Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 120 (8781 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 08-20-2017 10:45 PM
356 online now:
DOCJ, DrJones*, GDR, Meddle, ramoss (5 members, 351 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: evilsorcerer1
Post Volume:
Total: 816,583 Year: 21,189/21,208 Month: 1,622/2,326 Week: 77/881 Day: 77/119 Hour: 2/2

Announcements: Reporting debate problems OR discussing moderation actions/inactions


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
RewPrev1
...
1112
13
141516Next
Author Topic:   A Plea to understanding: SCIENCE vs INTELLIGENT DESIGN
Taq
Member
Posts: 7034
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 3.8


Message 181 of 230 (655358)
03-09-2012 6:14 PM
Reply to: Message 178 by jchardy
03-09-2012 5:15 PM


Re: purpose in science
There is none other than the mysterious dark matter and dark energy we are embedded in but cannot “see”, “feel” or detect except by gravitational effects.

Dark matter and energy are both physical things as much as gravity and electromagnetis are physical things.

There is none. I’ve said it before, there can never be such verification! None is needed since there is no competition with science. We interpret what we see based on our knowledge base. Our knowledge base IS science.
It just appears that certain occurrences within our universe are too improbable to be by mere chance. That’s all. If you need a list of those improbabilities, get back to me.

It seems that you want to eat your cake and have it too. You claim that ID can not be verified, and yet you claim ID is an interpretation from evidence and is verifed by probabilities. You want to claim that ID can not be evidenced, and yet you offer improbabilities as evidence. Which is it?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 178 by jchardy, posted 03-09-2012 5:15 PM jchardy has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 182 by jchardy, posted 03-09-2012 8:57 PM Taq has not yet responded

  
jchardy
Member (Idle past 1898 days)
Posts: 85
Joined: 11-24-2008


Message 182 of 230 (655377)
03-09-2012 8:57 PM
Reply to: Message 181 by Taq
03-09-2012 6:14 PM


Re: purpose in science
quote:
Dark matter and energy are both physical things as much as gravity and EM are physical things.

Yes.

quote:
It seems that you want to eat your cake and have it too. You claim that ID can not be verified, and yet you claim ID is an interpretation from evidence and is verified by probabilities. You want to claim that ID cannot be evidenced, and yet you offer improbabilities as evidence. Which is it?

I’m not sure what you want me to say? Quite right, I offer as evidence only the multiple improbabilities of our existence:
1) Where we are within our galaxy;
2) where our galaxy lies within the universe;
3) when we are in its evolution and
4) how we are able to discern – basically from a fraction of a grain of sand in the enormity of scale of our universe.
5) That, because of the miracle of our brains; which are almost certainly biologic quantum computers capable of enormous creativity and imagination, far more complex even than almost any other object or collection of objects in the universe. We are thus provided the means to develop redundant and rapidly advancing technology, some of which threatens our very existence.
All this while we continue to disrespect one another; our beliefs and our interpretations, with a remarkable arrogance.
We display both phenomenal cruelty as well as open hearted generosity and kindness while warring on one another.
We are a paradox, and yet we continue to persevere.
To me, our very existence is a miracle! That alone should give us pause to consider.
JCH


This message is a reply to:
 Message 181 by Taq, posted 03-09-2012 6:14 PM Taq has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 185 by Theodoric, posted 03-09-2012 9:40 PM jchardy has responded
 Message 186 by Panda, posted 03-09-2012 9:53 PM jchardy has responded

    
jchardy
Member (Idle past 1898 days)
Posts: 85
Joined: 11-24-2008


Message 183 of 230 (655379)
03-09-2012 9:11 PM
Reply to: Message 180 by Tangle
03-09-2012 5:37 PM


Re: purpose in science
Well, Tangle old kid, it appears you and I have nothing to talk about since you disrespect all my concepts and everything I say.
That’s OK. Just don’t bother responding if you’re not interested in exchanging ideas. Stick to your satellite and I’ll stick to mine.
JCH
This message is a reply to:
 Message 180 by Tangle, posted 03-09-2012 5:37 PM Tangle has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 192 by Tangle, posted 03-10-2012 4:52 AM jchardy has responded

    
jchardy
Member (Idle past 1898 days)
Posts: 85
Joined: 11-24-2008


Message 184 of 230 (655381)
03-09-2012 9:32 PM
Reply to: Message 179 by NoNukes
03-09-2012 5:28 PM


Re: purpose in science
quote:
But teleologic ID concepts are also NOT “random speculations and guesses divorced from any and all evidence”.
You've already admitted that those concepts are not evidenced.

To me, they’re evidenced by probability and complexity. That’s the only evidence.

quote:
No, but if I don't accept those concepts, I'm in denial of the truth, according to you.

Not at all. If you don’t accept those concepts, you MAY be in denial of the truth. Neither of us will know that until we die. That’s “OK” with me. If I’m wrong, I’ll be set straight; or not. If there’s nothing; that’s OK too. But I hate surprises, and so contemplation is what I do while I’m here. All I do is share my ideas. I don’t impose them.
JCH


This message is a reply to:
 Message 179 by NoNukes, posted 03-09-2012 5:28 PM NoNukes has acknowledged this reply

Replies to this message:
 Message 187 by subbie, posted 03-09-2012 10:16 PM jchardy has responded

    
Theodoric
Member
Posts: 5765
From: Northwest, WI, USA
Joined: 08-15-2005


Message 185 of 230 (655382)
03-09-2012 9:40 PM
Reply to: Message 182 by jchardy
03-09-2012 8:57 PM


Re: purpose in science
I offer as evidence only the multiple improbabilities of our existence:

And don't you find it amazing how the water in a puddle so neatly conforms to the hole.

To me, our very existence is a miracle!

Not at all a miracle. It can be completely explained without any supernatural causes. We may not understand exactly the how but we have the general gist. I find it amazing that you claim you do not posit a god of the gaps argument and then you use it. Using your own personal definitions does not change reality.

That alone should give us pause to consider.

As my mentally challenged son says
quote:
Not too really

Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts

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

Replies to this message:
 Message 189 by jchardy, posted 03-10-2012 12:53 AM Theodoric has responded
 Message 197 by jchardy, posted 03-10-2012 7:12 PM Theodoric has not yet responded

    
Panda
Member (Idle past 1211 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 responded

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

  
subbie
Member (Idle past 205 days)
Posts: 3508
Joined: 02-26-2006


Message 187 of 230 (655390)
03-09-2012 10:16 PM
Reply to: Message 184 by jchardy
03-09-2012 9:32 PM


Re: purpose in science
To me, they’re evidenced by probability and complexity. That’s the only evidence.

How, exactly, do you determine "probability"? Please show your work.


Ridicule is the only weapon which can be used against unintelligible propositions. -- Thomas Jefferson

We see monsters where science shows us windmills. -- Phat

It has always struck me as odd that fundies devote so much time and effort into trying to find a naturalistic explanation for their mythical flood, while looking for magical explanations for things that actually happened. -- Dr. Adequate

...creationists have a great way to detect fraud and it doesn't take 8 or 40 years or even a scientific degree to spot the fraud--'if it disagrees with the bible then it is wrong'.... -- archaeologist


This message is a reply to:
 Message 184 by jchardy, posted 03-09-2012 9:32 PM jchardy has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 188 by jchardy, posted 03-10-2012 12:50 AM subbie has responded

  
jchardy
Member (Idle past 1898 days)
Posts: 85
Joined: 11-24-2008


Message 188 of 230 (655397)
03-10-2012 12:50 AM
Reply to: Message 187 by subbie
03-09-2012 10:16 PM


Re: purpose in science
Much of what follows is from Michael Mallary's book: "Our Improbable Universe"

Mallary writes:

It's clear that many things had to be just right for life to evolve in this universe. It's also true that, in the past this fact has been used to claim that the universe had to have been designed for it to have been so suitable for us. More recently theories that involve the random creation of sub-universes in a larger meta-universe are being considered. If there are enough randomly structured sub-universes, (e.g., quantum foam), then the odds aren't so bad that at least one will have all the processes lined up just right. In this unique universe, intelligent life would marvel at the improbability of it all. However, IF THE MULTIVERSE THEORY IS CORRECT, that improbability cannot be used as the soul evidence for a creator.

In order for the sub-universe to produce witnesses it had to be just right. This is known as the Anthropic Principle. It replaces belief in a creator with belief in the random creation of a huge number of randomly structured universes; only a minute fraction of these mindlessly structured universes would evolve minds.

The odds of the sequenced events from the Big Bang onward being just right for life are miniscule. Therefore either the Universe was created with deliberation or there had to be a zillion randomly generated universes before this very creative one happened along.

In the former case life has value derived from the mind of the Creator.

Much of that value must reside in the creative processes of life. In the latter case, its value derives from the fact that this universe is the one rare gem among a collection of a trillion-trillion sterile universes.

So, we highly improbable "witnesses" must make up our minds. DISCOUNTING the most special time and locations within our galaxy located within our improbable universe; Which is more likely:

  1. The improbability that we owe our existence of an almost infinite number of universes, with our presence in the only one emerging with the ideal conditions for life or
  2. The seemingly equally improbable likelihood that we are somehow the engineered project of some Creator?

Neither scenario is "provable" by any means now or in the distant future.

Because there is a lot more "special requirements" to OUR specific existence (see mention of the "DISCOUNTED" information above) -- I, and most teleological IDers choose to believe #2.

JCH

Edited by Admin, : Make an attempt at providing paragraphs and separating quoted text from member's text.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 187 by subbie, posted 03-09-2012 10:16 PM subbie has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 190 by subbie, posted 03-10-2012 12:55 AM jchardy has responded

    
jchardy
Member (Idle past 1898 days)
Posts: 85
Joined: 11-24-2008


Message 189 of 230 (655398)
03-10-2012 12:53 AM
Reply to: Message 185 by Theodoric
03-09-2012 9:40 PM


Re: purpose in science
Understanding, eloquence and kindness are not one of your strengths, I take it?
JCH
This message is a reply to:
 Message 185 by Theodoric, posted 03-09-2012 9:40 PM Theodoric has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 191 by Theodoric, posted 03-10-2012 1:15 AM jchardy has not yet responded

    
subbie
Member (Idle past 205 days)
Posts: 3508
Joined: 02-26-2006


(1)
Message 190 of 230 (655399)
03-10-2012 12:55 AM
Reply to: Message 188 by jchardy
03-10-2012 12:50 AM


Re: purpose in science
It's clear that many things had to be just right for life to evolve in this universe.

It's not clear at all.

Before you can even begin to determine what characteristics a universe needs to have to produce life, you need to know all the different possible ways that life can arise.

Do you?

BTW, you seem to have skipped over the part where I asked you to show your work. Not that I'm the least bit surprised by that, I fully expected it. But I thought I'd make note, just for kicks.


Ridicule is the only weapon which can be used against unintelligible propositions. -- Thomas Jefferson

We see monsters where science shows us windmills. -- Phat

It has always struck me as odd that fundies devote so much time and effort into trying to find a naturalistic explanation for their mythical flood, while looking for magical explanations for things that actually happened. -- Dr. Adequate

...creationists have a great way to detect fraud and it doesn't take 8 or 40 years or even a scientific degree to spot the fraud--'if it disagrees with the bible then it is wrong'.... -- archaeologist


This message is a reply to:
 Message 188 by jchardy, posted 03-10-2012 12:50 AM jchardy has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 195 by jchardy, posted 03-10-2012 5:44 PM subbie has responded

  
Theodoric
Member
Posts: 5765
From: Northwest, WI, USA
Joined: 08-15-2005


Message 191 of 230 (655400)
03-10-2012 1:15 AM
Reply to: Message 189 by jchardy
03-10-2012 12:53 AM


Re: purpose in science
Re: purpose in science
Understanding, eloquence and kindness are not one of your strengths, I take it?

I understand. I understand you use a lot of word salad and obfuscation.

I am not eloquent. Do you imagine you are?

I am not here to be kind or make friends.

Care to address my post?


Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts

This message is a reply to:
 Message 189 by jchardy, posted 03-10-2012 12:53 AM jchardy has not yet responded

    
Tangle
Member
Posts: 4978
From: UK
Joined: 10-07-2011
Member Rating: 3.0


(1)
Message 192 of 230 (655416)
03-10-2012 4:52 AM
Reply to: Message 183 by jchardy
03-09-2012 9:11 PM


Re: purpose in science
jchardy writes:

Well, Tangle old kid, it appears you and I have nothing to talk about since you disrespect all my concepts and everything I say.
That’s OK. Just don’t bother responding if you’re not interested in exchanging ideas. Stick to your satellite and I’ll stick to mine.

Well, John S. Hardy, Jr. M.D., A.C.P., F.A.C.A, you appear to have landed on my satellite and are talking at me, so, if you don't mind, I'll decide whether I wish to talk back.

Your opening request was

"We “the people” badly need a clarification to understand the conflicts between adherents of faith and science. "

So far, all you've done is confirm the reasons why those conflicts exist. Do you not understand that if you want science to take your ideas seriously, you have to have some science to talk about? Science doesn't mean using sciencie-sounding words to camoflage religious ideas. You can't just chuck in words like chaos theory and quantum uncertainty and hope to impress us.

There are real scientist here who actually understand those terms and groan when religions co-opt them to obfuscate.

So we're all waiting for these new ideas of yours to be presented! when are you going to present them?


Life, don't talk to me about life - Marvin the Paranoid Android

This message is a reply to:
 Message 183 by jchardy, posted 03-09-2012 9:11 PM jchardy has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 193 by jchardy, posted 03-10-2012 5:30 PM Tangle has not yet responded

  
jchardy
Member (Idle past 1898 days)
Posts: 85
Joined: 11-24-2008


Message 193 of 230 (655473)
03-10-2012 5:30 PM
Reply to: Message 192 by Tangle
03-10-2012 4:52 AM


Re: purpose in science
OK: Here's a conversation of note:
quote:
In summary, this remarkably creative universe had to be exactly the way that it is for intelligent life to have evolved out of the raw energy of the Big Bang. If this was all due to design, then the creator had to get it just right for protons to turn into people automatically. The story of how it actually happened is much more intricate and astounding than any of the mythological products of human creativity. The fact that many things had to be just right for life has been emerging for many centuries. In the past this fact has been used to claim that the universe had to have been designed for it to have been so suitable for us.

This is exactly my point!! It’s too much detail for chance alone!!
What are the actual probabilities of this precise sequence of COUNTLESS events occurred as a result of the settling out of the “strange attractor” model that the universe began as, to thus result in where we are? Infinitesimal I would propose.
BUT THERE'S MORE: Now, in order to escape the concept of a Designer or Creator, science must reach eagerly for the multiverse theory: I.e., that out of the quantum foam that may or probably did accompany the big bang, countless --- almost all “sterile” – universes evolved but ONLY ONE had the totally remarkable balance of quantum mechanics to result in THIS universe!
Well, that’s OK, if it would just stop there. But if it is to lead to homo sapiens (or the equivalent in THIS situation), there MUST be an enormous NUMBER of such very “special universes” wherein the Milky Way Galaxy equivalent evolves; each containing a main sequence yellow dwarf star (our sun equivalent) located in an un-crowded outer arm evolved, and around which an accretion disk --- the remnants of a previous supernova billions of years previously -- provided the metallic products for life.
Then, on top of that, a planet, earth (or its equivalent), condensed and then took position around that stable main sequence yellow dwarf star just precisely within the “Goldilocks zone”; with an enormous amount of liquid water; a single moon to eventually regulate reasonable tides; posessing a rotating iron molten core within a liquid mantel generating a protective electromagnetic field, protecting its atmosphere and ocean from the solar winds; evolving granitic tectonic plates with continent migration over billions of years; evolving first life, then sentience, with numerous extinctions of lesser life forms, but then finally evolving a sapient form, ending with us. What are the chances? JCH

quote:
“This is a far greater achievement than the detailed meddling that is depicted in mythological explanations of creation.”

WHAT detailed meddling??? The writers or creators of the ancient chronicles gave NO “details”. They couldn’t!
Even if they were --- by some mystical means – provided the real details of what had and was happening, the mythological or biblical writers of “creation” could only detail an exceedingly simplified version of what was, since it is/was WAY beyond the comprehension of themselves or the common man of the time. They could neither conceive, nor document the actual “detailed meddling” that MUST have occurred within the maelstrom of chaos and entropy that was the evolving universe.
The original ancient writers of “creation” could, at best, provide simplistic versions. It was the best they could do. There were NO CONCEPTUAL SYSTEMS nor were there even WORDS TO EXPRESS such occurrences and processes.
Hell, the reality is, it’s still WAY beyond us today!
JCH


This message is a reply to:
 Message 192 by Tangle, posted 03-10-2012 4:52 AM Tangle has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 194 by jar, posted 03-10-2012 5:37 PM jchardy has responded

    
jar
Member
Posts: 29183
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004
Member Rating: 2.7


Message 194 of 230 (655475)
03-10-2012 5:37 PM
Reply to: Message 193 by jchardy
03-10-2012 5:30 PM


Re: purpose in science
But I would say that the odds are actually 100%.

We are not the goal, but the product.

It really is that simple.


Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 193 by jchardy, posted 03-10-2012 5:30 PM jchardy has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 196 by jchardy, posted 03-10-2012 6:59 PM jar has responded

  
jchardy
Member (Idle past 1898 days)
Posts: 85
Joined: 11-24-2008


Message 195 of 230 (655476)
03-10-2012 5:44 PM
Reply to: Message 190 by subbie
03-10-2012 12:55 AM


Re: purpose in science
It's clear that many things had to be just right for life to evolve in this universe.

quote:
It's not clear (to me) at all. Before you can even begin to determine what characteristics a universe needs to have to produce life, you need to know all the different possible ways that life can arise.

There is no use to discussing the unknowable. We can only discuss what we know, from our science that provides us the reasons our universe provided the foundations for life. Our process is deductive, not inductive. Inductive reasoning leading to conclusions, especially about the evolution of life, is fraught with peril, since initial conditions vary radically from one environment to another. All we can deal with is what we know or can analyze. Otherwise, we a dealing with something even less reliable than speculation.

quote:
BTW, you seem to have skipped over the part where I asked you to show your work. Not that I'm the least bit surprised by that, I fully expected it. But I thought I'd make note, just for kicks.

I just ignored the request because I didn't think you were serious. What work do you want me to show? What detail?

JCH


This message is a reply to:
 Message 190 by subbie, posted 03-10-2012 12:55 AM subbie has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 202 by Percy, posted 03-10-2012 8:25 PM jchardy has responded
 Message 207 by subbie, posted 03-10-2012 10:23 PM jchardy has responded

    
RewPrev1
...
1112
13
141516Next
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2015 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2017