Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
6 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 13/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Foundations of ID
Jerry Don Bauer
Inactive Member


Message 76 of 213 (204050)
05-01-2005 4:11 AM
Reply to: Message 69 by JustinC
04-30-2005 6:23 PM


Re: It takes an observer?
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.
Right...... Yawn....Sorry Justin. I'm growing very weary of our discussions and I'm sure the readers are, as they just seem to be droning on into infinity. I have agreed with you that there are other options, that science should always be questionable and we should always be cognizant of caveats. You have added nothing new to the discussion since then. Thanks for your contributions and have a great life!
Our discussion is over unless you have something new to bring to the table.
This message has been edited by Jerry Don Bauer, 05-01-2005 05:11 AM

Design Dynamics

This message is a reply to:
 Message 69 by JustinC, posted 04-30-2005 6:23 PM JustinC has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 79 by Dead Parrot, posted 05-01-2005 6:13 AM Jerry Don Bauer has replied
 Message 83 by JustinC, posted 05-01-2005 11:19 PM Jerry Don Bauer has replied

  
Jerry Don Bauer
Inactive Member


Message 77 of 213 (204057)
05-01-2005 5:00 AM
Reply to: Message 73 by crashfrog
05-01-2005 12:10 AM


quote:
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.
Um....no, that's not quite what I said. I stated: "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 don't possess a single piece of evidence that shows one species poofing into another in the fossil record, much less a clear path with stops from point to point at monuments for snap-shots. This is Darwinistic pipe-dreams that you people teach to our children as "facts" of science. The truth is, it is not science by any stretch of the imagination its fairytale that you have no chance to ever show scientifically and have obviously given up even trying to.
quote:
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.
LOL...You can't "infer" a species from taxonomy when a sexual species is defined as two organisms that can interbreed and produce offspring that are fertile and viable and do so naturally. This obviously has to be done by breeding experiments. A child can see how ridiculous this is. Probably why you are having so much trouble in getting the message out to the masses, don't you reckon?
quote:
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.
I think that Darwinists know nothing in hard science or math. I've debated PhDs in that area and it usually only goes 20 or 30 posts. Fairly good at promoting their faith, I suppose, and I would need to give credit where credit is due in that area.
quote:
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?
Certainly. I don't go to church, but it is your right to do so. Take advantage of it if that is your cup of tea.
quote:
Why would I think that? Neither Gould nor Eldridge denied that the fossil record was a record of evolution. You, apparently, do.
Hmmm....You might want to read my post to Ooook.
quote:
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.
*Chuckle* You don't have any dots that can be connected other than by a religion full of vim and vigor hoping against all odds and preaching Darwinism to high heaven with the fervor of a Pentecostal preacher.
WELL GLORY! Shouts Dawkins as the sermon is rendered, give your heart to Darwin begs Gould quietly. The choir hums a slow melody of "amazing evolution" in the background as the flock begins to make their way toward the alter of punk eek. This is a joke. You can't see it? 90% of Americans can.
quote:
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.
See, I told you I have insight.

Design Dynamics

This message is a reply to:
 Message 73 by crashfrog, posted 05-01-2005 12:10 AM crashfrog has not replied

  
Jerry Don Bauer
Inactive Member


Message 78 of 213 (204058)
05-01-2005 5:10 AM
Reply to: Message 72 by RAZD
04-30-2005 8:56 PM


Re: Once more into the breeches ...
I just love the logic and science your posts exhibit, my friend. Such as:
1) "Philosophies that do not have falsifiable tests are pseudo-science at best, b-grade science fiction at worst."
2) "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."
3) "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."
4) "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."
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.
This message has been edited by Jerry Don Bauer, 05-01-2005 05:11 AM

Design Dynamics

This message is a reply to:
 Message 72 by RAZD, posted 04-30-2005 8:56 PM RAZD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 89 by RAZD, posted 05-02-2005 11:23 PM Jerry Don Bauer has not replied

  
Dead Parrot
Member (Idle past 3345 days)
Posts: 151
From: Wellington, NZ
Joined: 04-13-2005


Message 79 of 213 (204061)
05-01-2005 6:13 AM
Reply to: Message 76 by Jerry Don Bauer
05-01-2005 4:11 AM


Re: It takes an observer?
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.
Right...... Yawn....
I'm intrigued as how you can start a thread based on an ID/Quantum theory link, and then dismiss Feynman with "Yawn". Unless you have something against getting results?
I'm growing very weary of our discussions and I'm sure the readers are
True, but possibly not for the reason you'd like to think.

Mat 27:5 And he went and hanged himself
Luk 10:37 Go, and do thou likewise.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 76 by Jerry Don Bauer, posted 05-01-2005 4:11 AM Jerry Don Bauer has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 82 by Jerry Don Bauer, posted 05-01-2005 5:55 PM Dead Parrot has not replied

  
Admin
Director
Posts: 12998
From: EvC Forum
Joined: 06-14-2002
Member Rating: 2.3


Message 80 of 213 (204067)
05-01-2005 8:25 AM


Topic Drift Alert
Some of the posts are too long to give a careful reading, but this thread appears to be discussing evidence for evolution. Perhaps, since this thread is about ID, the discussion could take up evidence for ID?
Since needling comments appear to be part of Jerry's inherent style I was reluctant to caution him on this as a newbie but I see that other people are beginning to respond in kind, so these kinds of comments will no longer be permitted in this thread. Please see rule 3 of the Forum Guidelines, which I'm going to begin enforcing in this thread. Since people usually respond to posts before reading to the end of a thread I'll wait until tomorrow to begin enforcement. Needling comments or other comments of a personal rather than topical nature will result in a 24 hour suspension of posting privileges.

--Percy
EvC Forum Director

  
Limbo
Inactive Member


Message 81 of 213 (204085)
05-01-2005 10:32 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by Jerry Don Bauer
04-27-2005 7:09 PM


quote:
6) ID does not seek to replace evolution, but seeks to pull secular humanistic religion out of science and base science back on the tenets of science. Among that religious doctrine is a philosophy based on no science at all called Darwinism. Darwinism is not evolution as the latter is science based rather than religion based.
Pulling secular humanistic religion out of science needs to be done but I don't think that goal should be too closely identified with the foundations of ID. ID can(slowly)grow from its foundations without doing that. That is something science needs to do for itself...just like an alcoholic needs to decide for himself to get off the bottle.
An independant, unbiased agency needs to be formed to examine the influence of secular humanistic religion on science.
On a side note, I would just like to say that criticisms of ID based on social, religious, philosophical, or cultural grounds, including complaints about the identity, motives, or capabilities of the designer, miss the mark. Design theorists argue that specified complexity can be objectively and reliably defined and detected so that the probability of non-design nears impossibility and the probability of design nears certainty. This is intelligent design’s central tenet. It is on this point, and only on this point, that intelligent design as a scientific undertaking can be appropriately challenged and criticized.
This message has been edited by Limbo, 05-01-2005 10:52 AM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Jerry Don Bauer, posted 04-27-2005 7:09 PM Jerry Don Bauer has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 182 by nator, posted 05-13-2005 9:00 AM Limbo has not replied

  
Jerry Don Bauer
Inactive Member


Message 82 of 213 (204151)
05-01-2005 5:55 PM
Reply to: Message 79 by Dead Parrot
05-01-2005 6:13 AM


Re: It takes an observer?
quote:
I'm intrigued as how you can start a thread based on an ID/Quantum theory link, and then dismiss Feynman with "Yawn". Unless you have something against getting results?
I certainly wasn't dismissing Feynman with a yawn. If you will read my opening post on this subject, I quoted him in it. But Feynman was not an experimenter in this area, so why would we place precedent on his opinions over those like John Wheeler (who was Feynman's PhD advisor) who contributed directly to this experimentally. The truth of the matter is that, although there are many related and unrelated theories running around out there, as best I can tell (he's dead, so I can't ask him) Feynman fully accepted this experiment just as do I:
quote:
You will find the same behavior with electrons and, indeed (at least in principle), with every other particle or collection of particles. Calling this experiment the "central mystery" of quantum mechanics, Richard Feynman once remarked that it is "impossible, absolutely impossible, to explain in any classical way .... In reality, it contains the only mystery ... the basic peculiarities of all quantum mechanics" (Feynman, Leighton, and Sands, vol. 3, p. 1-1). Feynman was emphatic about this, later writing that
any other situation in quantum mechanics, it turns out, can always be explained by saying, "You remember the case of the experiment with two holes? It's the same thing." (Feynman 1965, p. 130)
http://natureinstitute.org/pub/ic/ic12/quantum.htm
It simply occurred to me that some were trying to discredit the double slit experiments in anyway they could think of when if you will read the page I posted above, considering those named in this thread including Feynman actually seem to agree with me.
Finally, Someone asked me if this can be explained mathematically. I believe it can through Schrodinger's Equation although I haven't toyed with it, it appears that others have.
Not found

Design Dynamics

This message is a reply to:
 Message 79 by Dead Parrot, posted 05-01-2005 6:13 AM Dead Parrot has not replied

  
JustinC
Member (Idle past 4844 days)
Posts: 624
From: Pittsburgh, PA, USA
Joined: 07-21-2003


Message 83 of 213 (204210)
05-01-2005 11:19 PM
Reply to: Message 76 by Jerry Don Bauer
05-01-2005 4:11 AM


Re: It takes an observer?
quote:
Right...... Yawn....Sorry Justin. I'm growing very weary of our discussions and I'm sure the readers are, as they just seem to be droning on into infinity. I have agreed with you that there are other options, that science should always be questionable and we should always be cognizant of caveats. You have added nothing new to the discussion since then. Thanks for your contributions and have a great life!
Our discussion is over unless you have something new to bring to the table.
Those who develop the formalism have no trump over how to interpret it, which you seem to be implying by your constant appeals to authority and lack of reasoned argument.
You should read that other link to Cramer's paper on the Transactional interpretation(in my previous post)and a lot more on QM and its history if you really want to understand what the Copenhagen Interpretation is and how it relates to the mathematical formalism of the science.
Or, as you will probably do, you can go on using the same tired old argument "an ultimate observer collapses wave functions" without understanding how that interpretation came to be or understanding the science of QM in general.
I'll leave you with two quotes from my favorite science teacher, Richard Feynman.
What I am going to tell you about is what we teach our physics students in the third or fourth year of graduate school... It is my task to convince you not to turn away because you don't understand it. You see my physics students don't understand it. ... That is because I don't understand it. Nobody does.
and
Science alone of all the subjects contains within itself the lesson of the danger of belief in the infallibility of the greatest teachers in the preceeding generation . . . Learn from science that you must doubt the experts. As a matter of fact, I can also define science another way: Science is the belief in the ignorance of experts.
I appreciate you allowing me to take up your precious time, and hopefully one day, if I'm lucky, you will grace me with your attention once more.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 76 by Jerry Don Bauer, posted 05-01-2005 4:11 AM Jerry Don Bauer has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 84 by Jerry Don Bauer, posted 05-01-2005 11:26 PM JustinC has not replied

  
Jerry Don Bauer
Inactive Member


Message 84 of 213 (204213)
05-01-2005 11:26 PM
Reply to: Message 83 by JustinC
05-01-2005 11:19 PM


Re: It takes an observer?
Thanks so much for your participation, Justin.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 83 by JustinC, posted 05-01-2005 11:19 PM JustinC has not replied

  
ProfessorR
Inactive Member


Message 85 of 213 (204389)
05-02-2005 5:39 PM


Greetings,
I cannot presume to be an expert, but as far as biology and the theory of biological evolution is concerned, I can't see how is ID a part of science or a scientific approach. I am saying it not because I am against theleology, but, rather, because I take it that natural sciences have agreed, since approx. 1620 (Bacon's "Novum Organum") to function according to the rules of the scientific method. These rules say that we cannot include anything supernatural in our proceedings, i.e., observations must be limited to the observations of the natural, questions to the questions about the natural, hypotheses to the hypotheses about the natural, etc. Yet, if we are using words like "intelligent design," what "natural" do we really mean? Whose design?
Kind regards,
Richard

Replies to this message:
 Message 86 by Jerry Don Bauer, posted 05-02-2005 6:46 PM ProfessorR has not replied

  
Jerry Don Bauer
Inactive Member


Message 86 of 213 (204399)
05-02-2005 6:46 PM
Reply to: Message 85 by ProfessorR
05-02-2005 5:39 PM


Hello Richard:
quote:
I cannot presume to be an expert, but as far as biology and the theory of biological evolution is concerned, I can't see how is ID a part of science or a scientific approach. I am saying it not because I am against theleology, but, rather, because I take it that natural sciences have agreed, since approx. 1620 (Bacon's "Novum Organum") to function according to the rules of the scientific method. These rules say that we cannot include anything supernatural in our proceedings, i.e., observations must be limited to the observations of the natural, questions to the questions about the natural, hypotheses to the hypotheses about the natural, etc. Yet, if we are using words like "intelligent design," what "natural" do we really mean? Whose design?
I agree that science must function according to the scientific method. This is the reason that the scientific method is one of the first things taught when we teach a course on ID.
If you have waded through this admittedly tedious thread, you have discovered I am making the case herein that quantum mechanics did the design under the guidance of Heisenberg's observer defined mathematically by mathematical physicist Frank Tipler of Tulane University as the Omega Point. Nothing supernatural about this, is there?
In fact, detractors tend to view Darwinism as the field in science that doesn't follow the scientific method. Therein we find all kinds of "theories" that have never been taken through the method from observation to theory and conclusions being taught as "facts" of science based on no experimental evidence at all and ignoring such elementary principles as there is no such thing as facts in science (witness Eugenie Scott).
As a biology minor, I can testify that biologists are woefully trained in this. Had I not been a science major in another discipline, I probably would know nothing about the method at all. Were biologists adequately trained in science, there would be nothing in it called a "theory" of evolution, IMHO.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 85 by ProfessorR, posted 05-02-2005 5:39 PM ProfessorR has not replied

  
Ooook!
Member (Idle past 5815 days)
Posts: 340
From: London, UK
Joined: 09-29-2003


Message 87 of 213 (204415)
05-02-2005 7:56 PM
Reply to: Message 75 by Jerry Don Bauer
05-01-2005 4:00 AM


Howdy Ooook!
Well Howdy to you too
Yeah, go ahead and accuse me of quote mining
Alrightyou’re quote mining.
As they stand, the quotes speak for themselves but only if you know the context of Gould’s theories about punctuated equilibrium i.e. that evolution is not a straight, linear progression, and that changes are often not caught in the fossil record. Like it or not Gould doesn’t support your position at all. Find me a quote that shows an evolutionary biologist denying common descent or claiming that RM and NS are not the mechanisms for change and I will be surprised. Scrap that, I’ll be astounded!!
While you’re looking, here are a couple of less helpful quotes from Gould:
S.J.Gould writes:
Since we proposed punctuated equilibria to explain trends, it is infuriating to be quoted again and again by creationistswhether through design or stupidity, I do not knowas admitting that the fossil record includes no transitional forms. Transitional forms are generally lacking at the species level, but they are abundant between larger groups
S.J.Gould writes:
Our creationist detractors charge that evolution is an unproved and unprovable charadea secular religion masquerading as science. They claim, above all, that evolution generates no predictions, never exposes itself to test, and therefore stands as dogma rather than disprovable science. This claim is nonsense. We make and test risky predictions all the time; our success is not dogma, but a highly probable indication of evolution's basic truth
Doesn’t look like I do stand quite so alone now, does it?
Jerry Don Bauer writes:
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.
It really would be good for ID (or the other creeds of creationism) if this statement were true, and no wonder you are trying to make this charge stick. Unfortunately, there are numerous falsifiable predictions that have been made. Just off the top of my head:
  • When Darwin wrote Origin there were few (if any) true transitional fossils and yet he predicted there would be examples found which shared the characteristics of two separate groups. Lo and behold, we now do have many examples of such fossils.
  • If the modern synthesis of Theory of Evolution was right, molecular phylogenies would mirror those based on taxonomy. Well blow me down with a feather if that wasn’t what was found.
  • Developmental pathways should be conserved within the pattern of common descent. This is indeed what we see.
    Now while no doubt you disagree with these examples — and each of them is probably worth a topic on it’s own — they are all scientific predictions. They can (and have been) tested scientifically, by scientists and verified by other scientists.
    Sure sounds like a scientific theory to me!
    Let’s compare this to ID shall we?
  • It’s got calculations using numbers seemingly plucked out of thin air.
  • It’s got obscure definitions of ‘complexity’ and ‘information’ which can’t be applied to the real world.
  • It’s Choc-a-bloc with useless analogies
  • ..and it’s even got a strangely unscientific idea that people shouldn’t try to discover the nature and the methods of the designer.
    What it doesn’t have is a single testable, falsifiable prediction!
    Can you think of an example of ID leading to 1) a testable hypothesis and 2) the testing of that hypothesis?
    Because that’s what science does. If you want ID to be accepted as science then that’s what you have to do, and no amount of pleading to let a ‘young field’ grow will change that fact.
    OK, onto my challenge:
    quote:
    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
    .
    The Cambrian Explosion.
    Drat, should have known you’d have pointed to the largest gap there was and inserted a *cough* ‘designer’ into it. And yet the ‘leap’ from early fossil cells to the variety in the Cambrian period is not quite so sudden as it first appeared. New finds suggest that the ‘explosion’ was not quite as explosive as first thought, lengthening the amount of time these fossils were formed in. On top of that, delicate pre-Cambian fossils have been found that look like they were the ancestors of some of the Cambrian organisms. One of the explanations for the perceived ‘jump’ is that it was due to a lack of fossils, not a lack of organisms — 3 billion years is a lot of time to evolve in. Why wouldn’t that be possible by RM and NS?
    Let me ask the question in a different way:
    You have (I think) stated earlier that you think the fossil record shows evidence for micro-evolution. Using the well documented evolution of horses as an example, which of those proposed steps represent ‘micro’ changes and which are ‘macro’, and therefore require a designer?

  • This message is a reply to:
     Message 75 by Jerry Don Bauer, posted 05-01-2005 4:00 AM Jerry Don Bauer has replied

    Replies to this message:
     Message 94 by Jerry Don Bauer, posted 05-03-2005 5:53 PM Ooook! has replied

      
    Kapyong
    Member (Idle past 3442 days)
    Posts: 344
    Joined: 05-22-2003


    Message 88 of 213 (204428)
    05-02-2005 8:48 PM
    Reply to: Message 67 by Jerry Don Bauer
    04-30-2005 5:56 PM


    Every species is transitional
    Greetings all,
    quote:
    Jerry: 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!
    Hmmm...
    This is a very odd way of describing it.
    Jerry,
    do you think the transitionals are NOT species as well?
    Do you think there are TWO different TYPES of fossil?
    Species and Transitional?
    This seems to be a common mis-conception, but totally false.
    As others have pointed out, what we DO see is:
    Species A -----> Species D -----> Species E -----> Species J ...
    In short - we DO see exactly what you said we don't.
    Every transitional fossil represents a species,
    every species is a transitional form.
    Iasion

    This message is a reply to:
     Message 67 by Jerry Don Bauer, posted 04-30-2005 5:56 PM Jerry Don Bauer has replied

    Replies to this message:
     Message 95 by Jerry Don Bauer, posted 05-03-2005 6:01 PM Kapyong has not replied

      
    RAZD
    Member (Idle past 1405 days)
    Posts: 20714
    From: the other end of the sidewalk
    Joined: 03-14-2004


    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?
    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.
    {{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.}}
    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.
    {{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.}}
    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.
    {{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:
    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.
    {{comments added: one wonders how many times you will need to be asked this question before you give a valid answer.}}
    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.
    {{added comment: this is the kind of logically false thinking that happens to those who try to mix ID beliefs with fundamentalist religions.}}
    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.
    {{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.
    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.
    {{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:
    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.
    {{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.}}
    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.
    {{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.}}
    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.
    {{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:
    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.
    {{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:
    {{responding to}}
    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:
    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?
    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?
    {{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

      
    JustinC
    Member (Idle past 4844 days)
    Posts: 624
    From: Pittsburgh, PA, USA
    Joined: 07-21-2003


    Message 90 of 213 (204539)
    05-03-2005 1:31 AM


    I'll give you some advise Jerry. Don't act so condescending asshole because you obviously aren't knowledgable enough on the subjects of which you speak to justify it, and even if you were you'd still come off as a condescending asshole.
    STOP IT. WE'RE TRYING TO CUT DOWN ON THE CRANKINESS AROUND HERE, AND SUCH IS NOT HELPING THE EFFORT.
    ALSO, THIS IS OFF-TOPIC. NO ONE SHOULD REPLY TO IT. - Adminnemooseus
    This message has been edited by Adminnemooseus, 05-03-2005 02:06 AM

      
    Newer Topic | Older Topic
    Jump to:


    Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

    ™ Version 4.2
    Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024