Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
4 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:   Discovery or Ignorance: The Choice Is yours?
Organicmachination
Member (Idle past 5710 days)
Posts: 105
From: Pullman, WA, USA
Joined: 12-30-2007


Message 121 of 402 (474056)
07-04-2008 7:55 PM
Reply to: Message 116 by John 10:10
07-04-2008 7:18 PM


Re: Projects
You seem to be taking things to an extreme.
In no science can people show phenomena on such a large scale as evolution occuring from beginning to end. If you choose to disregard evolution as speculation on these grounds, then you might as well also trash plate tectonics, all of geology, and all of astronomy.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 116 by John 10:10, posted 07-04-2008 7:18 PM John 10:10 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 147 by John 10:10, posted 07-05-2008 1:39 PM Organicmachination has not replied

Blue Jay
Member (Idle past 2698 days)
Posts: 2843
From: You couldn't pronounce it with your mouthparts
Joined: 02-04-2008


Message 122 of 402 (474060)
07-04-2008 8:17 PM
Reply to: Message 116 by John 10:10
07-04-2008 7:18 PM


Re: Projects
Hi, John.
John 10:10 writes:
Science makes use of the scientific method, which includes the careful observation of natural phenomena, the formulation of a hypothesis, the conducting of one or more experiments to test the hypothesis, and the drawing of a conclusion that confirms or modifies the hypothesis.
Until the evolutionary model can do all of this, which includes testing from start to finish, it will always remain shear speculation, not true science.
While Chiroptera has provided an excellent web resource for evidence that evolution has been rigorously tested by the scientific method, and that there is a wealth of data that supports it, I thought I would add to this a special prediction reported in a paper by Ahlberg and Clack concerning Tiktaalik, of which you have inevitably heard.
Just in case anybody reading is not aware of this fossil, I'll give a bit of a background. Tiktaalik is a fossil fish first reported in 2007, found in Nunavut, Canada, which shows several rudimentary tetrapod features, thus lending support to the theory that land vertebrates (tetrapods) evolved from fish.
What I would like to draw to your attention is an interesting tidbit supplied by Ahlberg and Clack in Nature 440: 747-749 (6 April 2006):
quote:
So, if Tiktaalik is in effect a better-preserved version of Elpistostege, why is it important? First, it demonstrates the predictive capacity of palaeontology. The Nunavut field project had the express aim of finding an intermediate between Panderichthys and tetrapods, by searching in sediments from the most probable environment (rivers) and time (early Late Devonian). Second, Tiktaalik adds enormously to our understanding of the fish-tetrapod transition because of its position on the tree and the combination of characters it displays.
The bolding is mine, and denotes the crux of my argument. (Sorry: this article is not freely available to the public, and I can only get access to it through my former institution, which requires a log-in. But, you can go to Nature and find the article using the citation data provided above).
The expedition that discovered Tiktaalik was specifically looking for transitional fish-tetrapods in Nunavut, because Nunavut's rocks were of the the correct date to bridge the gap between the most advanced fish and the most primitive tetrapods, and because its geography at that date was believed to have had the correct habitat for a transitional fossil to live in.
In other words, understanding of evolutionary theory PREDICTED that a transitional fossil could be found in this location, before the people had even chipped into a rock. And, they found exactly what evolutionary theory and natural history theory predicted they would find.
Two options:
(1) Evolutionary theory is highly accurate.
(2) These palaeontologists just got lucky.

Darwin loves you.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 116 by John 10:10, posted 07-04-2008 7:18 PM John 10:10 has not replied

Buzsaw
Inactive Member


Message 123 of 402 (474062)
07-04-2008 8:54 PM
Reply to: Message 118 by Organicmachination
07-04-2008 7:26 PM


ID Laboratories
Show us a laboratory experiment where God creates the Earth over and over again to make us believe that what you say is true science.
The ID laboratory moves about from the sub-microscopic to the microscopic to all things visible to the naked eye to the distant cosmos.
ID applies the laws of science, the mathematical probabilities, historical data, archeological evidence, lab testing, biological studies which evidence complexity, verification of Biblical claims, and much more to the observation and study supportive to ID in these areas of research.
ID applies other supportive knowledge such as evidence that there even is higher intelligence capable of intelligently designing. That is paramount to the ID debate. If enough corroborative evidence is supplied supportive of the designer, this knowledge may be applied to interpretation of what is observed and researched.
Seclularists, for the most part, will never ever admit to anything supportive to higher intelligence or what is considered super-natural, regardless of how much evidence is produced. To do so moves secularism into checkmate.
IDists cite intricacies and complexity of DNA, conception/childbirth, insect design, such as bee colonies, migration habits of living things, and design evidence in everything from the sub-microscopic to the cosmos, etc. This includes all of the corroborative necessities for a planet capable of life as we know it to be, relative to our sun and moon, as well as all of the forces and elements necessary for life. This all tends contrary to naturalism and favorable to ID.
Edited by Buzsaw, : Update Message Title

BUZSAW B 4 U 2 C Y BUZ SAW.
The immeasurable present eternally extends the infinite past and infinitely consumes the eternal future.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 118 by Organicmachination, posted 07-04-2008 7:26 PM Organicmachination has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 124 by Coyote, posted 07-04-2008 9:08 PM Buzsaw has not replied
 Message 125 by Organicmachination, posted 07-04-2008 10:04 PM Buzsaw has not replied
 Message 126 by PaulK, posted 07-05-2008 4:16 AM Buzsaw has not replied

Coyote
Member (Idle past 2106 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


Message 124 of 402 (474064)
07-04-2008 9:08 PM
Reply to: Message 123 by Buzsaw
07-04-2008 8:54 PM


Re: ID Laboratories
Seclularists, for the most part, will never ever admit to anything supportive to higher intelligence or what is considered super-natural, regardless of how much evidence is produced. To do so moves secularism into checkmate.
Creation "scientists" (for that is what ID proponents or "cdesign proponentsists” truly are) have yet to produce any evidence.
In your list of supporting fields you include archaeology and mathematical probabilities.
I do archaeology, and I have yet to see that evidence. Perhaps you could be a bit more explicit, and provide some detailed references as to how archaeology supports intelligent design. (And don't bother with arrowheads and spearpoints and the like. Those are not analogous cases.)
Second, mathematical models only work if the system that is being modeled is modeled correctly. You might consider this mathematical model, as described in the following on-line lecture:
Making Genetic Networks Operate Robustly: Unintelligent Non-design Suffices
Abstract: Mathematical computer models of two ancient and famous genetic networks act early in embryos of many different species to determine the body plan. Models revealed these networks to be astonishingly robust, despite their 'unintelligent design.' This examines the use of mathematical models to shed light on how biological, pattern-forming gene networks operate and how thoughtless, haphazard, non-design produces networks whose robustness seems inspired, begging the question what else unintelligent non-design might be capable of.
This suggests that the mathematical models claiming evolution is impossible are flawed because they have mis-modeled the system.

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 123 by Buzsaw, posted 07-04-2008 8:54 PM Buzsaw has not replied

Organicmachination
Member (Idle past 5710 days)
Posts: 105
From: Pullman, WA, USA
Joined: 12-30-2007


Message 125 of 402 (474068)
07-04-2008 10:04 PM
Reply to: Message 123 by Buzsaw
07-04-2008 8:54 PM


Re: ID Laboratories
So basically what you're saying is that ID'ers look at the natural world, whether it be through archaeology, childbirth, etc., observe its huge complexity, use mathematics to calculate the improbability of the complexity and then claim that it's too complex to have evolved?
That seems like the only tenet of ID science: too complex, so Goddidit.
That's not very convincing, scientifically wise, to anyone except other ID'ers.
If however, ID'ers could provide physical evidence of a creator God, analogous to ERVs for evolution, then perhaps you'd be getting somewhere. Otherwise, what you claim is science is, as John likes to say, "shear speculation", based off of a single principle: duh. I don't understand it..so..God must have done it!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 123 by Buzsaw, posted 07-04-2008 8:54 PM Buzsaw has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 129 by Beretta, posted 07-05-2008 8:24 AM Organicmachination has not replied

PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 126 of 402 (474075)
07-05-2008 4:16 AM
Reply to: Message 123 by Buzsaw
07-04-2008 8:54 PM


Re: ID Laboratories
So to sum it up.
1) IDists misrepresent archaeology to pretend that the Bible is accurate.
2) IDists misrewpresent the Bible to pretend that the Bible has fulfilled prophecies.
3) IDists pretend to use mathematics to support their ideas (but don't. e.g. Dembski's Explanatory Filter that has not been correclty applied to biology even once),
4) IDists make naive appeals to complexity as proof of God. Which is at least more honest than the preceding arguments but is hardly a productive scientific viewpoint.
5) At least according to Buzsaw it is wrong to be honest and rational and fairly balance the evidence. The only important thing is to come to conclusions that Buzsaw approves of (and thsoe who do are rewarded with unmerited praise).

This message is a reply to:
 Message 123 by Buzsaw, posted 07-04-2008 8:54 PM Buzsaw has not replied

Larni
Member (Idle past 164 days)
Posts: 4000
From: Liverpool
Joined: 09-16-2005


Message 127 of 402 (474076)
07-05-2008 6:10 AM
Reply to: Message 112 by ICANT
07-04-2008 6:26 PM


Re: Re-Johns View
ICANT writes:
So he is not allowed to make mistakes. Why should anybody else that is involved in science be allowed to.
But, but, but.....that's part of how science works! When we have a hypothesis we try and bend it till it breaks. We do all we can to accept the null hypothesis. If we can't we conclude that we are most likely right but we are always aware that we could be wrong: you know that science is tenative, don't you?
Running a powerplant is not research, is it?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 112 by ICANT, posted 07-04-2008 6:26 PM ICANT has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 130 by ICANT, posted 07-05-2008 9:11 AM Larni has replied

Larni
Member (Idle past 164 days)
Posts: 4000
From: Liverpool
Joined: 09-16-2005


Message 128 of 402 (474077)
07-05-2008 6:14 AM
Reply to: Message 114 by John 10:10
07-04-2008 6:51 PM


John 10:10 writes:
confirmed by the testing that is done to confirm that one's prediction results in things as they are.
You don't think the repeated observed accuracy of the predictions is confirmation?
When you test something are you not making an observation?
Edited by Larni, : Spellink

This message is a reply to:
 Message 114 by John 10:10, posted 07-04-2008 6:51 PM John 10:10 has not replied

Beretta
Member (Idle past 5597 days)
Posts: 422
From: South Africa
Joined: 10-29-2007


Message 129 of 402 (474080)
07-05-2008 8:24 AM
Reply to: Message 125 by Organicmachination
07-04-2008 10:04 PM


evolutiondidit
So basically what you're saying is that ID'ers look at the natural world, whether it be through archaeology, childbirth, etc., observe its huge complexity, use mathematics to calculate the improbability of the complexity and then claim that it's too complex to have evolved?
Which is far better than the alternative way of deciding what is and what is not which goes like this:
Seeing all this stunning complexity, evolutionists didn't want to hear about the improbability of it occurring by chance because they already knew instinctively that evolution did in fact do it (like the inverse of goddidit)and that it did all happen by chance and, of course, an enormous amount of time(that magical ingredient which improved chance's chances of getting it right.)Knowing this as fact and all agreeing that this was so, evolutionists shrugged off the probability calculations as 'unconvincing','unscientific'and 'just not cricket'.
That seems like the only tenet of ID science: too complex, so Goddidit.
Which is better than the 'very complex but we know that evolution did it' or 'has the appearance of design but that can't be because we know that evolution did it.'
If however, ID'ers could provide physical evidence of a creator God
Or if evolution could provide a testable mechanism for major evolutionary change -then there would be no need for this debate and we could all go home.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 125 by Organicmachination, posted 07-04-2008 10:04 PM Organicmachination has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 132 by Rrhain, posted 07-05-2008 10:06 AM Beretta has not replied

ICANT
Member
Posts: 6769
From: SSC
Joined: 03-12-2007
Member Rating: 1.5


Message 130 of 402 (474082)
07-05-2008 9:11 AM
Reply to: Message 127 by Larni
07-05-2008 6:10 AM


Re: Running Power Plant
Larni writes:
Running a powerplant is not research, is it?
Why ask me?
Why don't you ask some of the millions of people that were affected by, The Chernobyl Nuclear Power Plant Accident.
Russia. 60,180 sq. miles affected 5 million people.
Belarus 2,316 sq. miles of land including 1,158 sq. miles of fertile agricultural land, was rendered useless. 3 million people affected.
Ukraine 11.36 million acres of fertile land, 17.2 million people affected.
20 years later the research still goes on. For decades to come the land and peoples will be affected.
This is what happens when science messes up in real life.
In the US in 1979 we had the Three Mile Island plant 2 meltdown caused by problems in the non nuclear part of the plant.
Due to proper engineering there was no problems in Middletown, Pennsylvania, as there was in Russia, Belarus and Ukraine.
As I said they are not allowed to make mistakes. If they do there are serious consequences.
God Bless,

"John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 127 by Larni, posted 07-05-2008 6:10 AM Larni has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 131 by lyx2no, posted 07-05-2008 9:38 AM ICANT has replied
 Message 137 by Larni, posted 07-05-2008 11:33 AM ICANT has replied
 Message 152 by John 10:10, posted 07-05-2008 6:29 PM ICANT has not replied

lyx2no
Member (Idle past 4716 days)
Posts: 1277
From: A vast, undifferentiated plane.
Joined: 02-28-2008


Message 131 of 402 (474084)
07-05-2008 9:38 AM
Reply to: Message 130 by ICANT
07-05-2008 9:11 AM



This is what happens when science messes up in real life.
That wasn't scientists messing up. That was engineers messing up.

Kindly
Everyone deserves a neatly dug grave. It is the timing that's in dispute.
‘—

This message is a reply to:
 Message 130 by ICANT, posted 07-05-2008 9:11 AM ICANT has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 133 by ICANT, posted 07-05-2008 10:17 AM lyx2no has replied

Rrhain
Member
Posts: 6351
From: San Diego, CA, USA
Joined: 05-03-2003


Message 132 of 402 (474087)
07-05-2008 10:06 AM
Reply to: Message 129 by Beretta
07-05-2008 8:24 AM


Beretta writes:
quote:
Seeing all this stunning complexity, evolutionists didn't want to hear about the improbability of it occurring by chance because they already knew instinctively that evolution did in fact do it (like the inverse of goddidit)and that it did all happen by chance and, of course, an enormous amount of time(that magical ingredient which improved chance's chances of getting it right.)Knowing this as fact and all agreeing that this was so, evolutionists shrugged off the probability calculations as 'unconvincing','unscientific'and 'just not cricket'.
Except, of course, none of this is true. We have an actual mechanism for how evolution works. We can even test it both in the lab and in the field.
"Instinctively"? Oh, that's fine for getting a question asked, but it's lousy for actually answering it. That's why you have to provide data, show your work, and have it looked over by peers who will chew all your work to pieces if you don't dot every i and cross every t.
How can we know that your characterization is false? Simple: You say, "It all happened by chance." That isn't what evolution states. You seem to have forgotten about selection which is not chance. Even mutation, which necessarily has a factor of randomness, isn't completely random since you can only mutate what you already have.
And you seem to be upset that there has been a lot of time. Is there a particular reason why our description of how life got to be the way it is shouldn't be in agreement with the amount of time there has been for it to get that way?
The "probability calculations" you seem to be championing are naive at best. A trivial example shows their fault:
Suppose you have a standard deck of 52 cards. You draw one.
What is the probability of having drawn the Ace of Spades?
What is the probability of having drawn an Ace?
What is the probability of having drawn a Spade?
What is the probability of having drawn a black card?
What is the probability of having drawn a card?
The "probability calculations" you seem to be champtioning conflate the probability of the first and last. They are not the same. It is inappropriate to calculate the probability of a specific answer when there are many possible answers. That's why there are so many variations of cytochrome C across species, for example.
And now for the flip side:
Suppose I have a standard deck of 52 cards and one has been drawn.
What is the probability of having drawn the Ace of Spades?
What if it has already been established that the card is not a Heart?
What if it has already been established that the card is black?
What if it has already been established that the card is a Spade?
The "probability calculations" you seem to be championing conflate the probability of getting something all in one step with the probability of getting it in steps.
The reason they are declared "unconvincing," "unscientific," etc. is because that is precisely what they are.
quote:
Which is better than the 'very complex but we know that evolution did it'
When we can watch the evolution happening right in front of our eyes, how is "goddidt" better?
quote:
or 'has the appearance of design but that can't be because we know that evolution did it.'
Since we have watched the evolution happen right in front of our eyes, what is the problem with saying that we know evolution did it?
quote:
Or if evolution could provide a testable mechanism for major evolutionary change
What part of "mutation and selection" is insufficient? Be specific. Since we have watched those two things result in the creation of new species right in front of our eyes, what about it is incapable of creating major evolutionary change?
I guess this begs the question of what you mean by "major evolutionary change." Surely you're not about to trot out the "microevolution"/"macroevolution" false distinction, are you?
quote:
then there would be no need for this debate and we could all go home.
Funny how all the scientists have already gone to the pub, gone home, got a good night's sleep, and are back in the lab finding even more evidence you seem to be stating doesn't exist.

Rrhain

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 129 by Beretta, posted 07-05-2008 8:24 AM Beretta has not replied

ICANT
Member
Posts: 6769
From: SSC
Joined: 03-12-2007
Member Rating: 1.5


Message 133 of 402 (474089)
07-05-2008 10:17 AM
Reply to: Message 131 by lyx2no
07-05-2008 9:38 AM


Re:Messing Up
lyx2no writes:
That wasn't scientists messing up. That was engineers messing up.
Stupid me I thought Nuclear Plants were run by Nuclear Scientist.
I thought the engineers just built and carried out the requests and plans of the Nuclear Scientist.
God Bless,

"John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 131 by lyx2no, posted 07-05-2008 9:38 AM lyx2no has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 134 by NosyNed, posted 07-05-2008 10:25 AM ICANT has replied
 Message 135 by Rrhain, posted 07-05-2008 10:33 AM ICANT has replied
 Message 140 by lyx2no, posted 07-05-2008 11:44 AM ICANT has not replied

NosyNed
Member
Posts: 8996
From: Canada
Joined: 04-04-2003


Message 134 of 402 (474091)
07-05-2008 10:25 AM
Reply to: Message 133 by ICANT
07-05-2008 10:17 AM


Staffing
Stupid me I thought Nuclear Plants were run by Nuclear Scientist.
I thought the engineers just built and carried out the requests and plans of the Nuclear Scientist.
I don't know the details (and would be interested to hear more about it) but I would be very surprised if there was a single physicist on any nuclear power sites.
There might be some involved with firms like GE that do the engineering and building but even that doesn't seem to be necessary at the actual plant design stage even.
I would hope that GE (and others ) have a team of physicists and engineers doing more basic research into new reactor designs since the one currently used was borrowed from military (subs) applications and apparently shouldn't have been used.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 133 by ICANT, posted 07-05-2008 10:17 AM ICANT has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 136 by ICANT, posted 07-05-2008 10:59 AM NosyNed has replied

Rrhain
Member
Posts: 6351
From: San Diego, CA, USA
Joined: 05-03-2003


Message 135 of 402 (474094)
07-05-2008 10:33 AM
Reply to: Message 133 by ICANT
07-05-2008 10:17 AM


ICANT writes:
quote:
Stupid me I thought Nuclear Plants were run by Nuclear Scientist.
I guess we need to clarify what you mean by "nuclear scientist."
Nuclear power plants are run mostly by technicians. From what I recall during my tour of the nuclear plant in Los Alamos, "nuclear scientists" are the ones that developed the theoretical framework by which a nuclear power plant could be made in the first place. They then work with engineers to develop the reactor. Once the reactor is built, it falls to the techs to actually run it.
quote:
I thought the engineers just built and carried out the requests and plans of the Nuclear Scientist.
Yes and no. Nobody here is saying that you can be a complete novice with regard to nuclear physics. But there is a difference between building the plant and running it. You don't need to be an automotive engineer in order to drive a car. The more you know about it, the better you can maintain a car, yes, but even then there comes a point where the functioning of the car has nothing to do with the creation of it. The fluid dynamics experience necessary to create a good airflow is not going to help you actually steer the car through the wind.

Rrhain

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 133 by ICANT, posted 07-05-2008 10:17 AM ICANT has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 143 by ICANT, posted 07-05-2008 12:33 PM Rrhain has replied

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024