|
|
|
Dr. Mabuse
Septic Fiend
Sweden
9688 Posts |
 Posted - 01/11/2011 : 08:33:28 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by JerryB
And I have refuted ALL of those who claimed I had no understanding of the presented papers.
|
Correction: You are under the delusion that you have refuted all of those who claimed you had no understanding of the presented papers.
|
Dr. Mabuse - "When the going gets tough, the tough get Duct-tape..."
Dr. Mabuse whisper.mp3
"Equivocation is not just a job, for a creationist it's a way of life..." Dr. Mabuse
Support American Troops in Iraq:
Send them unarmed civilians for target practice..
Collateralmurder. |
 |
|
|
Cuneiformist
The Imperfectionist
USA
4955 Posts |
Posted - 01/11/2011 : 10:08:16 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by JerryB
That's not what I'm saying.
I'm saying that ID is just a different paradigm that one can use to explore his world around him. It is just a different body of thought.
And as a body of thought, it is not in itself a theory. Neither are other bodies of thought.
Yet, people keep demanding that I produce the "theory of ID." Well, there isn't one and it doesn't make anymore sense to demand I produce a "theory of ID" than it does to demand that I produce the "theory of astronomy." There isn't one of those, either.
Biology studies the diversity of life, and IDists and Darwinists study biology. The only difference between me and you (assuming you are a Darwinist) is that when you study biology, you may see only natural forces at play in tissue and I may see design. That is the only difference-different paradigms. |
Ah. Ok. This makes sense. But still-- when one postulates design, then there must be a designer, in which case then there should absolutely be some theories behind the phenomenon.
ID people sometimes use archaeology a tool to explain ID and how it works. Thus, just as when an archaeologist digs and uncovers a mudbrick wall and knows it to be designed (and not a natural thing), so, too, should the biologist looking at X, or Y, or Z.
Unfortunately, in the real world, actual archaeologists go further and postulate about the designer(s), how she, he, or they designed the object, and why. IDist seem never go get beyond arguing that such-and-such was designed (and then, then that argument falls flat, moving on to arguing that some other object was designed, and so on).
You're worse, as you somehow postulate (if I understand correctly) that quantum mechanics is the designer. And that doesn't make much sense. Can gravity be a designer? Or the laws of motion? Doesn't "design" imply both some sort of actual intelligence as well as intent? Does QM have such things? |
|
|
|
JerryB
Skeptic Friend
279 Posts |
Posted - 01/11/2011 : 10:17:33 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Dave W.
Originally posted by JerryB
As promised, I will now propose a design methodology. |
But all you've done is taken one design methodology flowchart and replace the steps with other words without justifying any of them.| First came simple cells, then clusters of cells, then more complex organisms and finally the ultimate product: homo sapiens. |
Bwaahahahahahaha! Every other living creature has gone through the exact same process, yet is not the "ultimate product?" Says who?| Life was designed just as any other chemical process is designed; all of it being accomplished by nothing more than intelligent quantum mechanics seeking a purpose within the universe: life as we know it. |
How is life a "purpose within the universe?" Where is your evidence that quantum mechanics seeks a purpose?| And aren't you glad because life is not that bad, is it? |
Life is brutal and short and the world is full of credulous folks like you, Jerry. I would have designed something much different had I been at the helm.
|
No, I have taken a flowchart on how ALL chemical entities are designed, if designed naturally, and extrapolated it to the way man would have been designed had he been. Both designs would begin with QM working on chemicals and gradually increase in complexity until the final product is achieved.
While it's true that other organisms have gone through this as well, man is the ultimate product. There is no other living, breathing organism that can think and reason like man. We build mansions to ourselves, drive SUVs and become doctors lawyers and engineers.
If quantum mechanics is the designer and QM designed life, there HAD to have been purpose in the design: life itself. The notion is self-explanatory and needs no further reference. |
|
|
|
JerryB
Skeptic Friend
279 Posts |
Posted - 01/11/2011 : 10:59:26 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by filthy
Yeah, I'm still with you. My threads tend to get busy and it is hard to stay on any one subject long enough to discuss it to everyone's satisfaction, but I try.
These are all interesting critters. And I must say that if I were of the Darwinist bent, I might see them as good evidence for Darwinism.
The problem is, I am not. What you have shown me are odd creatures, but what you haven't shown me is that they evolved to get that way.
For example, You and the article stated that Acanthostega was ill suited for land, so why then would lungs begin to evolve? That makes no sense.
From my perspective, it is an interesting design as are all of your examples and I would surmise that this critter was designed to be a water dweller, but like crocs and alligators, it was also capable of crawling out on land for food. Why is that a big deal?
What you would have to show to bolster Darwinism is to begin with a series such as:
Species A -----> trans1 -----> trans2 -----> trans3 -----> trans4
-----> trans5 -----> New Species B
You then would have to show that Species A could have bred with trans1 to produce viable, fertile offspring, same with all the trans as we walk up the line, and finally that Species A and New Species B could no longer interbreed.
That would be what science demands in order to have a theory and the evidence just isn't there.
|
Ah, the old God of the Gaps argument:
Example A to example C are known. There is a gap between them, then example B is found. "But," sez the creationist, that proves nothing because now you have two gape; A-1 and B-1."
Like Tikaalik, these amphibians show traits both found and not found in fish and terrestial tetrapods. Did you know that Tikaalik, definatly a fish, had working wrists in it's lobed pectoral fins? Had you opened the links, you would.
And I still see no reason to conclude that some conscious, invisable designer brewed up these very interesting, intermediate creatures.
|
No, I make no God of the Gaps argument. I'm just stating that Darwinism's failure to show a series of transitionals from one species to another, and also it's inability to show what was a species and what was not via breeding experiments is why it is so controversial.
I wasn't particularly religious when I was in college and had this stuff presented to me. It just didn't make much sense then and still doesn't today. |
|
|
|
JerryB
Skeptic Friend
279 Posts |
Posted - 01/11/2011 : 12:07:26 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Cuneiformist
Ah. Ok. This makes sense. But still-- when one postulates design, then there must be a designer, in which case then there should absolutely be some theories behind the phenomenon.
ID people sometimes use archaeology a tool to explain ID and how it works. Thus, just as when an archaeologist digs and uncovers a mudbrick wall and knows it to be designed (and not a natural thing), so, too, should the biologist looking at X, or Y, or Z.
Unfortunately, in the real world, actual archaeologists go further and postulate about the designer(s), how she, he, or they designed the object, and why. IDist seem never go get beyond arguing that such-and-such was designed (and then, then that argument falls flat, moving on to arguing that some other object was designed, and so on).
You're worse, as you somehow postulate (if I understand correctly) that quantum mechanics is the designer. And that doesn't make much sense. Can gravity be a designer? Or the laws of motion? Doesn't "design" imply both some sort of actual intelligence as well as intent? Does QM have such things?
|
Yes, QM does have those things yet they are hard to understand for one like you who admits to not having much science.
Let me see if I can explain it to you SANS all the heavy stuff. I don't want to talk down to you but I will start at the very bottom so that i KNOW anyone in here can get it.
What is an atom?
"Atoms are the basic building blocks of ordinary matter. Atoms can join together to form molecules, which in turn form most of the objects around you.
"Atoms are composed of particles called protons, electrons and neutrons. Protons carry a positive electrical charge, electrons carry a negative electrical charge and neutrons carry no electrical charge at all. The protons and neutrons cluster together in the central part of the atom, called the nucleus, and the electrons 'orbit' the nucleus"
http://education.jlab.org/qa/atom.html
It is when we break the atom down into it's individual particles that we begin to go quantum. And quantum particles seem to exhibit intelligence and this is where it gets weird.
Considering the electron and it's orbit around the other stuff, in the 1920s, a scientist named Heisenberg wrote a paper concerning why people were having trouble measuring the properties of this electron.
His paper speculated that the path of the electron does not even EXIST, until it is viewed by a conscious observer.
Huh? Is the guy on drugs? No, he was a scientist well ahead of his time and later experiments in physics would show him to be correct in that particles know when they are and when they are not being observed. This shows intelligence in quantum mechanics.
Those experiments are called the double slit experiments, there are many of them and they all show the same results. I won't go into them here, but do take a moment to watch this you tube which explains them well:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DfPeprQ7oGc
So, what could be this observer of the universe that makes some things solid matter and other things waves?
Physicist Frank Tipler published several papers and a book on this. Tipler mathematically constructs a single pocket of increasingly higher level organization evolving to the ultimate "Omega Point" which he implies to be an intelligent pocket of quantum mechanics that acts as an observer from the future backward to the past.
It is this intelligent pocket of quantum mechanics that I personally believe to be God and the designer of intelligent design.
And note that I don't just leave it there. A few posts back I also proposed a model for this design based on what design engineers know about how any chemical system is designed naturally: they too state that it all begins with QM.
|
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 01/11/2011 : 12:15:17 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by JerryB
No, I have taken a flowchart on how ALL chemical entities are designed, if designed naturally... |
There's nothing about that flowchart or the notes they're taken from which suggests that the word "naturally" applies to any of it. The course is for engineers to do engineering, and the flowchart includes "computer simulation" at its center.| ...and extrapolated it to the way man would have been designed had he been. |
You've extrapolated the flowchart to the way man would have been designed had he been designed by a man who chose a bottom-up design method. The flowchart is not of how nature or QM design anything.| Both designs would begin with QM working on chemicals and gradually increase in complexity until the final product is achieved. |
Never heard of top-down design or any of the numerous other design methodologies?| While it's true that other organisms have gone through this as well, man is the ultimate product. |
So you say. Where is the evidence?| There is no other living, breathing organism that can think and reason like man. |
Who is to say that's a good thing, or even the "ultimate" purpose of life?| We build mansions to ourselves, drive SUVs and become doctors lawyers and engineers. |
So what? The biomass of bacteria on the planet far outweighs anything man has ever built.| If quantum mechanics is the designer and QM designed life, there HAD to have been purpose in the design: life itself. The notion is self-explanatory and needs no further reference. |
Except that "life itself" could very well be only one step in some greater purpose, one for which you aren't aware. Thinking that you're the be-all, end-all of existence is nothing but sheer arrogance, and it leads to the sort of cockamamie anthropomorphizing that's been leaving your keyboard. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
filthy
SFN Die Hard
USA
14408 Posts |
 Posted - 01/11/2011 : 12:27:20 [Permalink]
|
No, I make no God of the Gaps argument. I'm just stating that Darwinism's failure to show a series of transitionals from one species to another, and also it's inability to show what was a species and what was not via breeding experiments is why it is so controversial.
I wasn't particularly religious when I was in college and had this stuff presented to me. It just didn't make much sense then and still doesn't today.
|
Wnat the hell do you think the "God of the Gaps" argument is? You've just put that fallacy forth, and while at it's origins, it was religious apologetic bullshit, religion now has little or nothing to do with it. Yeesh! 
|
"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! 
|
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 01/11/2011 : 12:38:29 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by JerryB
And quantum particles seem to exhibit intelligence... |
Citation?Considering the electron and it's orbit around the other stuff, in the 1920s, a scientist named Heisenberg wrote a paper concerning why people were having trouble measuring the properties of this electron.
His paper speculated that the path of the electron does not even EXIST, until it is viewed by a conscious observer. |
Please quote this paper directly in support of this contention.| Huh? Is the guy on drugs? |
No, you are.| No, he was a scientist well ahead of his time and later experiments in physics would show him to be correct in that particles know when they are and when they are not being observed. |
Citation, please.| This shows intelligence in quantum mechanics. |
No, it doesn't.| Those experiments are called the double slit experiments, there are many of them and they all show the same results. |
The result being that if you prevent interference by placing a detector in one path or the other, particles act like particles and not like waves. This isn't surprising.No, it doesn't "explain them well" at all. It's a cartoon which leaves out all the important bits of QM knowledge in order to leave the viewer with some mystical mumbo-jumbo.| So, what could be this observer of the universe that makes some things solid matter and other things waves? |
The important part of wave-particle duality is that they're both, not that things are one or the other.| And note that I don't just leave it there. A few posts back I also proposed a model for this design... |
A model? Then you should be able to input your observations and get back, as output, predictions which match reality.| ...based on what design engineers know about how any chemical system is designed naturally: they too state that it all begins with QM. |
Where is the word "naturally" used in those notes? |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 01/11/2011 : 12:40:50 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by JerryB
...and also it's inability to show what was a species and what was not via breeding experiments... |
What? Why is that a problem at all? "Species" is a human concept. Nature need not follow it, and doesn't.| It just didn't make much sense then and still doesn't today. |
Your inability to make sense of it is not evidence that any of it is wrong. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 01/11/2011 : 14:59:34 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by JerryB
Are you back to the old "Slot only applies to isolated systems" thingy again? I post reference after reference to overcome one of your silly posits like this hoping that you won't mislead a noninformed reader... |
You've done no such thing.| ...you shut up about it for a few posts... |
No, you quit responding to me.| ...then come right back with the same thing hoping no one will notice that you lost that point in debate just a few posts back. |
But I didn't: you just quit talking.| You don't remember us discussing Feynman, Schrodinger and Ilya Prigogine ALL who worked with SLOT in open systems? |
No, they worked with entropy in open systems, not SLOT. The two are not synonymous.| You are going to have to understand that SLOT is a universal law and applies to EVERYTHING in the universe. |
Oh, you're so close to understanding it.| The fact that this law can be overcome via the addition of energy doesn't mean it don't apply. |
Yes, it does. Laws that can be overcome aren't laws, are they? The Law of Universal Gravitation applies in exactly the same way to Moon rockets and my fat ass, it cannot be overcome by anything.| It DOES apply, it's just that it is overcome in that particular situation. |
If it is overwhelmed by the input of energy, then it no longer defines a tendency. That tendency is what your argument is based on, so if it doesn't exist, then your argument is flawed in its premises, and we can ignore the math.| Yes, spontaneous reactions tend to increase entropy and is doesn't make a lick of difference whether that reaction happens in an insulated thermos or in your hand. |
But if there's energy input to overcome that tendency, then you can no longer say that the entropy will tend to rise. Instead it will drop. In an isolated system, on the other hand, it doesn't matter whether the reactions are spontaneous or not, exothermic or not, the overall entropy will always tend to rise per SLOT. In an isolated system, entropy cannot go down. In a non-isolated system, the entropy can rise or fall.| It still produces heat, doesn't it? |
But you're ignoring where that heat goes.| And the addition of heat into a system always increases entropy doesn't it? Here's the answer: yes. |
Not if the heat powers a reaction which lowers the entropy.| And I have already shown you that I can easily calculate destaS using that same formula. Please go back and re-read the thread that debate was in. |
You calculated a second S using a number that you pulled out of your ass, so that proved nothing.
And the problem of using the Boltzmann formula on a system not in equilibrium is one that you've never addressed other than to agree that life is not in equilibrium.| You simply lost that debate, you don't like it and you are coming back with the same stale arguments, twisted (you hope) a little different. |
This is empty, bloviating rhetoric: a sign of a loser. You're the one who quit the other debate. There are still points for you to answer over there. In this thread, I would much prefer to stick to your claims about ID, but if you're going to refuse to return to the other thread, then you'll have to face the unrebutted points from over there, here, too.
Also:| How can one be a Christian and not believe in a designer? |
But ID is all about the science. Just being a Christian shouldn't be enough to make one an IDist unless ID is about being Christian. The particular Christians you mentioned certainly didn't believe in the same God you do, they don't seem to have been interested in detecting design, so what makes them IDists? |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 01/11/2011 : 15:07:15 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by JerryB
What you would have to show to bolster Darwinism is to begin with a series such as:
Species A -----> trans1 -----> trans2 -----> trans3 -----> trans4
-----> trans5 -----> New Species B
You then would have to show that Species A could have bred with trans1 to produce viable, fertile offspring... |
Why? "Darwinism" doesn't require such interbreeding, why do you think it does?| That would be what science demands in order to have a theory... |
Why? Provide a citation to a scientist's work that describes your scenario as "demanded" by science. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
JerryB
Skeptic Friend
279 Posts |
Posted - 01/11/2011 : 21:27:43 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Dave W.
What? Why is that a problem at all? "Species" is a human concept. Nature need not follow it, and doesn't. |
Oh, why no. Just ignore Mayr's definition of a species that is taught in BIO 101 classes across the world because it upsets your atheist belief system. There are no laws of science, if you wish. Pigs can start giving birth to litters of goldfish, can't they, Dave.
Your inability to make sense of it is not evidence that any of it is wrong.
|
BAHAHAHAhahahahah............nuff said. |
|
|
|
Hawks
SFN Regular
Canada
1383 Posts |
Posted - 01/11/2011 : 22:05:34 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by JerryB
Pigs can start giving birth to litters of goldfish, can't they, Dave.
|
Well, it's something ID would be perfectly happy with... |
METHINKS IT IS LIKE A WEASEL
It's a small, off-duty czechoslovakian traffic warden! |
|
|
|
Kil
Evil Skeptic
USA
13477 Posts |
Posted - 01/11/2011 : 22:16:17 [Permalink]
|
JerryB.
I wasn't particularly religious when I was in college and had this stuff presented to me. It just didn't make much sense then and still doesn't today. |
This is a flat out balls to the wall argument from incredulity. Once again you have provided me with an example of a logical fallacy that is better than the ones I usually use to show people how to recognize a flawed argument.
BAHAHAHAhahahahah............nuff said. |
Uncertainty may make you uncomfortable. Certainty makes you ridiculous.
Why not question something for a change?
Genetic Literacy Project |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 01/11/2011 : 22:42:59 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by JerryB
Oh, why no. Just ignore Mayr's definition of a species that is taught in BIO 101 classes across the world because it upsets your atheist belief system. |
An argument from authority, an argument from popularity, and an ad homimen. Three things that are logically fallacious, all in one sentence. Let me reply thusly:
1) Mayr's definition isn't the only definition of "species" in use today, because none of them accurately portray nature in every context. Wikipedia lists fourteen species concepts (and in another article, says there are more than two dozen), and goes on to say,In practice, these definitions often coincide, and the differences between them are more a matter of emphasis than of outright contradiction. Nevertheless, no species concept yet proposed is entirely objective, or can be applied in all cases without resorting to judgment. Given the complexity of life, some have argued that such an objective definition is in all likelihood impossible, and biologists should settle for the most practical definition. "Species" is a human-defined classification, and not something that's derived from organisms themselves. No organism contains within it any sort of "species label" that allows us to objectively determine what species it is. Gnus are only gnus because we call them gnus, not because anything about their biology declares their gnu-ness.
The classic example of the species problem, which taxonomists argued about for years, is whether the Baltimore oriole and the Bullock's oriole are one species or two. The birds themselves couldn't help us decide, and didn't care themselves, not one little bit. They just went on, doing their birdy stuff. And the existence of ring species, of course, thoroughly destroys the idea that Mayr's definition is universally useful.
And, obviously, all of the above is the reason why taxonomists introduced the category "subspecies" to the taxonomic rankings. Nature wasn't so neat and tidy that we could make do with rankings only down to species, it made things messy at that level.
2) Who gives a damn what's taught in introductory biology classes? In higher biology classes, people are taught that Mayr's definition isn't the only one, and that the species problem is one of human categorization.
3) If ID is entirely about the science, what does my atheism have to do with your argument? And since when does my atheism entail anything about the science of biology?| There are no laws of science, if you wish. |
There are, but which taxonomic category humans have chosen to place some particular organisms isn't a law, but a human-created classification process. The fact that it fails in some cases is a problem caused by the human desire to categorize things, not a problem caused by or for Darwinian theory. In fact, Darwinian theory predicts that in the middle of a speciation event, we'd be hard-pressed to tell whether two creatures are of the same or different species, since they'd still be very similar phenotypically and behaviorally. When to classify them as two species is something humans choose, not something that falls out of the biology naturally. The taxonomic debates can last for decades (and have).| Pigs can start giving birth to litters of goldfish, can't they, Dave. |
Of course not. What the hell does that have to do with the species problem, and whether it is a failure of "Darwinism?"| Your inability to make sense of it is not evidence that any of it is wrong. |
BAHAHAHAhahahahah............nuff said. |
It really should have been enough. Unless your ego is so huge that you think you should be able to comprehend anything anyone tells you after little more than a cursory glance.
I don't understand Tensor calculus, but that doesn't give me license to mock or deny General Relativity, even if Einstein denialists give me some sort of alternative that I am currently able to grasp (which they try to do). You, on the other hand, have so much arrogance of ignorance that even though you clearly don't understand simple algebra, you're willing to insult and reject those who do. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
 |
|
|
|
An intro to Intelligent Design for skeptics
