|
|
|
JerryB
Skeptic Friend
279 Posts |
 Posted - 01/12/2011 : 07:11:26 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by filthy
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! 
|
When did I mention a god or gaps? You are introducing a Strawman here. From your link:
"God of the gaps refers to a view of God as existing in the "gaps" or aspects of reality that are currently unexplained by scientific knowledge, or that otherwise lack a plausible natural explanation.[1] According to John Habgood in The Westminster Dictionary of Christian Theology, the phrase is generally derogatory, and is inherently a direct criticism of a tendency to postulate acts of God to explain phenomena for which science has yet to give a satisfactory account."
I did not go there at all.
What you are postulating is NOT SCIENCE. It's a fairytale for grownups where you imagine in your mind that all kinds of strange critters are "poofing" out of others.
And it is based on NO empirical evidence.
You cannot show me even one transition where, as I previously noted:
Species A -----> trans1 -----> trans2 -----> trans3 -----> trans4 -----> trans5 -----> New Species B......and also provide experimental data that Species A could and did interbreed with trans1, trans1 could and did interbreed with trans2, etc. And that Species A could NOT interbreed with New Species B.
This would be necessary to satisfy the very definition of a sexual species as taught even at the high school level:
Species: two organisms that can interbreed and produce viable (they live and are healthy), fertile (they too can have offspring) offspring.
You have no way of showing this.
So, enjoy your hobby. You seem to be really into it. The pictures are cool. But please don't call it science because it simply is not. Unfortunately, you guys are teaching this in our schools and universities as fact. That's sad.
|
 |
|
|
BigPapaSmurf
SFN Die Hard
3192 Posts |
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 01/12/2011 : 07:43:25 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by JerryB
It's a fairytale for grownups where you imagine in your mind that all kinds of strange critters are "poofing" out of others. |
No, that's your cartoon version of "Darwinism" that bears little resemblance to what is actually in the theory and taught in schools. You don't understand the theory (you said it makes no sense to you), so you've invented this straw man that you're arguing against. Straw men are easy to defeat, but declaring victory over one has no bearing on whether the real thing is or isn't science.
"Poofing" is what you've chosen to believe with your assertion that all species were specially created. They just "poof" into existence, fully formed and ready to go in their environments, as you claimed. Without actual evidence that a "quantum intelligence" did all the design and implementation in some natural fashion, the "poofs" may as well have been magic for all the faith required.
So what it boils down to is more psychological projection: you're aware of your ideas' failures, but you prefer to act as if they belong to other people. |
- 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 - 01/12/2011 : 08:30:37 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Dave W.
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?
|
I stopped responding because you obviously had lost the debate in that, like now, you were just repeating over and over the same, trite points hoping that if you typed them enough, they would come true.
Oh, I know, the regulars on here won't agree, but that's OK, I'm used to that. But, I'm very careful when I debate someone in that, once I feel sure that any unbiased reader that reads in can see I have overcome the argument, I sum up and move on. No need to beat a dead horse.
And you think they worked with entropy but not SLOT? BAHAhahahahahah.....you are so lost in this subject that you cannot even intelligently discuss it.
Schrodinger on his work:
"The general principle involved is the famous Second Law of Thermodynamics (entropy principle) and its equally famous statistical foundation. On pp. 69-74 I will try to sketch the bearing of the entropy principle on the large-scale behaviour of a living organism - forgetting at the moment all that is known about chromosomes, inheritance, and so on."
http://dieoff.org/page150.htm
You cannot have entropy without SLOT because entropy is the measurement of the effects of SLOT. I have told you this repeatedly, yet you still don't seem to get it:
"Molecules tend to spread out their energy by moving and rotating/vibrating in as many different ways as they can. (The more ways, the less concentrated is their energy in just one "quantum state" or way. More about quantum states later.) Entropy is a measure of the second law of thermodynamics."
http://departments.oxy.edu/chemistry/enthropy.htm
"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."
Why no, gravity cannot be overcome by the addition of energy either, can it. Every time they launch the space shuttle, it goes 50 feet into the air and just falls back to the ground?? Or maybe gravity just don't apply to space shuttles like SLOT don't apply to genes.
Finally, all Christians that believe in Genesis believe that Adam and Eve were designed. You don't think I meant to imply that Boyle and Pasteur had studied Behe or Dembski, do you?
|
|
|
|
JerryB
Skeptic Friend
279 Posts |
Posted - 01/12/2011 : 08:45:07 [Permalink]
|
Sorry, Bigpapa....I don't read references from talk origin and I wouldn't expect you to read them from creationist sites.
Please post references from scientists, published papers, science journals or university science departments. Thanks. |
|
|
|
Fripp
SFN Regular
USA
727 Posts |
Posted - 01/12/2011 : 08:58:02 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by JerryB
Sorry, Bigpapa....I don't read references from talk origin
|
In other words, you stick your fingers in your ears and say "lalalal, I am not listening to you..."
Please post references from scientists, published papers, science journals or university science departments. Thanks.
|
What do you think Talk Origins is?
|
"What the hell is an Aluminum Falcon?"
"Oh, I'm sorry. I thought my Dark Lord of the Sith could protect a small thermal exhaust port that's only 2-meters wide! That thing wasn't even fully paid off yet! You have any idea what this is going to do to my credit?!?!"
"What? Oh, oh, 'just rebuild it'? Oh, real [bleep]ing original. And who's gonna give me a loan, jackhole? You? You got an ATM on that torso LiteBrite?" |
|
|
|
JerryB
Skeptic Friend
279 Posts |
Posted - 01/12/2011 : 09:36:05 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Fripp
Originally posted by JerryB
Sorry, Bigpapa....I don't read references from talk origin
|
In other words, you stick your fingers in your ears and say "lalalal, I am not listening to you..."
Please post references from scientists, published papers, science journals or university science departments. Thanks.
|
What do you think Talk Origins is?
|
Talk origins is as dogmatic as creationism. It's just the polar opposite. |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 01/12/2011 : 09:54:30 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by JerryB
I stopped responding because you obviously had lost the debate in that, like now, you were just repeating over and over the same, trite points hoping that if you typed them enough, they would come true. |
You're projecting again.| Oh, I know, the regulars on here won't agree, but that's OK, I'm used to that. But, I'm very careful when I debate someone in that, once I feel sure that any unbiased reader that reads in can see I have overcome the argument, I sum up and move on. |
Where is your evidence that "unbiased" readers can do that based on what you write? I will, of course, ignore the silly ad hominem argument for now.| No need to beat a dead horse. |
Then why do you keep beating on a silly cartoon version of Darwinism? That thing is surely dead, since it was never alive.And you think they worked with entropy but not SLOT? BAHAhahahahahah.....you are so lost in this subject that you cannot even intelligently discuss it.
Schrodinger on his work:
"The general principle involved is the famous Second Law of Thermodynamics (entropy principle) and its equally famous statistical foundation. On pp. 69-74 I will try to sketch the bearing of the entropy principle on the large-scale behaviour of a living organism - forgetting at the moment all that is known about chromosomes, inheritance, and so on."
http://dieoff.org/page150.htm |
Indeed, he ignored a lot of stuff to write what he wrote. He was wrong in a lot of ways, actually, and thought until his death that Heisenberg was wrong (like Einstein did, too). Ironic that you cite both of them approvingly, even though they disagreed quite strongly with each other. But, that's one of the major failings of cherry-picking science like you do.| You cannot have entropy without SLOT because entropy is the measurement of the effects of SLOT. |
That's not how entropy is defined today. Perhaps it was, 60+ years ago, but you'll have to catch up.| I have told you this repeatedly, yet you still don't seem to get it: |
It doesn't matter how many times you repeat it, it still won't magically become true."Molecules tend to spread out their energy by moving and rotating/vibrating in as many different ways as they can. (The more ways, the less concentrated is their energy in just one "quantum state" or way. More about quantum states later.) Entropy is a measure of the second law of thermodynamics."
http://departments.oxy.edu/chemistry/enthropy.htm |
The author of that page uses "entropy" synonymously with "change in entropy," a sloppy habit that he admits a few sentences later with "That's why entropy (OK, the change in entropy, DS)..."
More ironic are these quotes from the same page:Entropy is NOT "disorder".
Entropy is NOT a "measure of disorder" (except in three atomic/molecular situations)
Entropy is NEVER a measure of disorder in the arrangement of macro objects -- from playing cards and messy desks to bricks and boulders. So much for your hypothesis that the laws of thermodynamics declare that genomes should go from "order" to "disorder." Your own source disagrees with you.
"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."
Why no, gravity cannot be overcome by the addition of energy either, can it. Every time they launch the space shuttle, it goes 50 feet into the air and just falls back to the ground?? |
So according to you, Jerry, "The Law of Universal Gravitation" and "the force of gravity on Earth" are synonymous. You really need to learn English.| Or maybe gravity just don't apply to space shuttles... |
Of course gravity applies to Space Shuttles, or they wouldn't need those big engines and boosters.| ...like SLOT don't apply to genes. |
SLOT doesn't define a tendency towards disorder in genomes because genomes are an open system, and because entropy doesn't measure disorder according to your own sources.| Finally, all Christians that believe in Genesis believe that Adam and Eve were designed. |
No, they believe that Adam was literally magically poofed into existence from clay, and that Eve was poofed into existence from one of Adam's ribs. Didn't you once claim that ID had no poofs in it? I guess if Biblical literalists are IDists according to you, then ID has nothing to do with the science, and it's all about faith in poofing. And you're somehow surprised that ID and religion are entertwined so tightly?| You don't think I meant to imply that Boyle and Pasteur had studied Behe or Dembski, do you? |
No, that's why I asked the question in the first place. I wanted to know what design detection you thought they had performed which benefitted vaccination or chemistry, respectively. I'm guessing none at all, since you've declared that being a Bible thumper who believes in magical poofing is enough to make one an IDist. |
- 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 |
|
|
Kil
Evil Skeptic
USA
13477 Posts |
Posted - 01/12/2011 : 09:58:31 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by JerryB
Originally posted by Fripp
Originally posted by JerryB
Sorry, Bigpapa....I don't read references from talk origin
|
In other words, you stick your fingers in your ears and say "lalalal, I am not listening to you..."
Please post references from scientists, published papers, science journals or university science departments. Thanks.
|
What do you think Talk Origins is?
|
Talk origins is as dogmatic as creationism. It's just the polar opposite.
|
Yeah. Presenting what is the consensus in science with an enormous amount of detail and citation to peer reviewed journals is the same as presenting a pseudo-science that isn't peer reviewed is the same. Okay then...
 |
Uncertainty may make you uncomfortable. Certainty makes you ridiculous.
Why not question something for a change?
Genetic Literacy Project |
|
|
|
Cuneiformist
The Imperfectionist
USA
4955 Posts |
Posted - 01/12/2011 : 10:06:13 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by JerryB
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. |
I'm aware of Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle, but your explanation seems to be somewhat incorrect. A basic discussion doesn't quite go as far as you do, and suggests that the difficulties in measuring electrons comes from the fact that "to make a very precise measurement of the position of the particle, we are forced by the quantum principle to impart a high amount of energy to the particle and results in increasing the kinetic energy to the particle. This kinetic energy imparted to the particle changes the velocity of the particle in an uncontrollable and irreversible manner, and we end up with a final velocity of the particle which is different from the value it had before we made the measurement."
| So, what could be this observer of the universe that makes some things solid matter and other things waves? |
I'm confused. Where did this "observer of the universe" come from?!? Why does there have to be one?
| 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. |
Aaaah! OK. So this explains a lot. Tipler is the author of books like The Physics of Christianity and who has spent his career arguing "that quantum mechanics and general relativity require that the Cosmological Singularity - the Uncaused First Cause - consists of Three Persons but one Cause." Which sounds awfully Christian to me...
Indeed, it seems that actual trained physicists have trouble digesting his ideas.
This aside, it's really unclear what use it is, or how you can apply QM to postulate that entirely new species popped into existence (which seems to be how you understand things). How does the designer do it? Why? Does it have any predictive or explanatory power? Modern evolutionary theory does-- it has continued to hold up after more than a century of testing. ID has a ways to go before it even gets off the ground. |
|
|
|
Fripp
SFN Regular
USA
727 Posts |
Posted - 01/12/2011 : 10:08:26 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by JerryB
Talk origins is as dogmatic as creationism. It's just the polar opposite.
|
How would you know? You don't read their references. You're just assuming.
BTW, Talk origins *does* have "references from scientists, published papers, science journals or university science departments."
You avoid Talk Origins because what you may read there may shatter your worldview.
The fact that the world is round, despite what the Bible says, isn't a dogmatic view. It's a fact. |
"What the hell is an Aluminum Falcon?"
"Oh, I'm sorry. I thought my Dark Lord of the Sith could protect a small thermal exhaust port that's only 2-meters wide! That thing wasn't even fully paid off yet! You have any idea what this is going to do to my credit?!?!"
"What? Oh, oh, 'just rebuild it'? Oh, real [bleep]ing original. And who's gonna give me a loan, jackhole? You? You got an ATM on that torso LiteBrite?" |
|
|
|
BigPapaSmurf
SFN Die Hard
3192 Posts |
Posted - 01/12/2011 : 11:03:22 [Permalink]
|
| What a joke, I didnt ask for data from creationist web sites, if I had I WOULD read them. Have fun in your sad fantasy world. |
"...things I have neither seen nor experienced nor heard tell of from anybody else; things, what is more, that do not in fact exist and could not ever exist at all. So my readers must not believe a word I say." -Lucian on his book True History
"...They accept such things on faith alone, without any evidence. So if a fraudulent and cunning person who knows how to take advantage of a situation comes among them, he can make himself rich in a short time." -Lucian critical of early Christians c.166 AD From his book, De Morte Peregrini |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 01/12/2011 : 11:10:54 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Fripp
Please post references from scientists, published papers, science journals or university science departments. Thanks. |
Hypocrite. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
Fripp
SFN Regular
USA
727 Posts |
Posted - 01/12/2011 : 11:52:52 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Dave W.
Originally posted by Fripp
Please post references from scientists, published papers, science journals or university science departments. Thanks. |
Hypocrite.
|
Are you calling me a hypocrite? How so? |
"What the hell is an Aluminum Falcon?"
"Oh, I'm sorry. I thought my Dark Lord of the Sith could protect a small thermal exhaust port that's only 2-meters wide! That thing wasn't even fully paid off yet! You have any idea what this is going to do to my credit?!?!"
"What? Oh, oh, 'just rebuild it'? Oh, real [bleep]ing original. And who's gonna give me a loan, jackhole? You? You got an ATM on that torso LiteBrite?" |
|
|
 |
|
|
|
An intro to Intelligent Design for skeptics
