|
|
|
astropin
SFN Regular
USA
970 Posts |
 Posted - 10/27/2004 : 08:36:39
|
http://ydr.com/story/main/45864/
Picked up this story from a CSICOP email. Simply Freighting. People we are heading back into the dark ages. Or is it simply a new Dark Age? This is bad, really, really bad. This school needs to be sued into submission. Note: I am not normally a big "let's sue em'" kind of guy, but in cases like this....LET'S SUE EM' SO BAD THAT NO SCHOOL WILL EVER TRY THIS SHIT AGAIN....end of rant.
|
I would rather face a cold reality than delude myself with comforting fantasies.
You are free to believe what you want to believe and I am free to ridicule you for it.
Atheism:
The result of an unbiased and rational search for the truth.
Infinitus est numerus stultorum |
|
|
furshur
SFN Regular
USA
1536 Posts |
|
|
JerryB
Skeptic Friend
279 Posts |
Posted - 10/27/2004 : 23:58:03 [Permalink]
|
I'm rather surprised that you guys seem disappointed to see intelligent design being accepted in main-stream America. There is nothing to fear from new knowledge. If it is wrong, let it go through the process to be shown wrong.
As a student of the science of ID I can assure you it is the only credible explanation of origins out there. This is science, not religion. I'm happy to answer any questions I can about ID to the curious. One friendly forewarning: I am not a religionist, but a scientist. ;)
Thanks, Jerry |
 |
|
|
Starman
SFN Regular
Sweden
1613 Posts |
Posted - 10/28/2004 : 00:31:37 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by JerryB
I'm rather surprised that you guys seem disappointed to see intelligent design being accepted in main-stream America. There is nothing to fear from new knowledge. If it is wrong, let it go through the process to be shown wrong.
As a student of the science of ID I can assure you it is the only credible explanation of origins out there. This is science, not religion. I'm happy to answer any questions I can about ID to the curious. One friendly forewarning: I am not a religionist, but a scientist. ;)
Thanks, Jerry
First, welcome to SFN.
Intelligent Design could be a science if its proponents started to use scientific methods to form scientific hypotheses and ultimately theories.
How can you claim that intelligent design is about knowledge when their only argument is that from ignorance. Which you presented elegantly with your "I can assure you it is the only credible explanation" statement.
Do ID have anything to contribute? |
"Any religion that makes a form of torture into an icon that they worship seems to me a pretty sick sort of religion quite honestly"
-- Terry Jones |
|
|
|
Ricky
SFN Die Hard
USA
4907 Posts |
|
|
H. Humbert
SFN Die Hard
USA
4574 Posts |
Posted - 10/28/2004 : 01:13:41 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by JerryB
If it is wrong, let it go through the process to be shown wrong.
It has, over and over and over and over again. That Evolution is false and creationism is the best explanation is an absurd claim. Either you are confused, a poor scientist, or both. At any rate, you're correct that we've nothing to fear from "new" knowledge, except creationists never offer anything accept the same old arguments warmed over. Any reluctance to allow it to be taught in a science classroom is strictly based on the fact that creationism isn't science. I'm against Scientology drug rehabilitation programs in schools for the same reason--it's pseudoscientific junk.
Though you're new (and welcome, by the way), I suspect your tactics will be something like this: 1) You list points X, Y, and Z which, if true, would totally invalidate Evolution. 2) Counter-arguments are given which explain either why X, Y, and Z are misrepresentations of Evolutionary theory or are provably false. 3) You, failing to acknowledge the counter-arguments, present points M, N, O and P. 4) They are also addressed. 5) Repeat ad infinitum.
Creationists tend to be attack-based. They never really do any legitimate science. They try to poke holes in evolution in the deluded understanding that it somehow bolsters their own case. They never admit errors, even when they are clearly illustrated. They sometimes contradict themselves, and are always guilty of a slew of logical fallicies.
But, by all means, please give it your best shot. There are a hell of a lot of smart folks on these boards, me excluded. If you really are a scientist, perhaps you'll eventually see the error of your ways.
|
"A man is his own easiest dupe, for what he wishes to be true he generally believes to be true." --Demosthenes
"The first principle is that you must not fool yourself - and you are the easiest person to fool." --Richard P. Feynman
"Face facts with dignity." --found inside a fortune cookie |
| Edited by - H. Humbert on 10/28/2004 01:21:51 |
|
|
|
JerryB
Skeptic Friend
279 Posts |
Posted - 10/28/2004 : 01:32:03 [Permalink]
|
Starman:
*****First, welcome to SFN******
Jerry: Thank you. Just bored and out surfing around. Not even sure how I got here. LOL.
*****Intelligent Design could be a science if its proponents started to use scientific methods to form scientific hypotheses and ultimately theories.*****
Well, this is my point. Modern ID is not the same thing as Paley's watch laying on the heath which obviously (NOT!) inferred gods or spirits. Today, ID is science without a sliver of theology anywhere in it, if you as a skeptic (me too!) will learn this science with an open mind you might be surprised what is truth and what is fantasy.
*******How can you claim that intelligent design is about knowledge when their only argument is that from ignorance. Which you presented elegantly with your "I can assure you it is the only credible explanation" statement.*******
Oh my. Because I can back this up with science and logic. I have no arguments from ignorance, I'm afraid, only science. Hope that will satisfy this forum.
Ricky:
*****Please explain the claim behind ID and evidence that backs it up. Note: Evidence means evidence that supports ID, not evidence against Evolution.*****
There is no claim behind ID. What is the claim behind geology or anesthesiology? That challenge puzzles me. And may I remind you that there are limited options for credible origins? What would you think they are?
******Also support why we should choose to believe in a designer which we can neither observe nor test instead of natural processes which we can observe and test which are existing today.******
ID does not stipulate an identification of a designer. This science only detects design. Basically we start with Tipler's Omega Point and let the individual interpret the theology behind it if there is any. Agnostics and Atheists are very welcome into this field. |
|
|
|
JerryB
Skeptic Friend
279 Posts |
Posted - 10/28/2004 : 01:36:47 [Permalink]
|
Hi H:
******Creationists tend to be attack-based. They never really do any legitimate science.******
Sorry. IDists of the modern type are scientists rather than creationists. Unfortunately, creationists don't seem to like us that much. ;) |
|
|
|
filthy
SFN Die Hard
USA
14408 Posts |
Posted - 10/28/2004 : 02:05:12 [Permalink]
|
Hi Jerry, and welcome to SFN!
May I ask, what is your degree and your field of study and research?
I'm seeing many, flowery words about science, but no particulars: nothing pertinent to either Intelligent Design or the Theory of Evolution, really. Please elaborate: how are any of the sciences supporting ID? And where can I reference this support?
Again, welcome!
|
"What luck for rulers that men do not think." -- Adolf Hitler (1889 - 1945)
"If only we could impeach on the basis of criminal stupidity, 90% of the Rethuglicans and half of the Democrats would be thrown out of office." ~~ P.Z. Myres
"The default position of human nature is to punch the other guy in the face and take his stuff." ~~ Dude
Brother Boot Knife of Warm Humanitarianism,
and Crypto-Communist! 
|
|
|
|
Starman
SFN Regular
Sweden
1613 Posts |
Posted - 10/28/2004 : 02:21:01 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by JerryB
Well, this is my point. Modern ID is not the same thing as Paley's watch laying on the heath which obviously (NOT!) inferred gods or spirits. Today, ID is science without a sliver of theology anywhere in it, if you as a skeptic (me too!) will learn this science with an open mind you might be surprised what is truth and what is fantasy.
Very well then, give me something of the new ID. quote:
*******How can you claim that intelligent design is about knowledge when their only argument is that from ignorance. Which you presented elegantly with your "I can assure you it is the only credible explanation" statement.*******
Oh my. Because I can back this up with science and logic. I have no arguments from ignorance, I'm afraid, only science. Hope that will satisfy this forum.
If this is true, you are most welcome to present some of this science.
Give me some evidence of design. |
"Any religion that makes a form of torture into an icon that they worship seems to me a pretty sick sort of religion quite honestly"
-- Terry Jones |
|
|
|
filthy
SFN Die Hard
USA
14408 Posts |
Posted - 10/28/2004 : 02:27:12 [Permalink]
|
I've never heard of Tipler's Omega Point, so I looked it up:
quote:
My Thoughts And Comments on the Omega Point Theory of Frank J. Tipler
By Anders Sandberg
Introduction
I read "The Anthropic Cosmological Principle" by Barrow and Tipler when I was 17. I was amazed by the vision of how intelligent life could spread using von Neumann probes across the universe, gain control over matter and energy on cosmic scales and finally evolve to the ultimate limit, infinite knowledge and power. It was this vision of how life could literally remake the universe which made me a transhumanist, long before I encountered any other literature dealing with similar ideas (that was of course "Mind Children", by Hans Moravec) outside of science fiction.
As Dyson pointed out in "Physics and Biology in an Open Universe" , most physicists are very daring in modelling the past, but very few dare to model the future evolution of the universe. In that paper he did just that, and also realised that life may become an important part in the equation. Tipler has developed his own scenario in more detail, and even if his theories fail I think we have good reason to regard Dyson and Tipler as among the founders of the field of "physical eschatology", the study of possible future evolution of the universe and how we might affect them.
http://www.aleph.se/Trans/Global/Omega/tipler_page.html
Interesting read, but it fails to demonstrate the existance of a 'guiding hand, at least, I don't see one.
Also, whilst looking up, I found this:
quote:
When the Omega Point is reached it will be in control of all material and energy resources--indeed, the Omega Point will be the totality of the universe. Therefore everything which is rendered within the Omega Point will be a part of the Omega Point. Hence the Biblical references that we are gods, we are God and God is us, we live inside of God, God is everything and inside of everything, etc.--these statements only make any sense or can be taken literally within the framework of the Omega Point Theory, or otherwise something awfully close to it.
The Biblical references to God being light (i.e., elementary particles, or pure energy) only makes literal sense within the framework of the Omega Point Theory. When the Omega Point is achieved, information will be coded directly into the elementary particles which exist at the time, and light will pass back and forth across the universe an infinity of times. Thus God describing Himself as being "light" is particularly appropriate, as light (i.e., photons) was the only elementary particle that was known to the ancients.
http://www.geocities.com/vonchloride/bibleomega.html
|
"What luck for rulers that men do not think." -- Adolf Hitler (1889 - 1945)
"If only we could impeach on the basis of criminal stupidity, 90% of the Rethuglicans and half of the Democrats would be thrown out of office." ~~ P.Z. Myres
"The default position of human nature is to punch the other guy in the face and take his stuff." ~~ Dude
Brother Boot Knife of Warm Humanitarianism,
and Crypto-Communist!
|
| Edited by - filthy on 10/28/2004 02:32:03 |
|
|
|
JerryB
Skeptic Friend
279 Posts |
Posted - 10/28/2004 : 02:37:56 [Permalink]
|
*******May I ask, what is your degree and your field of study and research?*****
Degrees are not important, are they? ID is not to the point yet that we awards degrees. Einstein was a patent clerk and Gregor Mendel who founded the field of genetics was a monk. ;o) My field is intelligent design. Let's run with this.
******I'm seeing many, flowery words about science, but no particulars: nothing pertinent to either Intelligent Design or the Theory of Evolution, really. Please elaborate: how are any of the sciences supporting ID? And where can I reference this support?*******
Well, gosh. You haven't seen many words. Can we get a little further into this? Physics supports ID in that thermodynamics totally 'disses' Darwinism and fully supports ID. Biology supports ID in that genomes in sexual species tend to disorder rather than order. Chemistry supports ID in that chemical equilibrium forbids racemic mixtures of amino acids from forming into levorotatory dominance.
*****Again, welcome!*****
Thank you! You seem like nice people. Thanks for the post. |
|
|
|
Starman
SFN Regular
Sweden
1613 Posts |
Posted - 10/28/2004 : 02:49:41 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by JerryB
*******May I ask, what is your degree and your field of study and research?*****
Degrees are not important, are they?
You claimed to be a scientist.
Scientist are educated ( which usually but not always results in a degree ).
quote:
Can we get a little further into this? Physics supports ID in that thermodynamics totally 'disses' Darwinism and fully supports ID.
Well you already flunked!
How does thermodynamics totally 'disses' Darwinism . Every single person making such a claim has been ignorant of thermodynamics. You better come up with a good explanation of how Darwinism is in conflict with thermodynamics.
Even if it was true this would not automatically give ID any support, so I guess you flunked logic as well (unless you can show how thermodynamics supports ID).
(edit:made small addition)
|
"Any religion that makes a form of torture into an icon that they worship seems to me a pretty sick sort of religion quite honestly"
-- Terry Jones |
| Edited by - Starman on 10/28/2004 02:52:05 |
|
|
|
JerryB
Skeptic Friend
279 Posts |
Posted - 10/28/2004 : 02:58:51 [Permalink]
|
Filthy:
LOL I feel guilty in calling you by your name you need to change this to Bob, or something.
*****Interesting read, but it fails to demonstrate the existance of a 'guiding hand, at least, I don't see one.*****
There may, or may not be a guiding hand. I don't know and the fact that I can detect design in artifacts and systems does not translate into: therefore there is a god. This is a major myth propagated by secular humanist religionists. If you guys can understand that religionists are against this concept and not scientists, you will understand why we are growing in leaps and bounds both with the public and with scientists.
Jenny L. Nielsen writes:
“Not so long ago, scientists were asking themselves the question: Do atoms know when we're looking at them? Even before this question has been satisfactorily answered, a new question has surfaced: Do atoms know that we're going to look at them before the event actually occurs? A documented experiment conducted by two prestigious universities actually implies the affirmative.
“It's called the ‘delayed choice experiment,' and it was originally a thought experiment dreamt up by the great theoretical physicist John Wheeler. It's a variation on the usual ‘double-slit' experiment, which proves that when a photon (or electron or photon or any sub-atomic particle) is fired through a sheet with two holes, it creates an interference pattern on a screen set on the other side as if it had gone through both holes at once and interfered with itself. However, this behavior only seems to occur when the particle is not being watched when it hits the sheet.
“When a detector is put up to monitor the holes and what comes through, the particle is observed to be going through only one hole--and the interference pattern does not materialize on the screen at the opposite end.”'
http://www.geocities.com/sunjara/ProphesyingParticles.html
[For further reading please see: Q is For Quantum: An Encyclopedia of Particle Physics, by John Gribbin]
Salvador T. Cordova writes:
“One troubling part of Quantum Theory is the necessity of a conscious observer to ‘collapse the wave function' to make reality, real .
“What this means is that to live means to be known by someone. For the universe to exist it must be observed, ‘collapse a wave function' by a Supreme Consciousness. Quantum Theory makes lasers and a ton of technologies work, but parts of it are just plain hard to digest.
“Chairman of the Mathematical Physics Department at Tulane, a world renowned cosmologist, a confessed 'atheist', named Frank Tipler joined the ID movement, Based on Quantum Theory and the necessity of an Ultimate Observer, wrote the book, Physics of Immortality. I quote from the opening pages:
‘It is quite rare in this day and age to come across a book proclaiming the unification of science and religion. It is unique to find a book asserting, as I shall in the body of this book, that theology is a branch of physics, that physicists can infer by calculation the existence of God and the likelihood of the resurrection of the dead to eternal life in exactly the same way as physicists calculate the properties of the electron. One naturally wonders if I am serious.
“'I am quite serious. But I am as surprised as the reader. When I began my career as a cosmologist some twenty years ago, I was a convinced atheist. I never in my wildest dreams imagined that one day I would be writing a book purporting to show that the central claims of Judeo-Christian theology are in fact true, that these claims are straight-forward deductions of the laws of physics as we now understand them. I have been forced into these conclusions by the inexorable logic of my own special branch of physics‘”
Cordova goes on to tell us some of the necessary prerequisites that permit this quantum mechanical ‘Omega God” and they seem all there:
“1. universe closed...
“2. c-boundary of universe consists of a single point |
|
|
|
filthy
SFN Die Hard
USA
14408 Posts |
Posted - 10/28/2004 : 03:00:35 [Permalink]
|
Actually, degrees are quite important. They demonstrate that their holder(s) have completed a certain course of study to the satisfaction of learned folks in the field. There are some exceptions, of course. Dr. Jonathon Sarfati holds a PhD in Chemestry, but has done no research in decades. Today, his only contributions to science amount to blather.
And renown paelentologist, Professor John (Jack) Horner, has no PhD. His studies were completed and his qualfications verified the hard way.
quote:
Well, gosh. You haven't seen many words. Can we get a little further into this? Physics supports ID in that thermodynamics totally 'disses' Darwinism and fully supports ID. Biology supports ID in that genomes in sexual species tend to disorder rather than order. Chemistry supports ID in that chemical equilibrium forbids racemic mixtures of amino acids from forming into levorotatory dominance.
References, please.
Y'see, anybody can make a statment, and we all do it. But here, at this, murky little corner of the web, you must be ready to back them up because you will be asked. Further, those references will certainly be checked out. We are, after all, skeptics.
|
"What luck for rulers that men do not think." -- Adolf Hitler (1889 - 1945)
"If only we could impeach on the basis of criminal stupidity, 90% of the Rethuglicans and half of the Democrats would be thrown out of office." ~~ P.Z. Myres
"The default position of human nature is to punch the other guy in the face and take his stuff." ~~ Dude
Brother Boot Knife of Warm Humanitarianism,
and Crypto-Communist!
|
|
|
|
JerryB
Skeptic Friend
279 Posts |
Posted - 10/28/2004 : 03:01:21 [Permalink]
|
******Well you already flunked!*******
LOL, We shall see. ;) |
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Topic Locked
