Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 63 (9161 total)
0 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,585 Year: 2,842/9,624 Month: 687/1,588 Week: 93/229 Day: 4/61 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   A Plea to understanding: SCIENCE vs INTELLIGENT DESIGN
Panda
Member (Idle past 3703 days)
Posts: 2688
From: UK
Joined: 10-04-2010


(1)
Message 10 of 230 (653709)
02-23-2012 6:41 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by jchardy
02-23-2012 2:44 PM


ID is creationism in disguise,,,
FYI:
Wedge Strategy
quote:
Intelligent design is the religious belief that certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not a naturalistic process such as natural selection. Implicit in the intelligent design doctrine is a redefining of science and how it is conducted (see Theistic science). Wedge strategy proponents are opposed to materialism, naturalism, and evolution, and have made the removal of each from how science is conducted and taught an explicit goal. The strategy was originally brought to the public's attention when the Wedge Document was leaked on the Web. The Wedge strategy forms the governing basis of a wide range of Discovery Institute intelligent design campaigns.
quote:
The Wedge Document outlines a public relations campaign meant to sway the opinion of the public, popular media, charitable funding agencies, and public policy makers. According to critics, the wedge document, more than any other Discovery Institute project, demonstrates the Institute's and intelligent design's political rather than scientific purpose.
People object to Intelligent Design being taught in science lessons because it is a religious belief and not science.
When IDists stop pushing ID into schools, I expect most people will go back to ignoring Intelligent Design.

If I were you
And I wish that I were you
All the things I'd do
To make myself turn blue

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by jchardy, posted 02-23-2012 2:44 PM jchardy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 36 by jchardy, posted 02-24-2012 11:59 PM Panda has not replied

  
Panda
Member (Idle past 3703 days)
Posts: 2688
From: UK
Joined: 10-04-2010


(1)
Message 18 of 230 (653811)
02-24-2012 12:23 PM
Reply to: Message 16 by Tanypteryx
02-24-2012 11:01 AM


Tanypteryx writes:
I disagree. I think the proper word is function, not purpose.
Although it seems like semantic quibble, I agree that Mod used an easily misconstrued word.
This has led to people bouncing between Purpose [intent] and Purpose [function].

If I were you
And I wish that I were you
All the things I'd do
To make myself turn blue

This message is a reply to:
 Message 16 by Tanypteryx, posted 02-24-2012 11:01 AM Tanypteryx has seen this message but not replied

  
Panda
Member (Idle past 3703 days)
Posts: 2688
From: UK
Joined: 10-04-2010


Message 93 of 230 (654071)
02-26-2012 5:29 PM
Reply to: Message 91 by jchardy
02-26-2012 5:11 PM


Re: PIVOTAL QUESTION FOR ALL
Please don't enclose your own text in [qs][/qs].
In fact, I would request that you edit your previous posts and remove them.
If you are quoting someone's post then use [qs=Someone]Someone's post[/qs].
If you are quoting a phrase from a website or other document then use [quote]Website text[/quote].
If you are not quoting anyone than please don't use quoting BBCode.
Thank you.

If I were you
And I wish that I were you
All the things I'd do
To make myself turn blue

This message is a reply to:
 Message 91 by jchardy, posted 02-26-2012 5:11 PM jchardy has not replied

  
Panda
Member (Idle past 3703 days)
Posts: 2688
From: UK
Joined: 10-04-2010


Message 105 of 230 (654237)
02-28-2012 10:28 AM
Reply to: Message 101 by jchardy
02-28-2012 3:19 AM


Re: I'M NOT SO SURE!
I was going to reply in detail, but I realised that there is not a single correct statement in your post.
Clearly, you are too far away from reality to be reached by an internet forum.
Edited by Panda, : No reason given.

If I were you
And I wish that I were you
All the things I'd do
To make myself turn blue

This message is a reply to:
 Message 101 by jchardy, posted 02-28-2012 3:19 AM jchardy has not replied

  
Panda
Member (Idle past 3703 days)
Posts: 2688
From: UK
Joined: 10-04-2010


Message 117 of 230 (654458)
03-01-2012 7:02 PM
Reply to: Message 116 by jchardy
03-01-2012 4:50 PM


Re: PIVOTAL QUESTION FOR ALL- jch
jchardy writes:
How finely-tuned is it that we exist in the era when vacuum and matter are comparable?
Between the Planck time and now, the universe has expanded by a factor of approximately 1032.
To be fair, we should consider an interval of logarithmic expansion which is centered around the present time; this would describe a total expansion by a factor of 1064.
If we take the transitional period between matter and vacuum to include the time from / M = 0.1 to / M = 10, the universe expands by a factor of 1001/3 100.67.
Thus, there is an approximately 1% chance that an observer living in a randomly selected logarithmic expansion interval in the history of our universe would be lucky enough to have M and be the same order of magnitude!
Everyone will have their own favorite way of quantifying such unnaturalness, but the calculation here gives some idea of the fine-tuning involved; it is substantial, but not completely ridiculous.
Relative to the cosmologic constant:
There is room to imagine that we are actually not observing the effects of an ordinary cosmological constant, but perhaps a dark energy source that varies gradually as the universe expands, or even a breakdown of general relativity on large scales.
By itself, however, making dark energy dynamical does not offer a solution to the coincidence scandal; purely on the basis of observations, it seems clear that the universe has begun to accelerate recently, which implies a scale at which something new is kicking in.
In particular, it is fruitless to try to explain the matter/dark energy coincidence by invoking mechanisms which make the dark energy density time-dependent in such a way as to always be proportional to that in matter.
Such a scenario would either imply that the dark energy would redshift away as dark a-3, which from would lead to a non-accelerating universe, or require departures from conventional general relativity of the type which are excluded by other measurements. JCH
None of that is your own.
You stole that and pretended it was your own work.
http://ned.ipac.caltech.edu/...rch04/Carroll/Carroll2_3.html
Was plagiarism never explained to you while you were studying?

If I were you
And I wish that I were you
All the things I'd do
To make myself turn blue

This message is a reply to:
 Message 116 by jchardy, posted 03-01-2012 4:50 PM jchardy has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 118 by jar, posted 03-01-2012 7:08 PM Panda has seen this message but not replied

  
Panda
Member (Idle past 3703 days)
Posts: 2688
From: UK
Joined: 10-04-2010


Message 127 of 230 (654707)
03-03-2012 2:49 AM
Reply to: Message 119 by Admin
03-01-2012 7:40 PM


Re: PIVOTAL QUESTION FOR ALL- jch
admin writes:
If you want them back you'll have to convince me through PM (Private Messaging) that you'll work at figuring out how to quote and how to indicate where your cut-n-pastes came from.
jchardy writes:
quote:
Hello, Coyote. I don't quite understand why my format makes it difficult to reply but I will have to look at the tutorial because you're not alone -- many don't like my way of responding.
jchardy doesn't appear to have figured it out.
Edited by Panda, : No reason given.

If I were you
And I wish that I were you
All the things I'd do
To make myself turn blue

This message is a reply to:
 Message 119 by Admin, posted 03-01-2012 7:40 PM Admin has seen this message but not replied

  
Panda
Member (Idle past 3703 days)
Posts: 2688
From: UK
Joined: 10-04-2010


(1)
Message 148 of 230 (655087)
03-07-2012 7:52 AM
Reply to: Message 144 by jchardy
03-07-2012 12:48 AM


Re: PIVOTAL QUESTION FOR ALL- jch
jchardy writes:
I find the lack of gradualism (graded evolutionary change sequentially in continuum) a problem with classical Darwinian evolution.
Luckily we have moved on from classical Darwinism.
And you know that we have moved on from classical Darwinism.
Because you wouldn't have used the adjective 'classical' if you did not know.
Perhaps you should move your education forward a few years and try something from this century.

If I were you
And I wish that I were you
All the things I'd do
To make myself turn blue

This message is a reply to:
 Message 144 by jchardy, posted 03-07-2012 12:48 AM jchardy has not replied

  
Panda
Member (Idle past 3703 days)
Posts: 2688
From: UK
Joined: 10-04-2010


Message 186 of 230 (655386)
03-09-2012 9:53 PM
Reply to: Message 182 by jchardy
03-09-2012 8:57 PM


Re: purpose in science
Questions are not evidence.

If I were you
And I wish that I were you
All the things I'd do
To make myself turn blue

This message is a reply to:
 Message 182 by jchardy, posted 03-09-2012 8:57 PM jchardy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 198 by jchardy, posted 03-10-2012 7:18 PM Panda has replied

  
Panda
Member (Idle past 3703 days)
Posts: 2688
From: UK
Joined: 10-04-2010


(1)
Message 201 of 230 (655494)
03-10-2012 8:01 PM
Reply to: Message 198 by jchardy
03-10-2012 7:18 PM


Re: purpose in science
jchardy writes:
Questions become evidence when they are not answerable.
How?
Unanswerable questions simply describe what we do not know. The only thing they could be considered evidence of is our lack of knowledge.
jchardy writes:
The law of parsimony, Occam's razor. "-- principle urging one to select among competing hypotheses that which makes the fewest assumptions and thereby offers the simplest explanation of the effect".
Questions are not explanations either.

If I were you
And I wish that I were you
All the things I'd do
To make myself turn blue

This message is a reply to:
 Message 198 by jchardy, posted 03-10-2012 7:18 PM jchardy has not replied

  
Panda
Member (Idle past 3703 days)
Posts: 2688
From: UK
Joined: 10-04-2010


Message 206 of 230 (655503)
03-10-2012 9:17 PM
Reply to: Message 205 by Percy
03-10-2012 8:55 PM


Re: purpose in science
Shouldn't that be:
jchardy writes:
Percy writes:
Any other unknowable things you'd care to discuss?
Apparently not.

If I were you
And I wish that I were you
All the things I'd do
To make myself turn blue

This message is a reply to:
 Message 205 by Percy, posted 03-10-2012 8:55 PM Percy has seen this message but not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024