Help me understand Intelligent Design (part 2)

Theodoric, TOE says the universe is old cause of their beliefs that lights speed could not be violated.IDists are staying out of the TOE / YEC debate of the age of the universe, age of the earth.Its only the YECist that have been saying all along that the universe's light is young.P.S. I'm getting dragged quite literally from my computer.Have a Merry Christmas

Nonsense. This assertion is notable only for its utter absurdity. A simple dimensional analysis already shows the assertion to be nonsensical. A person who says such a silly thing is either making a deliberate joke, or is so totally ignorant as to not realize what a whopper this is. Do you actually comprehend any of this?As the referenced web page mentions, it was a group velocity that exceeded the speed of light. That does not in any way contradict Einstein's theory. It has long been known that group velocity could exceed the velocity of light. I was aware of that back in my high school days.I'm not sure where you were getting this (I am not referring to the BBC page you cited). My best guess is that some creationist site is fraudulently misrepresenting the science, and you were gullible enough the swallow their fraud. This message has been edited by Adminnemooseus, 12-22-2005 03:04 PM

---

Impeach Bush.

OK folks help me out here. Is there a speed of light component to TOE that I don't know about? Isn't speed of light physics, cosmology and stuff like that?If this thread is about ID not YEC, why are you bringing about YEC points or are you trying to stray it off topic to make some sort of point?

Oooh ooh, fun game. I'll randomly compile words tooBrocolli feast seventy one catwalk supports YEC.Of course, my sentence makes no more sense than yours.What does this have to do with evolution or creationism?And, can you please define a scientific theory.

If you wish to discuss them (and I certainly wouldn't mind such), go to the "General.." topic, link below.AdminnemooseusThis message has been edited by Adminnemooseus, 12-22-2005 03:06 PM

---

Obviously, you haven't been paying attention. The evidence for ID is all the same data used for evolution. The difference is the data does not fit evolutionary models, but fits ID.The fossil record is a good example. The fossil record's qualities are things like sudden appearance and stasis; the exact opposite of what ToE predicts. The fossil record is not replete with transitional forms, and perhaps shows none at all. Evos claim a few here and there, but they are more or less based on imagination. The actual transitions are not shown.Think of it like this. I am an artist, and you can see in my work progressions or stages from some sort of art to another, but the works themselves stand alone and do not evolve one to another. Microevolution is observed, but the fossil record does not show the transitions between major taxa and very few, if any, transitions at all. The record more resembles what you would expect from an artist, or an Intelligent Designer. The problem is that if evolutionary models are true, you should have tens of thousands of archies, and you do not. The evidence just isn't there, and the paltry few so-called transitionals are so few in number, that there is really no reason to infer they were transitional at all. There just is no good record of evolution taking place in the fossil record. Just isn't there.

You are wrong.

emotionalism among evos, not fact-based and incapable of logical defense

From what I see, the evidence for 'I.D.' is area in Evolution that is considered 'I don't know'. That makes it NOT evidence, but rather the logical fallacy of personal incredibilty.The areas that I.D. was pushing as evidence was attacks on the lack of knowledge in what ever the current biological evolution was at the time.
For example.. the evolution of the immune system , (as described in
Behe's "Darwin's Black Box".When Behe repeated his claim at the recent Dover Trial that there will never be anyway to see how the Immune system evolved, he was presented with 58 peer reviewed articles, and text books on the immune system that describes in detail on how the immune system evolved.The same goes for the evoulution of the Bacterial Flagullum.Pointing to things that are not known, then proclaiming 'See, it had to be intelligently designed' is not evidence FOR I.D. at all.On edit:As for your claim about transitional form fossils not being repleat, I won't bother to show you the list of severl hundred of transitional fossils, because, I think your 'level of proof' is unrealisticly high.
I know these have been pointed out to you before, yet, here you are , repeating the same claim. This is very common amoung people who are anti-evolution. A claim is made , it is refuted, and then it gets made again without consideration of the evidence presented. However, if you do want a partial list of many forms, you can go to
Transitional Vertebrate Fossils FAQThis message has been edited by ramoss, 12-23-2005 08:13 AM

Randman, that's bullshit, and you know it.In order for it to "fit ID" there has to be a methodology that it fits into. You (and the rest of the ID supporters) have not given that methodology.You say the fossil records support "sudden appearence". So let's use that at a model.Please explain the METHOD by which sudden appearence takes place. Please explain the MECHANICS by which sudden appearence takes place.Show how the fossil record demonstrates either of these.You can't. Not because it doesn't, but because it can't support them. Why? Because there is no "method" or "mechanics" behind ID. It's junk science. It's a half formed hypothesis - it's not even interally complete. First off, this is a gross misunderstanding on your part. But let's assume that you are right here - that is NOT EVIDENCE FOR ID.One theory being wrong is not evidence FOR a competing theory. It's evidence AGAINST the first theory.Example:
You think cars work on magic. I think cars work on hamster power. Someone shows us that there are no hamsters in cars - that doesn't mean that cars work on magic.Now, I know that people have been over and over and over the "lack" of fossil thing with you. But, if you like, we can take that to a new thread and I can explain in great detail why your expectations about the fossil record are frankly very silly.

Wrong. We can determine design forensically even if we cannot yet determine the method. Darwin did not understand the method of genetics, but his theory was still accepted. The fact evos did not claim Darwinism was bogus because it was incomplete not explaining the method shows you guys have double standards.But on the topic of method or mechanism, I am putting forward some of the theories and principles surrounding quantum mechanics as a potential mechanism, specifically, we know that physical things actually exist as a superpositional potential, an information/energy state, and what we think of and measure as physical is a by-product of this information state. In other words, we see things "poofing into existence" all the time since virtually everything stems from this quantum state.What causes physical reality as we experience it is an ID mechanism whereby an information state, a potential, collapses or forms into physical reality. We see a constant process of moving from an inherent design into physical form, all the time. That's what quantum physics shows, this deeper, more fundamental reality containing the design (the information) interacting to cause a more limited manifestation of form we experience as the physical or material world. Aspects of the deeper reality, the superpositional state, we cannot measure, but we can take measurements that show it exists since the measurements or even the potential for measurement (delayed-choice experiments) cause one state or another to form out of the superpositional state.That's Intelligent Design, and it's basic to all material existence.

Darwin understood heredity, which is all that's needed to express ToE. Can you go into more detail about DNA and gene mapping, yes. Do you have to? No.ID doesn't have the equivelent of heredity. It doesn't have the basic method by which these creatures spontaneously pop into existance. Let alone any proof of any animal anywhere ever popping into existance. Excellent. I suggest you set up a series of boxes and check them regularly. As soon as a giraffe appears in one, you'll be ready to publish. Can you demonstrate this in reality? Can you create an experiment which tests this? Or is this just an existential theory? But what makes one potential existance more likely than another? What choices potential existance X instead of potential existance Y? I suggest that that "choice" is made by natural selection.Therefore, you've just done a nice job reaffirming the Theory of Evolution.Thanks

Actually, you are completely wrong and basically ignorant of the history of evolutionary theory. Darwin did not understand heredity, but held to a sort of semi-Lamarkaniasm of acquiring traits through one's life, which most reject now. That's one reason he felt natural selection and survival of the fittest was such a strong argument.He was though dead wrong, and as such, genetics is a major weakening of Darwinism. Genetics shows new traits can only be acquired via mutations, not experience, or that is the current theory. That makes evolutionary models more difficult because mutations must be neutral or beneficial and they must be sufficient potential within the genome to mutate altogether new traits somewhat forever, from day one with the first organism, that apparently evolved from things that never had genes in the first place.It makes evolutionary theory much more difficult. In fact, had we discovered genetics first, I suspect Darwin's ideas would not be held in such high esteem today, but by the time genetics came along, ToE was a dominant paradigm and so all new data was squeexed to fit evo models. Take away the evo assumptions though, and whole new vistas appear.Fact is Darwin was wrong on heredity.

Yes. It's been done successfully for over 80 years. The classical double-slit experiments demonstrate this, as well as the variations of it called delayed-choice experiments.

And apparently you have no clue as to why Darwin's work was good science, but ID is not.Here's a hint for you. Darwin's theory had testable empirical consequences. And you probably have no clue as to why your ID theory, based on this, is not considered good science.Here is another hint. When physicists deal with the quantum events that you consider to be "poofing into existence", they are able to make predictions and to test those predictions.Here is my suggestion on how you could develop your ID theory. You will need to have it make predictions. So you should take what we know of natural history. But make your own interpretation of the data (fossils, for example). Come up with your own natural history, including whatever poofing events you believe belong there.Once you have that natural history, you can try to develop a statistical analysis. See if you can come up with the conditions that will allow you to set probabilities for future poofing events.My guess is that, if you can do this well enough to actually make testable predictions that hold up, you will have come up with a whole new way of rediscovering the Theory of Evolution.