EvC Forum: Foundations of ID

Email This Thread

Newer Topic | Older Topic

Author

Topic: Foundations of ID

RAZD

Member (Idle past 1435 days)

Posts: 20714

From: the other end of the sidewalk

Joined: 03-14-2004

Normal Thread Display

Message 66 of 213 (203971)
04-30-2005 3:16 PM

Reply to: Message 1 by Jerry Don Bauer
04-27-2005 7:09 PM

Once more into the breeches ...

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.

(italics in original)

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?

(bold yours, emphasizing your argument is from incredulity, btw)

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:

Today, modern ID is a totally science based discipline that has no ghosts, gods, fairies, leprechauns or metaphysics in it anywhere.

(color mine for emPHAsis)

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:

limbo writes:

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.

Yep. You nailed that entire post.

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:

http://www.designdynamics.org/

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}}}

This message is a reply to:
	Message 1 by Jerry Don Bauer, posted 04-27-2005 7:09 PM		Jerry Don Bauer has replied

Replies to this message:
	Message 70 by Jerry Don Bauer, posted 04-30-2005 6:33 PM		RAZD has replied

RAZD

Member (Idle past 1435 days)

Posts: 20714

From: the other end of the sidewalk

Joined: 03-14-2004

Normal Thread Display

Message 71 of 213 (204007)
04-30-2005 7:33 PM

Reply to: Message 67 by Jerry Don Bauer
04-30-2005 5:56 PM

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}}}

This message is a reply to:
	Message 67 by Jerry Don Bauer, posted 04-30-2005 5:56 PM		Jerry Don Bauer has not replied

RAZD

Member (Idle past 1435 days)

Posts: 20714

From: the other end of the sidewalk

Joined: 03-14-2004

Normal Thread Display

Message 72 of 213 (204014)
04-30-2005 8:56 PM

Reply to: Message 70 by Jerry Don Bauer
04-30-2005 6:33 PM

Re: Once more into the breeches ...

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:

I'm glad you think ID is what is making your argument all wet. I could say that it displays a certain level of intelligence, but that would be something like an actual diatribe.

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:

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:

No big surprise there either.

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}}}

This message is a reply to:
	Message 70 by Jerry Don Bauer, posted 04-30-2005 6:33 PM		Jerry Don Bauer has replied

Replies to this message:
	Message 78 by Jerry Don Bauer, posted 05-01-2005 5:10 AM		RAZD has replied

RAZD

Member (Idle past 1435 days)

Posts: 20714

From: the other end of the sidewalk

Joined: 03-14-2004

Normal Thread Display

Message 89 of 213 (204503)
05-02-2005 11:23 PM

Reply to: Message 78 by Jerry Don Bauer
05-01-2005 5:10 AM

Re: Once more into the breeches ...

Jerry Don Bauer, msg 78 writes:

Hey, you win, Dude as I have no idea how to address this "science." *Cracking up*...Have the last word and our conversation will be over.

Yep.

Lets look at my first post again. The points you "replied to" will be in grey (with no comment here about the adequacy of the reply) and my comments which refute your position (and that you haven't yet replied to) will be in yellow, and in some cases there will be {{added comments in cyan}} - particularly where you didn't answer before (ostensibly because you claim it was "nonsensical, or unintelligible" or some other cop-out):

RAZD, msg 66 writes:

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?

msg 9 writes:

QUANTUM PHILOSOPHY IN ID

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.

{{added comment: what this means is that ID is not a science unless it can actually demonstrate that it is science, no matter how many times anyone asserts it is science.}}

Feynman has demonstrated that particles can and do behave exactly as wave elements while actually being particles.

Because it {is\was} a particle.

" '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

(italics in original)

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?

(bold yours, emphasizing your argument is from incredulity, btw)

When they exchange energy with the measuring system, which then alters their behavior. Remember that we are dealing with a single discrete particle.

{{added comment: still waiting to see how you can measure any facet of a single particle's {behavior\position\etc} without affecting it in any way.}}

See comments previously on conflating philosophy with science. You have shown no equivalence between these concepts.

{{comments added: the fact that these particles were never "waves as they sometimes are" means that your conclusion is based on a falsified precept and is therefore invalid. This invalidates your topic as well, btw.}}

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:

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.

{{comments added: one wonders how many times you will need to be asked this question before you give a valid answer.}}

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.

(color mine for emPHAsis)

{{added comment: this is the kind of logically false thinking that happens to those who try to mix ID beliefs with fundamentalist religions.}}

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}.

{{added comment: you have been given this link a couple of times and it addresses specific errors you make.}}

we can propose a design methodology beginning with quantum mechanics which is exactly the way that molecular design engineers do it.

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.

{{added comment: in case you missed the point the first time -- engineers don't need to be accurate at the subatomic level for the kind of work covered by that paper, so this would be like saying that we can use Newtonian physics to explain relativity ... it just doesn't work like that.}}

You also just conflated microscopic with subatomic, another logical fallacy.

Now to some of your "replies"

msg 14 writes:

{{added comment: this issue is discussed in greater detail in the link I provided above.}}

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.

{{added comment: notice that this anticipated your virtually identical (stock answer?) equivocation to my earlier comment on the same issue, your failure to address this issue {{here}} must mean that you must not have any falsifiable aspect to provide. This also, of course, means that ID is not a science, and this refutes your entire topic.}}

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.

{{added comment: again, you need to detail how ID concepts logically lead to the conclusion that evolution is wrong.}}

Methinks you are a YECreationist pretending to be an IDist, because you (falsely) 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?

{{added comment: there is nothing in the precepts of ID that requires this conclusion, rather the opposite would follow from the concepts involved. This is another example of the confusion one gets into when one tries to use ID to support their fundamentalist Christian religious (unscientific) views.}}

LOL ... pure creatortionista claptrap. And I thought we were discussing ID.

Meanwhile, the concepts of ID have yet to begin to go ...

{{added comment: again, there is plenty of demonstrated science in the study of evolution while you have provided none in support of ID. Your rejection of evolution goes much much much more for ID because of this not so subtle difference.}}

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)

A list of names proves nothing, the question still comes back to actually doing science rather than just making a bunch of unsupported assertions.

{{added comment: and we're still waiting for that evidence of ID having a falsifiable concept. There are plenty of newer scientific concepts than ID and they have no trouble providing falsifiable tests of their concepts.}}

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.

{{comments added: math in and of itself proves nothing about reality.}}

msg 32 writes:

{{added comment: again notice that this ivalidates your topic, and failure to address the issue means that it is still invalidated.}}

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.

{{added comment: you have had several opportunities to answer this question.}}

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:

limbo writes:

Yep. You nailed that entire post.

Lets see what was that prediction earlier? Ah yes: YECreationist pretending to be IDist.

Enjoy.

ps:

http://www.designdynamics.org/

If this is in your signature does this mean that you are the author of the website

That's the first post, and there are plenty of unanswered questions there that need to be answered for your topic to have any validity.

Now let's look at the validity of your responses to those areas where you did respond my comments {{in cyan}}:

Jerry Don Bauer, msg 70 writes:

quote:
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?

{{Equivocation, dodging the answer (again). Note that I also asked later for any falsifiable test of any concept in ID -- that can be done in all those sciences you mentioned -- so why can't it be done for ID if it is a science as claimed?}}

quote:
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.

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.

{{Again, all you have done is call it science, but not demonstrated it to be fact. Until you demonstrate that it is science it will remain a philosophical concept.}}

quote:
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.

I never stated that philosophy is science. I would have no idea how you are reading this into what I wrote.

{{In your first message you said "I hope by now that those of you not familiar with ID have grasped that it is not creationism but a science concept based on the philosophy of teleology" ... and {concepts based on a philosophy} are not science until they actual do the science to validate the concept. Until then, it's just philosophy. Or faith. Or something involving wind.}}

quote:
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}.

You may need to do some reading to discover what science is and how it inter-relates with the philosophy of science.

{{And there you go mixing philosophy with science again.

}}

quote:
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.

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).

{{You keep talking about waves becoming particles. They don't - this is one of your misunderstandings of the double-slit experiment (that you later conflate into "evidence" of a "supreme observer" with no further evidence nor any rational need to do so).

You ask how can a particle interfere with itself. It doesn't: it behaves according to it's own unknowable tendencies, ones that can be predicted to some extent by probability vectors as Feynman observed.

You also fail to address the issue of interfering with the particles by measuring their intermediate positions. This disrupts the probability vectors, because you have to interact with the particle to measure it. This is not like a radar gun on a speeding auto as it would be more like hitting the auto with a police car.}}

quote:
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 ...

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?

{{Actually I gave you one: genetics could invalidate common descent by showing a pattern that had to come from two or more different sources, but instead - so far - it validates common descent. Your question was answered, and now it is time for you to comply you’re your half of the bargain: list a single falsifiable test for any concept in ID.}}

quote:
If this is in your signature does this mean that you are the author of the website?

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.

{{Proper references would indicate that you list this or otherwise indicate that you are not the (sole) author of the website. This is a small quibble, but it goes to professional ethics.}}

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.

So the issues that you chose to answer were ones where you could post more unsupported opinions, and the ones you chose to ignore were ones where you would have to involve some science or logic or fact to refute the points made or to support the points you asserted. This pattern also applies to your last reply to me as well as replies to several others here.

It's just an observation, but it does tie in with your "comment" quoted at the beginning ....

So you can post your "*Chuckle*" and your "*Cracking up*" comments all you want to: they won't change the reality that your points have been refuted and that you have failed to address those issues.

Enjoy.

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand

RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
{{{Buddha walks off laughing with joy}}}

This message is a reply to:
	Message 78 by Jerry Don Bauer, posted 05-01-2005 5:10 AM		Jerry Don Bauer has not replied

Replies to this message:
	Message 91 by Adminnemooseus, posted 05-03-2005 1:49 AM		RAZD has not replied

RAZD

Member (Idle past 1435 days)

Posts: 20714

From: the other end of the sidewalk

Joined: 03-14-2004

Normal Thread Display

Message 117 of 213 (205059)
05-04-2005 8:34 PM

Reply to: Message 114 by gnojek
05-04-2005 7:08 PM

gnojek, msg 114 writes:

What happened to observers and quantum universes?

the precepts for his argument were invalidated (by several people) and that rendered the conclusion false. he has not addressed that {issue\failing} but has moved on to other issues. if that is what he calls "settled" then so be it.

Was this abandoned so Jerry could be educated?

lol. well, one could consider the attraction of ID as the first step of a 12 step program to educate people on what really is involved in science, but in order to be educated one has to be like the psychiatrists burned out light bulb ... and want to change. this may be a very gradual process.

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand

RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
{{{Buddha walks off laughing with joy}}}

This message is a reply to:
	Message 114 by gnojek, posted 05-04-2005 7:08 PM		gnojek has not replied

RAZD

Member (Idle past 1435 days)

Posts: 20714

From: the other end of the sidewalk

Joined: 03-14-2004

Normal Thread Display

Message 126 of 213 (206286)
05-08-2005 10:54 PM

Reply to: Message 123 by MangyTiger
05-08-2005 10:32 PM

Again I'm at the limits of my knowledge here but doesn't your analogy have to have some element of selection to be meaningful ?

you mean like taking each coin in turn and flipping it until a heads appears and then moving to the next one? a process that would easily average less than 100 flips (in a highly skewed distribution favoring sooner than longer to counterbalance all the ones that are much longer) to accomplish the goal. naturally.

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand

RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
{{{Buddha walks off laughing with joy}}}

This message is a reply to:
	Message 123 by MangyTiger, posted 05-08-2005 10:32 PM		MangyTiger has not replied

RAZD

Member (Idle past 1435 days)

Posts: 20714

From: the other end of the sidewalk

Joined: 03-14-2004

Normal Thread Display

Message 129 of 213 (206300)
05-08-2005 11:22 PM

Reply to: Message 123 by MangyTiger
05-08-2005 10:32 PM

also see posts on
{IC challenge: Evolve a bicycle into a motorcycle!} thread

http://EvC Forum: IC challenge: Evolve a bicycle into a motorcycle!
by Jacinto

and
EvC Forum: IC challenge: Evolve a bicycle into a motorcycle!
my reply where I take the calculation out a little further.

they show that just one of the fallacious assumptions inbedded in calculations like Jerry's one listed here lead to much bigger results than is the mathematical reality

and it is but the tip of the iceberg on problems with the improbable probability calculations.

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand

RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
{{{Buddha walks off laughing with joy}}}

This message is a reply to:
	Message 123 by MangyTiger, posted 05-08-2005 10:32 PM		MangyTiger has replied

Replies to this message:
	Message 130 by MangyTiger, posted 05-08-2005 11:47 PM		RAZD has not replied

RAZD

Member (Idle past 1435 days)

Posts: 20714

From: the other end of the sidewalk

Joined: 03-14-2004

Normal Thread Display

Message 133 of 213 (206371)
05-09-2005 6:54 AM

Reply to: Message 132 by Jerry Don Bauer
05-09-2005 12:54 AM

the point

dear jerry

the point is that the calculations you use to get to your "10^150 we consider as an upper probability barrier" is based on the same mathematical error that results in a 1 in 1,000,000,000,000,000 probability when a more proper calculation results in 1 in 2284.7

from a 1 in 10¹⁵ to a 1 in 2285 is a big difference, and the ratio grows the further you extend it out

and this still does not address other errors involved in the usual probability calculations, this is just the error due to one false assumption in your method of calculation.

enjoy.

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand

RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
{{{Buddha walks off laughing with joy}}}

This message is a reply to:
	Message 132 by Jerry Don Bauer, posted 05-09-2005 12:54 AM		Jerry Don Bauer has replied

Replies to this message:
	Message 134 by Jerry Don Bauer, posted 05-09-2005 7:01 AM		RAZD has replied

RAZD

Member (Idle past 1435 days)

Posts: 20714

From: the other end of the sidewalk

Joined: 03-14-2004

Normal Thread Display

Message 135 of 213 (206373)
05-09-2005 7:08 AM

Reply to: Message 134 by Jerry Don Bauer
05-09-2005 7:01 AM

Re: the point

well gosh, jerry, it is plainly stated in the other linked posts, especially the one you dismissed with several ad hominums ...

the 1 in 10^{^15} calc is based on one particular sequence of combination while the 1 in 2285 calc doesn't yet ends up with the same final pattern.

ps -- if you use the [Peek Mode] in your replies you can copy the coding for doing the superscripts without have to learn it.

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand

RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
{{{Buddha walks off laughing with joy}}}

This message is a reply to:
	Message 134 by Jerry Don Bauer, posted 05-09-2005 7:01 AM		Jerry Don Bauer has not replied

RAZD

Member (Idle past 1435 days)

Posts: 20714

From: the other end of the sidewalk

Joined: 03-14-2004

Normal Thread Display

Message 151 of 213 (206865)
05-10-2005 8:45 PM

Reply to: Message 140 by coffee_addict
05-09-2005 5:16 PM

do you have your answer now?

This message is a reply to:
	Message 140 by coffee_addict, posted 05-09-2005 5:16 PM		coffee_addict has not replied

Date format: mm-dd-yyyy

Timezone: ET (US)

Newer Topic | Older Topic

Do Nothing Button

1 online now:	Omnivorous
Newest Member:	ChatGPT
Post Volume:	Total: 916,913 Year: 4,170/9,624 Month: 1,041/974 Week: 368/286 Day: 11/13 Hour: 0/1