mixing the two... Why? If you know exactly how something works you'll have a good idea of why it's there. Your argument has that as a logical conclusion when you imply there becomes a point at which physical processes can not _possibly_ explain the mechanisms we observe-- When exactly did I make that argument? My belief is that we can never explain, with certainty, the creation event. Understanding how a car works doesn't make the manufacturer irrelevent. The manufactuer is really quite irrelevant to the understanding of the how....the Chinese did a quite good job of reverse engineering the Boeing 747 as the Russians did w/ some of the western IC technologies. Whether it was Boeing or an Airbus built aircraft didn't really matter at all--they could have done the same thing w/ the Airbus 300. True, but to the unbiased observer, there was a manufacturer. That's the point, not who in particular the manufacturer is. You actually have hit on a pretty good simile here--wish I had thought of it earlier. Science is essentially the reverse engineering of the "how" of what we observe throughout the universe--both biological as well as non-biological processes. The "who" and "why" really isn't important to that exploration--not that they aren't important questions, but those aren't the questions of science which focusses entirely on the "how". Maybe pure science does, if there is such a thing. But the point we were discussing is that science classes do imply or teach outright that the "how" is natural. Science doesn't know that for a fact so maybe you've made my point better than I did. ...You can speculate that we eventually will but that isn't certain and it isn't science, ... Well, there's where I disagree...it is the presumption of science that such physical questions can be answered. Science doesn't presume things, people do. People create science. Therefore, science is people. So if people are biased, their science will be biased? I agree. All I've suggested is some counterpoints to balance out our education. As I have noted, it appears that there is at least a possibility that quantum fluctuations can cause the appearance of matter (read Hawking's Brief History of Time). Does he explain where the quantum fluctuations came from? The theory may have a following but I don't think it has been canonized yet. That again is the way w/ science. Eventually it will either be accepted as the explanation because it fits w/ what we observe and cannot be and has not been negated by contrary evidence or it will be shown to be either incorrect or at least incomplete. If it turns out correct, it sorta' says that it was there all along. I really do recommend that you read Hawking. Why? It sounds like his theory hasn't been proven yet. Why is his theory superior to Intelligent Design? shouldn't leave students with that impression, we should be honest and say we may never be able to explain it with science, some think we will but some leading scientists see evidence for deliberate design. I don't have too much a problem w/ the first premise, I do have a problem at the end---what, precisely is the "evidence"? The designs of everything. But that is a heuristic belief, not evidence. That is, you haven't been able to negate that there was a physical process that caused it. That's easily flipped back at you. You haven't proven that was a physical cause. Since there's no physical answer, the burden is on you. You are basically saying "just take my word for it, it may take 500 years but you'll see". Now you can postulate the "why" question all you wish and I won't argue. I won't postulate here because it's besides the point. ...the student can decide, if they even want to decide. All parties should be happy. If a 'materialistic answer will be found' dogma is taught, it is doing so unethically, unscientifically and unscholarly. It is instead indoctrinating students with a secular system of beliefs. I'm happy as long as you don't try to teach it in science class as "science". Philosophy and history of and comparative religion is another subject. Actual religious philosophy is yet another. I'd rather they have a chance to see the whole truth in science as well as those classes. Science shouldn't be misused as a 'materialism is the answer' philosophy. That isn't the philosophy of science. I agree, that why it shouldn't be taught. As noted, science is the "how". "Why" and if perhaps "who" are the philosophical questions that aren't scientific questions. In this case, the student may wonder how life started, if he's told that life assembled itself and here we are, he is being taught philosopy. One possible solution to the conundrum of improbability is the idea that Life came from outer space. In this scenario, named "panspermia" by the famous Swedish chemist Svante Arrhenius, life forms are traveling around in space, frozen within rocks, until they happen to hit a planet environmentally ready to take on the task of hosting living things. Which simply transfers the question to where/how did those forms get on the bus? Yes, but should that be taught and not the possibility of an Intelligent Designer? I'm unaware of anywhere that is seriously being taught as science. They don't discuss contemporary thoughts anymore? Surely. But just as ID isn't considered science there are other areas of pseudo-science that aren't accepted, either. While some are. That's the point. If there were to become a significant body of evidence that showed that explanation the best of all there were and the most consistent w/ all other evidence, then it would eventually become part of mainstream science. I suspect you don't think that is likely to occur any more than I do. ID also isn't science. Neither is materialism. No, I agree. "Materialism" is a philosophical viewpoint that many have used as a convenient tar brush to try to smear science. When science is misapplied to buttress materialism it needs to be corrected. That's quite the opposite of smearing. |
|
#560
|
|||
|
|||
|
Some Thought On Intelligent Design - WAS: OT Is George BushDrinking?
Fletis Humplebacker wrote:
"Duane Bozarth" Fletis Humplebacker wrote: "Duane Bozarth" Fletis Humplebacker wrote: Duane Bozarth wrote: ...in response to Fletis's complaint that early formulations of "Big Bang" have one or more singularities... I didn't complain about it. I didn't even say it. You wrote "In other words, the math doesn't work out yet." How does that equate to what you said I said? I interpreted that as you were talking of the commonly cited problem in cosmological models. That's what science is---one certainly is hopeful that one's area of research will turn out to be fruitful. It's never certain a priori, but there has been much progress and I see no reason to think it will not eventually reach fruition. True, but we don't teach that string theory will explain everything any more than we should teach that everything will have a materialistic answer...someday...hopefully. What we teach of string theory is very dependent on the level--it takes a pretty well advanced student to have much of any chance to do more than read a popular synopsis of present state, and even those are not really readily accessible to many. This is unfortunate, but seems to be the way in which physics is leading us at present. Many, including myself, hope for an eventual path out of the wilderness, so to speak, that will indeed have some much less complex, elegant way of reaching the same eventual conclusion. At present, it doesn't seem possible. It is this inacessibility I think which contributes greatly to the lack of acceptance by many. Acceptance of what? You aren't clear. Modern cosmological physics. I think most people are more concerned about who's humping who in Hollywood but that it isn't relevent either. You lost me there...it seems relevant to me that a reason for many people being willing to accept the ID or other argument _as science_ is that they are unable to easily comprehend the bases of much of modern physics. .... So you are basing your beliefs on a estimated learning potential? Fine, but that isn't science either. So why object to ID? That's the definition of science...the continual search for an explanation for physical processes by a following the scientific method. I was addressing your assertion, not the scientific principle. I'm lost again...my assertion is that the scientific principle _is_ the thing... .... Any math. Any context. 2+2 = 4. That seems to work. You're making absolutely no sense now... To the contrary, you took issue with my comment that the math doesn't work out yet, you took issue with it, while reafirming my statement. I didn't understand the point you were trying to make--and still don't. .... I guess if you can't accept basic arithmetic, I have to respond "any theory". I see a pattern here. You can't seem to discuss this honestly. I can't follow the argument you're trying to make which seems to move from one response to another... I was "underneath the impression" (to quote a malaprop from a former colleague ) that we were sorta' talking about the origin ofthe universe and whether it is theoretically possible to learn the "how" of that and the subsequent evolution of the solar system and what we observe around us. Yes, we were. So why the comment about simple math? Because you made a comment about "any math" which left me befuddled about what you were talking about... The difference is whether one has a fundamental belief that there is no possibility for a scientific explanation or not. I see nothing that implies to me that we are fundamentally prevented from coming to that understanding. The "why" and if there is a "who" is outside the realm of science. I thought that why something happened was part of the scientific process. Your faith is greater than mine but I don't see your point here. No, the initial "why" is a philosophical question, not scientific. It can answer a the "why" of why an apple falls down instead of up, but not the metaphysical "big why" which is the one which I was assuming was the one under discussion. So I come back to the question I asked before. Did this designer do the design before the beginning of the construction phase or during it in your philosophy? My personal views on how or why the designer worked is irrelevent to if one exists. I've said that many times now. I don't want to play the "my religious views are better than your religious views" game. I don't give a rat's patootie about your personal views per se, although it's hard to know how to respond to an argument when one can't determine what the argument is. I'm simply trying to find out what is the position of this "I" in the ID which you're saying you believe is the correct scientifid basis of everything. Unless one knows what that position is, it's impossible to know what one is arguing for or against. .... |
| Reply |
| Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
| Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads
|
||||
| Thread | Forum | |||
| OT - During disaster, Bush fiddled | Metalworking | |||
| OT - “I am George W. Bush and I approve this mess.” | Metalworking | |||
| OT - "George Bush say that the will of God excuses his behavior." | Metalworking | |||
| GW Bush | Metalworking | |||
| OT-I ain't No senator's son... | Metalworking | |||
Linear Mode
