|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Another Test for Intelligent Design Proponents | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Modulous Member Posts: 7801 From: Manchester, UK Joined: |
I do not see an increase in entropy over time, I see order in nature. I have asked my biology teacher about it, he told me that although we can see many examples of order here, on a cosmic scale we see increase in chaos. Would not evolution itself be example of Increase in order? Someone tell me the truth. I don't really buy entropy. This is drifting off topic here, if you want a good discussion on thermodynamics, take a look here, I'm more than happy to join in if you have any additional questions.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
joshua221  Inactive Member |
So the increase of energy used to counter entropy is it huh, yeah ok, forgot about that.
The old man cries in the sorrow of eternity.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
joshua221  Inactive Member |
quote: To answer this question, one would probably have to understand the intricate workings of the universe in it's entirety. Could you explain the graphs? Why not this? The old man cries in the sorrow of eternity.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Adminnemooseus Administrator Posts: 3974 Joined: |
Please focus on the content of message 1, and the messages that actually result in the focusing on the content of message 1.
Modulous is very much on topic. I reply to his message to quote it:
Modulous writes: The answer is that neither of them show definite signs of design, but either could be. The first is clearly part of a sine wave, and the second could be a natural event (landscape, lp grooves, readings from a photon detector) or could be a scribble. I agree. An Adminnemooseus/minnemooseus mixed mode message (AAMMM)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Parasomnium Member Posts: 2224 Joined: |
Thanks to all those who replied. I'd still like some more replies (Brad McFall, as someone suggested?) before I discuss the figures of message 1.
But I will comment on some of your replies, lumped together in this post. randman writes: I'd have to say both because first off they appear on a computer screen, in color, and can be sent around the world via electronics. So yep, someone definitely made those images. True, I made them. But I'd ask you to ignore for a moment the specific representations I made of these patterns. If you would see the pattern of figure 1 somewhere else, what would you conclude about it, in terms of how it came about? Same question for the pattern of figure 2. buzsaw writes: Well then, I suppose the left image appears to be less chaotic than the other suggesting that some work had been applied to it in order to make it uniform, whereas the other may suggest randomness. Thank you, Buzsaw. No further comment for now. I'll get back to this. Faith, I know you are not an ID-ist, therefore I appreciate your participation all the more. At the same time I must be careful in my comment on your answer, precisely because you don't represent ID. As I pointed out to Randman, the pictures themselves are not at issue, it's the patterns that I'm asking about. (The pictures are obviously designed, by me.) But you said something very important pertaining to the topic:
If they represent something else in the physical world, then I guess it depends on what they represent. If I understand the ID position well, this should actually be no problem. Their claim is that intelligent design is obvious from certain features of things. My query is about those features. Modulous writes: The answer is that neither of them show definite signs of design, but either could be. The first is clearly part of a sine wave, and the second could be a natural event (landscape, lp grooves, readings from a photon detector) or could be a scribble. Modulous (and Minnemooseus), no comment for now. I'll get back to this too. Prophex, your first answer is off-topic.
prophex writes: To answer this question, one would probably have to understand the intricate workings of the universe in it's entirety. I don't think that's necessary. If you had to venture an answer to the question of message one, what would it be? And why? This message has been edited by Parasomnium, 25-Dec-2005 08:37 PM Did you know that most of the time your computer is doing nothing? What if you could make it do something really useful? Like helping scientists understand diseases? Your computer could even be instrumental in finding a cure for HIV/AIDS. Wouldn't that be something? If you agree, then join World Community Grid now and download a simple, free tool that lets you and your computer do your share in helping humanity. After all, you are part of it, so why not take part in it?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Minnemooseus Member Posts: 3941 From: Duluth, Minnesota, U.S. (West end of Lake Superior) Joined: Member Rating: 10.0 |
Please slap me if I'm going off-topic or am otherwise spoiling the topic, but I thought I'd ask the subtitle question.
To what degree are "information" and "design" equivalent? Moose
{Edit after following message was posted: Changed "Do what degree" to "To what degree".} This message has been edited by minnemooseus, 12-25-2005 04:01 PM
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
nwr Member Posts: 6408 From: Geneva, Illinois Joined: Member Rating: 5.1 |
The are equivalent in the sense that creationist's don't seem to understand either of them.
Apart from that, I can't see much equivalence. Impeach Bush
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Brad McFall Member (Idle past 5032 days) Posts: 3428 From: Ithaca,NY, USA Joined: |
quote: quote: quote: quote: Kant’s notion of habitat still applies here. Elite evolutionists must have not communicated what “same system” means well enough.
quote: quote:Now we can start from Para’sleft figure if we can agree to start the discussion from quote: quote: The designer need simply supply the evidence of a truly equilibrated law here as a “key” Kant denied existed but before mating systems were seen to turn Mendel division signsand either figure can be argued to a plan of systematic pressures. Sustaining the first diagram would be harder for man to keep constant but assuming the peaks and values in the second are only figurative there seems little doubt to me if the GAMODEME (“If sufficiently extensive, any of the above patterns may be treated as hierarchic by subdivision of the whole into a number of primary subdivisions, these into a number of secondary ones , and so on down to groups that may be treated as homogenous within themselves. The convenient term “deme” of Gilmour and Gregor (1939) has come to be used for this ultimate unit of population, though in a narrower sense (gamodeme) than they proposed.” EVOLUTION AND THE GENTICS OF POPULATIONS by Sewall Wright Uchicago p 290-1) was expressed from Croizat’s method under Gladyshev’s law etc. even the probabilistic discrepancy of current ID from current criticism MIGHT, I only say might -be obviated. That seems all that needs to be required in response? I tend to think it was due to the difference of Price and one of his followers that Creationism has not followed up the project of creating verifiably complex man-made habitation concepts out of niche space. I do not know if some of the “popularity” of ID would rub off if it had to dip back into an older Biblical Creationism Tradition than the P&P title seems to suggest. The problem however was not solved by evolutionists either and that is generally the yardstick when not on their own turf. I do not know how much longer my website will be up for now, but the point of ecosystem engineering begins where the slope goes “down” according to Wright.http://www.students.tc3.edu/bmcfall/fripge.htm This message has been edited by Brad McFall, 12-26-2005 04:52 PM
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
1.61803 Member (Idle past 1504 days) Posts: 2928 From: Lone Star State USA Joined: |
If the wind shapes a mountain to the exact likeness of J-lo's ass, and I show it to someone who could appreciate a nice ass would said person be able to tell me if the sculpture was intelligently designed or not? There are as many factions of ID as there are Creationist as there are atheist and agnostics. From God did it to God had a hand in it to: Aliens did it. Bottom line: No buddy knows. and I prefer it that way personally. **edit spelling of agnostics.. This message has been edited by 1.61803, 12-29-2005 12:38 PM
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
jaywill Member (Idle past 1941 days) Posts: 4519 From: VA USA Joined: |
Questions for anyone:
I hear it said that ID is not scientific because the proponents do not have a clear model of what non-intelligently designed life would look like: 1.) Are IDs saying that non-intelligently designed life forms look like something non-living and therefore do have a model? 2.) Do Evolutionists have a clear model of what an un-evolved life form should look like? (Holding themselves to the same standard). Opinions? This message has been edited by jaywill, 12-29-2005 04:08 PM
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Nuggin Member (Idle past 2492 days) Posts: 2965 From: Los Angeles, CA USA Joined: |
2.) Do Evolutionists have a clear model of what an un-evolved life form should look like? (Holding themselves to the same standard). Kind of depends on what you mean by "unevolved". Do you mean a life form which has never gone through an process of evolution? - No, there is no model for that. Do you mean a life form which has not gone through less evolution than another life form it's compaired to? -- Sure. Look at more "primative" forms of existing animals for the answer there
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
jaywill Member (Idle past 1941 days) Posts: 4519 From: VA USA Joined: |
Kind of depends on what you mean by "unevolved". Thanks Nuggin. I'm probably not on the topic. But I think I mean in terms of ID verses Evolution. So Do Evolutionists have a clear model of what an (let's say) intelligently designed life form would look like with which they could falsify an evolved one? In an old thread comparing SETI with ID someone said ID has no model of non intelligently designed life, therefore flunking the "true science" test which SETI passes. Does Evolution Theory have a clear model of what a totally un evolved living organism should look like? That's totally non evolved - not less evolved in your #2, which is still evolved to me. This message has been edited by jaywill, 12-29-2005 04:32 PM This message has been edited by jaywill, 12-29-2005 04:32 PM
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
1.61803 Member (Idle past 1504 days) Posts: 2928 From: Lone Star State USA Joined: |
Nuggin writes:
Perhaps no model for that because it is not known what the first indigenous life form was or looked like. Or even how it came to exist. Hence our debate.
no there is no model for that.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
jaywill Member (Idle past 1941 days) Posts: 4519 From: VA USA Joined: |
Do you mean a life form which has never gone through an process of evolution? - No, there is no model for that. Then if Evolution has no model of non-evolved life, how comes its "true science" but ID is not because they have no non IDed model of life? Basically...
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
1.61803 Member (Idle past 1504 days) Posts: 2928 From: Lone Star State USA Joined: |
I think because evolution is a falsifiable theory, where as creationism or id-ism is not. maybe?
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024