|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Foundations of ID | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Limbo Inactive Member |
quote: Just want to add a quick comment about the fossil record. Its my understanding that ID theorists reject the neo-Darwinian account of macroevolution because a) the fossil record still shows, after two centuries of digging, evidence only of microevolution (variation within biological taxa), but not of macroevolution (variation between biological taxa), b) all proposed mechanisms for Darwinian evolution on the microbiological level fail in explaining how the complexity on the cellular and subcellular level could have arisen by gradual, random mutation and natural selection, and c) the relatively short age of the universe is insufficient to allow for the complexity that now exists. This message has been edited by Limbo, 04-29-2005 09:43 PM
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Jerry Don Bauer Inactive Member |
quote: Yep. This greatly frustrated Eldredge and Gould who would just openly admit that there is not a shred of evidence in the fossil record to support the gradual evolution proposed by Darwin. Instead, we find in the record long periods of stasis interupted by bursts of sudden speciation as in the Cambrian explosion. So, again, with not a shred of evidence, one mathematical formula or a single lab experiment, they invented punctuated equilibrium as their new "theory." The truth is, the fossil record and it's history of organisms coming into it fully formed and ready to go in their environment and their propensity to stay that way with only minor changes via microevolution happening in their history until they go extinct in the record is STRONG evidence for intelligent design.
quote: Yep. You nailed that entire post.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
crashfrog Member (Idle past 1466 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined: |
Its my understanding that ID theorists reject the neo-Darwinian account of macroevolution because a) the fossil record still shows, after two centuries of digging, evidence only of microevolution (variation within biological taxa), but not of macroevolution (variation between biological taxa) This is nonsense. Variation between taxa? Organisms can no more vary between taxa than you can change who your biological parents are. Evolution predicts that the number of species within a given taxa will expand over time; there's no way an organism can leave a taxa. The arrangement is hierarchial; all organisms share at least one taxa, more closely related organisms share more taxa. If you define "macroevolution" as something that can't possibly ever occur, then no shit, you're never going to find evidence for it.
and c) the relatively short age of the universe is insufficient to allow for the complexity that now exists. How much complexity now exists? How much can we get per year? Why the assumption that the universe doesn't start out with any? Sounds like you're making a lot of stuff up, to me.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
crashfrog Member (Idle past 1466 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined: |
The truth is, the fossil record and it's history of organisms coming into it fully formed and ready to go in their environment and their propensity to stay that way with only minor changes via microevolution happening in their history until they go extinct in the record is STRONG evidence for intelligent design. I show you my photo album, taken with my digital camera. What's great about your average digital camera is that it timestamps the image files. The images are all of me, standing by my car in front of the USA's great national monuments. What's really funny is that, if you put the pictures in order by timestamp, and then map out the locations of the monuments in the picture, you find that there's a convergence of first-to-last and east-to-west. In other words the first picture in the time series is also the eastmost in the map series, and that pattern continues all the way to the last, westmost picture. Now, even though a picture is a static image and not a moving picture, and indeed, even though I'm never seen actually driving in my car, a reasonable person would conclude that this is a record of a roadtrip to see the sights, starting in the east and going west. But creationists and ID'ists, since they don't see any movement when they look at the static record, would have us believe that this is no record at all - simply a series of unconnected photographs that have nothing to do with each other, and that intelligent aliens or a supernatural power actually teleported myself and my car, as we stood motionless, from monument to monument to monument. C'mon, guys. Species appearing suddenly? A record of stasis? Of course that's what the fossil record looks like. The fossils are dead; they don't change. Species appearing suddenly is exactly what you would expect from a static, sampled record of change. How dumb do you think we are?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Parasomnium Member Posts: 2224 Joined: |
Jerry writes: You seem to be dropping your logic The only thing I'm dropping right now is my jaw at the astonishing combination of ignorance and arrogance you are displaying in your posts. Don't expect discussion from me anymore, I have better things to do. We are all atheists about most of the gods that humanity has ever believed in. Some of us just go one god further. - Richard Dawkins
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1405 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
Jerry Don Bauer, msg 1 writes: Today, modern ID is a totally science based discipline that has no ghosts, gods, fairies, leprechauns or metaphysics in it anywhere. Then, instead of a long list of unsubstantiated assertions (entire message #1) having nothing to do with science, why don't you present a falsifiable test for ID? Let's be very clear about this: calling ID science does not make it so, calling philosophy science does not make it so, calling ID philosophy and therefore science is false logic as it is based on false precepts. Saying that philosophy is science because it had some beginnings in philosophy (while ignoring other influences that honed the formulation and practice of science) is also false logic. This is like saying that you are your mother and that bacteria are human, it is conflating end with beginning.
msg 9 writes: QUANTUM PHILOSOPHY IN ID Why say philosophy here? Because this is the same approach to "problem" science as creationists use, where they have tried labeling science as {faith\belief} ... if we can call science something else then we don't have to deal with the problems presented by {it\them}. It also conflates philosophy with science so that talking about {philosophical concepts} appears to have the same evidentiary basis as (scientific concepts} regardless of how ill-formed the {philosophical concepts} are. Neither is true. This is like calling the tail of a dog a leg and then talking about the philosophical ramifications of a dog having a fifth leg. Calling a tail a leg does not make it so.
Let's try it a different way. I will shoot one photon at a time into the box when both slits are open and the results are quite astounding. Now the photons begin to build up the interference pattern identical to the scenario that was recorded when we imported massive photons, as in a bright light. ... This is confusing me because I don't understand how a single photon can interfere with itself, or for that matter, how an individual particle can go through two holes at the same time. The only difference between the "shotgun" blast of photons and the single photon by single photon accumulation of an image is the timescale. The same thing is happening with the "shotgun" blast, just so fast that you do not see the behavior of the discrete photons. Feynman demonstrates that this is the behavior of particles, see Feynman Lecture Videos (click) for examples of this (lecture 2 I believe). Feynman has demonstrated that particles can and do behave exactly as wave elements while actually being particles.
Nope. According to independent experiments carried out by the University of Maryland and the University of Munich the photon acts like a single particle and goes through only one slit as if it had known that it was going to be observed at some point in the future. Because it {is\was} a particle.
How could 'dumb' particles know that observers will be watching them in the future? Or better yet, do the observers actually alter the behavior of the particles in the past by observing them in the present? Another question is whether you can {observe\measure\track} the behavior of a single discrete particle without altering its {momentum\charge\behavior} in any way. This goes back to the uncertainty principle, which you quoted as: " 'the more precisely the position of a particle is determined, the less precisely the momentum is known in this instant, and vice versa.' " (bold yours) From: http://zebu.uoregon.edu/~imamura/208/jan27/hup.html
There is an uncertainty associated with each measurement, e.g., there is some dp and dx, which I can never get rid of even in a perfect experiment!!!. This is due to the fact that whenever I make a measurement, I must disturb the system. Notice too that the uncertainty is in what we know, not is what is actually happening.
How do particles know when they are, or are not being observed? When they exchange energy with the measuring system, which then alters their behavior. Remember that we are dealing with a single discrete particle.
Of course, just as ID makes no attempt to discern a designer, the Copenhagen Interpretation states the observer has special status in that a system must be observed in order to exist as individual particles but it cannot explain or identify the observer itself, nor does it attempt to. See comments previously on conflating philosophy with science. You have shown no equivalence between these concepts.
individual particles such as photons, electrons and neutrinos are a very real part of our universe and yet to also understand that if photons are to be particles rather than waves as they sometimes are, it requires a conscious observer to collapse the wave-function--to make the reality of our universe, real indeed. Again, they {were\are} particles and there is no "collapse" of the (non-existant) wave-function. Plus the "wave-function" is nothing but an intellectual mathematical construction, a model, of how things behave and not the reality. And if a model does not predict what really happens then it is not reality that is in error, but the model. I note that the only actual scientific sources (peer reviewed) you referenced are dated 1927 and 1965. Do you think physics may have made some progress since then?
msg 10 writes: My point with introducing the work of Young, Heisenberg, Bohr, Tipler, Feynman, Wheeler and others is that the more temporal humans learn scientifically about the universe around us, the easier it becomes for any free-thinking person, regardless of religious beliefs, to accept and fully embrace intelligent design. Science is not a popularity contest, but a reality contest. Things that are {accepted\embraced} without evidence are beliefs ... faith. Again, demonstrate that ID is science first, rather than just another {philosophy\faith} that employs what is known from science as a foundation for its beliefs.
This Supreme Observer can be Christ to me, Yahweh to the Jews, Allah to the Moslems, Krishna to the Hindus, nothing more than quantum mechanics to the atheist and the agnostics still just may not know WHAT the heck it is. Jerry Don Bauer, msg 1 writes: (color mine for emPHAsis) Today, modern ID is a totally science based discipline that has no ghosts, gods, fairies, leprechauns or metaphysics in it anywhere. Notice that these statements are mutually contradictory. If it is "totally science based" AND has no "metaphysics in it" then there is no need to {suppose} who the existence of a (metaphysical) "Supreme Observer" nor consider any possible explanations of {who} that "SO" could be.
And once realizing that intelligent design is not based on religious beliefs then metaphysics become a moot point and we can look directly at science to discover a Supreme Observer as explained in the post above. The only problem is that you have neither demonstrated the existence of a "supreme observer" (your words, mind, and not those used in usual ID articles), nor that one is required for the physics to be explained. The parsimony principle requires that any superfluous conclusions not based on the facts be rejected by science. This points out (again) the difference between science {agnostic on any concept that cannot be verified\falsified} and philosophy {a rational formulation not necessarily based on facts}. ID as a philosophy can make use of science to pursue its philosophical ends, but you cannot force the philosophy onto science. {Properly pursued ID} would do this (employ science without coerced conclusions). See {Topic: Is ID properly pursued?} (click) for more on this aspect of ID.
we can propose a design methodology beginning with quantum mechanics which is exactly the way that molecular design engineers do it. Another conflation between science and yet another {branch\application} of {thought\knowledge}. Engineering is not science; it is a means of making practical use of the knowledge acquired by science and often employs empirical solutions because the results are "close enough for all practical purposes" and not because the results are the final ultimate answer. Engineering employs science for practical ends. Engineers study physics to understand the practical limitation of what can and cannot be done. They don't necessarily study advanced physics (relativity, quantum mechanics), because they don't need to for their jobs (unless they get involved in aerospace). Physicists, on the other hand, don't study engineering, because they don't need to: it adds nothing to their field. Note that this is the same difference between the philosophy of ID (properly pursued) and science.
Let's begin by throwing out a post-grad paper on the subject: Done. It's thrown out (because the premise that you used to introduce it was erroneous): that renders this whole post Message 10 irrelevant. You also just conflated microscopic with subatomic, another logical fallacy. Now to some of your "replies"
msg 14 writes: That distinguishes intelligent design from natural design. Looking at sand dunes one may get the impression they are designed and in a way they are by natural processes that could have gone a number of different directions. The purpose hones in the definition because it implies intelligence.
Notice three things: (1) purpose has not been demonstrated, (2) you said implies ... and it also implies that the process that created the apparent design is not understood, and hence could just as easily be as totally natural as the sand dunes (Occam's bloody razor eliminates the conclusion of intelligence behind design until it is demonstrated that it exists) and finally, (3) the purpose behind the apparent design could be simple and result from totally natural processes (as in the supposedly "irreducibly complex" biological systems, a falsified concept, as one has been observed evolving). This is the inescapable problem for ID: to fully understand the systems where design is observed they have to fully understand the systems in their entirety in order to eliminate all possibility of natural processes and purposes. This means that science may be employed in the search for ID, but that ID cannot constrain science in the process: it must recuse itself from the science for the conclusions to be valid. Absent any method of falsifying the concept of ID, and absent any predictions of observations that could only result from ID and not some other mechanism, then what IDists are left with is the need to do what "Sherlock Holmes" stated - "when you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth" - and, as yet, IDists have not even begun to eliminate the possible.
I can't because your question is too vague. Design is a very broad subject. Pure equivocation. Just any falsifiable aspect of ID will suffice.
If one chooses to view quantum mechanics as Allah, and your dog has five legs right?
there is no secular humanist religion in science, but certainly Darwinism because it's not science, it's religion. Another unsupported assertion. Also, note my comment back at the beginning re conflating philosophy and science. Predictable behavior, imho, based on your first post. And yet for ID to work in biological systems, all the mechanisms of evolution must be involved. Methinks you are a YECreationist pretending to be an IDist, because you (falsly) think that ID supports creationism. At this point I am assuming the "young earth" aspect based on the tone of your posts (and the logical fallacies employed so far). Exactly how and why does ID need to treat evolution any different than physics and astronomy and geology and ... etc etc etc?
Yet, nothing in Darwinism is falsifiable. I would love to hear someone falsify common descent, or that man and apes shared a common ancestor, or that huge, ferocious land mammals called pakicetus poofed its legs into flippers, crawled off into the oceans and magically morphed into whales, or that weird looking reptiles shoved their jawbones up into their ears and poofed into mammals. You talk about a fairy tale for grown-ups. LOL ... pure creatortionista claptrap. And I thought we were discussing ID. If ID is in any way scientific then it must accept the evidence of all science, for if it fails to accept one then it fails to fully test its concepts against the science involved to show that no natural mechanism can explain the {observation\behavior\precept} Ignorance and denial do not make evidence go away. The reality is that evolution is the best explanation for the observations, that the observations are consistent with the theories and that many falsification tests have been passed without the core theories being falsified (although lesser ones have been, Lamarckism, as propounded by both Lamarck and Darwin, for example). Genetics was the latest such make-or-break event: if common descent was not true then there would be no pattern in the genes that would match the patterns of descent derived by other means. Genetics confirms the patterns of common descent. Meanwhile, the concepts of ID have yet to begin to go ...
... through the strict scientific method in order to become theories of science. Scientific inquiry starts at the observation level. From there, hypotheses are developed to explain that observation and these hypotheses are then subjected to scientific experimentation in order to empirically determine whether the observation can withstand the scientific inquiry. You can't have it both ways. Either evolution is a fully embraced science or ID is less than the gratuitous injection of a biological fluid waste product into a meteorological pressure redistribution system against the pressure gradient.
We are the minority position because we are so new in this form. Surely you don't think there are no scientists that are ID theorists. Have a look at the people who are fellows in just one ID institution, ISCID. Ah yes, first the appeal to pity and then the inevitable appeal to authority. Let's compare lists ... mine is longer and has more PH.D.s: The Steve List (click). There are also Ph.D. biologists who believe in many religions. See the American Scientific Affiliation (ASA)
The American Scientific Affiliation (ASA) is a fellowship of men and women in science and disciplines that relate to science who share a common fidelity to the Word of God and a commitment to integrity in the practice of science. A list of names proves nothing, the question still comes back to actually doing science rather than just making a bunch of unsupported assertions.
The observer has been experimentally validated. Still false (and no new information presented to validate the claim).
many things in science are taken through the method mathematically Math is just a model, it is not the reality. Tell me one thing in reality that math has validated. All math can do is help you to make predictions that can be validated or invalidated, it can tell you nothing about what reality really is.
msg 32 writes: If it takes an observer to collapse a wave into a particle (energy to matter) and since there is matter in our universe that is exhibiting that form rather than its energy persona, it follows that an observer has collapsed those waves. And, again, there is still no collapse of the non-existent wave, the matter is still adequately explained by particle probabilities al la Feynman, plus you still have not demonstrated any connection between particle behavior and some other "supreme observer" and thus you have two false precepts in your argument: ergo your conclusion is still false.
The photon doesn't hit the detector. The detector is just there to observe the photon as it goes by. There is no action without reaction, no way to measure the individual discrete photon without affecting it. I also notice that you still referenced the same (old) articles from your post Message 9. Still nothing new? It seems you are repeating yourself in all the later replies. The only other thing I note from your later posts is this:
{{responding to}}
limbo writes:
Yep. You nailed that entire post. Its my understanding that ID theorists reject the neo-Darwinian account of macroevolution because a) the fossil record still shows, after two centuries of digging, evidence only of microevolution (variation within biological taxa), but not of macroevolution (variation between biological taxa), b) all proposed mechanisms for Darwinian evolution on the microbiological level fail in explaining how the complexity on the cellular and subcellular level could have arisen by gradual, random mutation and natural selection, and c) the relatively short age of the universe is insufficient to allow for the complexity that now exists. Lets see what was that prediction earlier? Ah yes: YECreationist pretending to be IDist. I also note that many of my points were also addressed by Parasomnium and that you failed to refute them. Your really (ignorant?) comparison of a single light particle to a person traveling in a car past a radar detector seems to be the best you can do at this point, and it is totally inadequate. Not much point in going further without seeing if I dare hope for anything different. Enjoy. ps:
If this is in your signature does this mean that you are the author of the website? we are limited in our ability to understand by our ability to understand RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
{{{Buddha walks off laughing with joy}}}
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Jerry Don Bauer Inactive Member |
quote: Ahhh....Wouldn't it be nice if the fossil record were laid out so perfectly that we could look at time-stamps on rocks and observe pictures of a species traveling down an evolutionary highway stopping at monuments along the way for snap shots? The problem is that there isn't any time-stamped pictures of a single species stopping at these monuments: Species A -----> Transitional 1 -----> Transitional 2 -----> Transitional 3 -----> Transitional 4 -----> Transitional 5 -----> Species B -----> Not ONE! Sad, I know. But the gradual evolution that Darwin predicted from a common ancestor is simply not in there. In fact, anyone who looks at the fossil record objectively and contrasts what's in there with science can only conclude that Darwinism stands refuted on this evidence alone. You see, even if we could find one species we suspect traveled through several transitions and ended in a new species we have a major problem. A sexual species is defined as two organisms that can interbreed and produce fertile, viable offspring and do so naturally. Hmmm.....Well how are we going to go back in time millions of years to do these breeding experiments to even determine what species was what and what species morphed from other species? Houston, we have some uber-headaches.
quote: Do you really think that Gould and Eldredge were IDists or Creationists?
quote: Some of those fossils are connected to each other as we can see minor variations in some organisms. But one need not read things into the record that isn't there. When this happens, one leaves the realm of science and enters the arena of religion based on faith. Faith: Belief in something where there is little evidence to support that something.
quote: I don't think you're dumb at all. Just propagandized by activist college professors. In fact, I have you pegged as a young college student at MU, one of my old alma maters. Now how is that for insight? The bottom line is that if Darwin's gradualism were legit, we would see little stasis but a slow and steady evolutionary trend from ameboid to homo sapiens. We don't. It's not in there. It didn't happen. Sorry. Design Dynamics
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Ooook! Member (Idle past 5815 days) Posts: 340 From: London, UK Joined: |
The problem is that there isn't any time-stamped pictures of a single species stopping at these monuments: Species A -----> Transitional 1 -----> Transitional 2 -----> Transitional 3 -----> Transitional 4 -----> Transitional 5 -----> Species B -----> Not ONE! The trouble for your claim is that we do see: Species A --> Species C --> species F --> species I To make it even more damaging occasionally fossils representing species D and G spring up as predicted by the ToE!! But of course any creationist worth his/her salt then points out that we now have a gap between C and D without a transitional.
The bottom line is that if Darwin's gradualism were legit, we would see little stasis but a slow and steady evolutionary trend from ameboid to homo sapiens Except of course, that's not what you would predict is it? If selective pressures remain constant, why would anything change to any large degree? This is either deliberate misrepresentation of the ToE or a deep ignorance of it.
Some of those fossils are connected to each other as we can see minor variations in some organisms. But one need not read things into the record that isn't there.When this happens, one leaves the realm of science and enters the arena of religion based on faith. Faith: Belief in something where there is little evidence to support that something. OK here's a challenge: Point to a specific jump in the fossil record that you think could not have arisen by random mutation and natural selection. No imaginary bacteria-man steps please; an actual suggested transition in the fossil record between two species that requires a designer to intervene.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
JustinC Member (Idle past 4843 days) Posts: 624 From: Pittsburgh, PA, USA Joined: |
quote:Nothing in science is ever certain. But there's a difference between the caveat, "and since it is science, it may not be true as scientific knowledge is tentative" and the caveat, "there are competing interpretations for this phenomena and as of right now we can't rule any of them out or say one is more supported than others." quote:It really hasn't been shown experimentally to be true. What has been proven is that if you assume the existance of probability waves, which CI proposes, then an observer be needed to collapse them. This way of looking at phenomena can predict the results. But other interpretations can predict the same results. quote:I actually prefer Feynman's "sum-over-histories" approach to QM. It's a way of doing calculations that gets the results, but makes no attempt conflate the way they are getting the results with some actual physical process. It only deals with probabilities of events happening. So, in the two holes experiment, adding a detector in one of the holes adds another history you have to sum into the equation to find out where the photon is likely to go. When this is done, an interference pattern is unlikely. I reallly think this is as far as QM is right now. We know that if you have an initial experimental setup, you have a probability of getting a certain results.
quote:You should think about whether the Copenhagen Interpretation is proven mathematically, or whether it is one way, of many, to predict results. Do we "know" everything exists as a superposition of states when there is no observer? Do we "know" probability waves are actual physical constructs as opposed to a mental scaffold?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Jerry Don Bauer Inactive Member |
quote: That's a nonsensical request because the term is too vague. ID is not a theory to begin with, so how could it be falsified? Neither is biology, chemistry or geology. Can you falsify botany? How about anatomy?
quote: Of course not and I didn't; but basing every tenet of ID on hard science and mathematics insures that it is a science based epistemology. In fact, other than Panspermia, it is the only origins field based on science and math.
quote: I never stated that philosophy is science. I would have no idea how you are reading this into what I wrote.
quote: You may need to do some reading to discover what science is and how it inter-relates with the philosophy of science.
quote: Of course they do. Who ever challenged this? You either fail to understand the double-slit experiments, or just don't like what they show. I will let the references I posted stand for themselves. Much of your posting from here on is simply silly as in "and your dog has five legs right?", nonsensical, or unintelligible and what is intelligible is just opinion which you are most welcome to have in my threads, so I will skip that rather than attempt to wade through and separate the seemingly rambling diatribes (no offense meant,just calling them as I see them).
quote: All of that work and you still fail to list a single tenet unique to Darwinism that can be falsified. Do you just enjoy typing?
quote: I contribute to the institute, am a member and officer in it and an instructor/writer. Many of the courses offered there will be based on a book I authored, but I do not solely own the place, no. Thanks for your post. If you care to take one tenet of your concerns at a time and clearly elucidate them. I will be happy to respond. Design Dynamics
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1405 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
Jerry. msg 67 writes: The bottom line is that if Darwin's gradualism were legit, we would see little stasis but a slow and steady evolutionary trend from ameboid to homo sapiens. We don't. It's not in there. It didn't happen. Sorry. Why? Why little stasis when there are mechanisms that trend toward stasis and periods where no pressure for change exists? we are limited in our ability to understand by our ability to understand RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
{{{Buddha walks off laughing with joy}}}
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1405 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
what a surprise. you still fail to deal with the problems.
That's a nonsensical request because the term is too vague. ID is not a theory to begin with, so how could it be falsified? Neither is biology, chemistry or geology. Can you falsify botany? How about anatomy? As I also posted when you said exactly the same quizling statment in reply to another request for a falisfiable test:
Pure equivocation. Just any falsifiable aspect of ID will suffice. Time to stop dodging and start putting forward the supposed science that is behind your supposed position. Philosophies that do not have falsifiable tests are pseudo-science at best, b-grade science fiction at worst.
but basing every tenet of ID on hard science and mathematics insures that it is a science based epistemology. Except you haven't. You specifically excluded some science. And again you conflate philosophy with science.
I never stated that philosophy is science. You may need to do some reading to discover what science is and how it inter-relates with the philosophy of science. More self-contradiction. Do you read what you post?
You either fail to understand the double-slit experiments, or just don't like what they show. Or I understand it as good as (or better than) you but don't leap to specious unsupported conclusions. While I pointed out how those conclusions of yours are specious and unsupported, it appears you just can't deal with that issue.
All of that work and you still fail to list a single tenet unique to Darwinism that can be falsified. Do you just enjoy typing? I gave you one. and as I said above:
You can't have it both ways. Either evolution is a fully embraced science or ID is less than the gratuitous injection of a biological fluid waste product into a meteorological pressure redistribution system against the pressure gradient. Much of your posting from here on is simply silly as in "and your dog has five legs right?", nonsensical, or unintelligible and what is intelligible is just opinion which you are most welcome to have in my threads, so I will skip that rather than attempt to wade through and separate the seemingly rambling diatribes (no offense meant,just calling them as I see them). An easy cop-out for failing to address the issues. Sorry you can't deal with it, but I also expected this when I said:
I also note that many of my points were also addressed by Parasomnium and that you failed to refute them. Your really (ignorant?) comparison of a single light particle to a person traveling in a car past a radar detector seems to be the best you can do at this point, and it is totally inadequate. Not much point in going further without seeing if I dare hope for anything different. Actually most of your posting is calling {something} what it isn't. Calling a dog's tail a leg still doesn't make it one, no matter how many times you say it. Let me specifically point out that you failed to make a case for your position, that specific failures were pointed out, and that you have failed to address these specific issues. As such your position is refuted, no matter how you strut your hour upon the stage. I see you also failed to address the issue of ID properly pursued:
ID as a philosophy can make use of science to pursue its philosophical ends, but you cannot force the philosophy onto science. {Properly pursued ID} would do this (employ science without coerced conclusions). See {Topic: Is ID properly pursued?} (click) for more on this aspect of ID. When you care to respond in more detail to the reality of your untenable position you can post another reply until then enjoy we are limited in our ability to understand by our ability to understand RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
{{{Buddha walks off laughing with joy}}}
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
crashfrog Member (Idle past 1466 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined: |
Ahhh....Wouldn't it be nice if the fossil record were laid out so perfectly that we could look at time-stamps on rocks and observe pictures of a species traveling down an evolutionary highway stopping at monuments along the way for snap shots? You mean, wouldn't it be great if we could determine an upper and lower age for the fossils we find based on the geologic matrix in which we find them? Good thing we can do exactly that.
A sexual species is defined as two organisms that can interbreed and produce fertile, viable offspring and do so naturally. Hmmm.....Well how are we going to go back in time millions of years to do these breeding experiments to even determine what species was what and what species morphed from other species? Naturally, we can't perform breeding experiments on organisms that are not alive. So we have to infer species from taxonomy, which is generally more accurate than not. Not perfect, of course. But if the argument you're making is that we don't know everything, therefore we know nothing, well, you're going to find that's not a position that people are going to find compelling. I certainly don't.
Houston, we have some uber-headaches. Oh, shit! This stuff might actually be hard! Hell, we'd better just give up now and go to church. That's a whole lot easier, now isn't it?
Do you really think that Gould and Eldredge were IDists or Creationists? Why would I think that? Neither Gould nor Eldridge denied that the fossil record was a record of evolution. You, apparently, do.
But one need not read things into the record that isn't there. Hey, look. We can show you the dots. If you don't want to connect them, because doing so would conflict with your faith, how is any of that my problem? If you're determined to remain ignorant there's really little I can do to stop you.
Just propagandized by activist college professors. In fact, I have you pegged as a young college student at MU, one of my old alma maters. Now how is that for insight? Abominable. I'm neither a student now, nor am I particularly young, nor have I ever attended MU. I have no training in the sciences beyond what I've absorbed on my own initiative. The only "propaganda" I was ever exposed to was creationist propaganda, when I was a creationist for some time. In between that period and now I was briefly a proponent of ID until I realized how it lacked any scientific foundation to stand on.
The bottom line is that if Darwin's gradualism were legit, we would see little stasis but a slow and steady evolutionary trend from ameboid to homo sapiens. Why would we see that?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
JustinC Member (Idle past 4843 days) Posts: 624 From: Pittsburgh, PA, USA Joined: |
John,
After reading up on QM, I realize I've been misrepresenting CI. I've been saying it says there are physical probability waves. This is not true, it is the exact opposite. It conflates the state vector with "knowledge" and thus avoids the nonlocality associated with physical waves. It doesn't avoid nonlocality, though, since it still has what Einstein referred to as "spooky action at a distance" or entangled quantum particles. But the other tenents of CI are just as unprovable as the quantum potential of pilot wave theories. What we are talking about are interpretations of the mathematical formalism. As I said before, the CI does not trump other interpretations just because it was one that was first worked out. Pilot wave theories, multiples universe theories, and the Transactional interpretation have all been proposed. Yes, they have their share of metaphysical baggage, but no more so than the CI. This is what Gribbin was referring to in his book when he said the value of an interpretation shouldn't be whether it is "true" since there is no way of knowing. It should be whether it illuminates the phenomena for one trying to understand it. Gribbin's prefers the Transactional interpretation, which doesn't inflate the conscious observer to some special status, and offers other insights into the nature of the nonlocality in QM. For more information on the Transactional interpretation, you should check out the author's, John Cramer's, article at http://mist.npl.washington.edu/npl/int_rep/tiqm/TI_toc.html. If that is too long or too indepth (which it was for me at some points), there is a link to a shorter article on that sight which sums it up. The site also have a fairly large section on CI and its implications and short comings. I hope that from reading about this more, you realize that the CI isn't a "proven" or "highly supported" view of QM, and that using it as a justification for supposing ID is correct is pretty tenuous. This message has been edited by JustinC, 05-01-2005 02:51 AM
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Jerry Don Bauer Inactive Member |
Howdy Ooook!
quote: Well gee. Then why do you guys keep this stuff so well hidden? Your own leaders are not even aware that you have evidence to show gradualism between species in the fossil record: Stevie Ray states: "The extreme rarity of transitional forms in the fossil record persists as the trade secret of paleontology. to preserve our favored account of evolution by natural selection we view our data as so bad that we never see the very process we profess to study." And he just goes hogwild:, "The absence of fossil evidence for intermediary stages between major transitions in organic design, indeed our inability, even in our imagination, to construct functional intermediates in many cases, has been a persistent and nagging problem for gradualistic accounts of evolution." Yeah, go ahead and accuse me of quote mining, but the truth is there is no way these quotes could mean anything other than they say. You seem to stand by yourself in this "science."
quote: Again. There is no such thing as a ToE. Theories of science must be taken through the strict scientific method in order to become theories of science. Scientific inquiry starts at the observation level. From there, hypotheses are developed to explain that observation and these hypotheses are then subjected to scientific experimentation in order to empirically determine whether the observation can withstand the scientific inquiry. If a concept withstands the hypothesis stage through experimentation, it then is published in some manner to the scientist's peers. If the peers can reproduce the experiments (and they sometimes add to them) then the hypothesis may become a theory. NOTHING in Darwinism has ever been taken through the scientific method to the theory level and therefore, there is no such thing as a theory of evolution speaking strictly from science.
quote: The Cambrian Explosion. [1] Gould, S.J., Evolution's erratic pace.Natural History 86(5):14, 1977. [2] Gould, S.J., Is a new and general theory of evolution emerging? Paleobiology 6:119—130 (p.127), 1980.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024