| Author | Message | ||
     Sifo |
I can hypothesize that a certain rock is formed by granite being heated. I can then take granite and heat it. If I get that certain rock..... I have an experiment that others can replicate, and a theory. Maybe that's not how that rock is formed in nature. I can make huge diamonds with a little electricity, a graphite rod, a tiny seed diamond, vacuum, and microgravity. I don't think that's how nature makes them. Can you design life, and prove that's how it's done? ?? The answer is maybe and no. Get back to me when you have a panda. The big bang theory is one trying to fit an explanation to observed fact. ( cosmological background radiation ) Until we have much better tools, it's an idea, popular part of this last century. Not proven. Not Disproven. It is absolutely NOT the theory of everything. It has no explanation for the moments before the big bang. That's on the other side of a singularity. Scientists have a love/hate thing with singularities. I think they are part of observed reality, others prefer a more elegant one. So, yeah, a lot of science skirts the edges of philosophy. Most ALL of the "social sciences" have little foundation on science, at all. Geology isn't done yet, the coolest ideas like plate techtonics, are fairly recent. All the answers are not in. Some believe they never will be. Some believe There Are Things Man Was Not Meant To Know. So you look at rocks and ask how it may have been made. You look for the "best fit" theory and call that the most probable. You discard theories that have major problems in them. This is called science. The same process applies to the origin of life. DNA contains large quantities of useful information. As we learn more about DNA we are learning that it seems lacking in large amounts of random "junk" information. We do have the ability to go back through history and look for where we find large amounts of useful information that isn't cluttered with large amounts of "junk" information. We have examples of large amounts of useful information coming from sources of intelligence throughout history. We are lacking ANY examples of even small amounts of useful information coming from random chance of necessity of physical laws of nature. When we examine these know facts we are drawn to the best fitting theory that when there is a large amount of useful information such as we see in DNA, and it isn't scattered in a soup of junk information, that it was created by an intelligent source. That is exactly how historical sciences work. So is this now philosophy simply because of the implications of the conclusion? I would say not if you are being honest about it. I'll be out most of today and wont be able to respond. We'll see if this thread has gone hopelessly theological by then. As for the question about multiple universes, that too is addressed in the book. These theories while interesting are quite filled with problems and not well accepted for very good reasons. That doesn't mean that they are wrong, but they certainly aren't the best fit to explain what we know at this point in time. To use a poorly fitting theory to support another theory is really violating the best fitting theory concept. | ||
| Aesquire |
... simply because of the implications of the conclusion? no, because there is a leap in that conclusion. sorta a "things are so not random they have to be by choice, not chance" Perhaps so, but it's not science. It's thought out ideas, and no way to test ( that I know of ) until we get the FTL and big telescope out & look back in time. Even then, If we see a gigantic hand shaping the galaxies, it's not proof. Ok, I'd buy that as proof.  I'm not even saying "there is no designer". I actually believe in such, and my evidence is the emotional response I have when I look at an awesome sky, fractal objects in nature, or Milla Jovovich. I'm certainly not going to agree with the anti-religious arguments like "why does God allow pain" or "no way was the universe created in 7 days". Bogus. You expect 22nd century understanding from the writings of nomadic goat herders? Get real. I also raise an eyebrow to the religious zealots who insist on perfect divine revelation in every word preserved by divine intent. You expect 22nd century understanding from the writings of nomadic goat herders? Get real. But speculation as to the origins of the universe that end in "...so therefor there are Gods" just don't convince me more than the actual science which goes..."and then we don't know." Neat idea though. Teach it in religious or philosophy classes, not in Chemistry. Don't teach Progressive Social Justice in Chemistry either. | ||
| Aesquire |
And, it does look like Yggdrasill, to me. We do pattern matching. We're human, it's how we survive. Danger... so you've embraced the uncertainty? Fine by me. Knowing you don't know is the first step on the path to wisdom. probably. You sure can't learn anything new if you know everything. I remember being jealous of the Jewish kids because they got days off I didn't. If I was back in High school today, I'd demand all sorts of holidays. Saturnalia, Guy Fawkes Day, etc. | ||
| Ft_bstrd |
I respect those who say "I don't know". At least they are still seeking answers. | ||
| Danger_dave |
You have your way. I have my way. As for the right way, the correct way, and the only way, it does not exist. Friedrich Nietzsche | ||
| Danger_dave |
Agnostics don't seek any answers. They consider it unknowable and leave it at that. I think that paraphrases Bertrand Russell. | ||
| Blake |
Patrick, >>> Intelligent Design is philosophy, not science. Philosophy, actual properly done honest to goodness rigorous philosophy is a branch of science. It just isn't physics or chemistry. It isn't a life science. It is the science of cognitive reasoning, deduction, and logic. So to, the recognition of an intended design/creation of something is a 100% valid scientific principle. It is used all the time in the science of archeology. Ever search for old arrowheads? How may we recognize one from the surrounding stones? What about it tells you that it is a result of a design intent and creative efforts? >>> There is no way to disprove or prove ID. It's philosophy. The demands for "proof" can become extreme in some cases. Take the case of those who are not sure of reality itself, positing that we may be the result of a massive ongoing illusion or dream state or cognitive construct (yeah like the Matrix). But statistics and logic and reason may be applied. Probabilities may be established. If a scientist can show that universe-sized conglomerations of matter may spontaneously appear from nothing, and that evolving life may be created from that matter by pure happenstance, then that would tend to disprove the theory of intelligent design. If the designer left us a credible message proving it's existence and revealing itself to us, that would tend to support the theory of ID. RJ (Ferris Von Bueller) >>> Given there are an infinite number of universes... Is there any evidence whatsoever to support the notion of an actual infinite, let alone the existence of an actual infinite number universes? In the physical realm, there is no such thing as an actual infinite. Infinity is a mental construct. It does not exist in reality of space time, nor any conceivable space time, and outside of space time, it would seem to have no meaning. Robert (Baybueller), >>> "my burning question is why would an all powerful being allow children to die from outside trauma or inside trauma "ie disease"?" You've drifted into religion. Also, rejecting scientific theory due to distaste for religion is an emotional argument, not a reasoned logical one. The answer is out there though if you are truly interested. Here's a good start... http://www.reasonablefaith.org/ Phillip (PKForbes) >>> The Bible says God is light, correct? I'm not familiar with that if it does. The Bible does record that when God was asked by Moses for God's name, God replied "I am who I am. Thus you shall say to the Israelites, 'I AM has sent me to you.'" Yahweh in Hebrew means "I am", a very profound answer if considered thoughtfully. Danger Man, >>> The best part of being an agnostic is you get all the holidays without the guilt trip. I know that is an old joke from way back, but it always struck me as odd. Celebrating the holidays for me at least is among the most uplifting experiences that are part of my faith. Guilt comes from having a conscience. No faith needed.  Back to the issue of science versus philosophy. One of my favorite philosophers, Dr. William Craig, offers the following: As for your question, I... hear the naturalistic appeal to ignorance all the time. I think the fallacy of this reasoning is that it assumes that I’m appealing to a sort of “God of the gaps” to plug up the gaps in our scientific knowledge of the world. But I’m not. In fact, I’m not even offering scientific evidence for God. Rather here is how I put it: | ||
| Blake |
| ||
| Slaughter |
I still state that the atheist and person of faith are much closer to each other than EITHER is to an agnostic. (dagnabbit, there I go getting sucked into a BBS discussion on faith - against my "better judgement") (Message edited by slaughter on April 21, 2011) | ||
| Danger_dave |
I have a conscience and no guilt. Regrets, I've had a few. But then again, too few to mention. | ||
| Kenm123t |
Dave Doogle will fix that he is watching you. | ||
| Sifo |
Aesquire, Perhaps if you would elaborate a bit I would understand better why you would state that ID isn't a scientific theory. Is it your opinion that any search for the origin of life fails to be science, or is it just certain lines of exploration? ID follows the same methods as geology and many other sciences. Do you consider these accepted areas of science to not be science too? | ||
| Sifo |
no, because there is a leap in that conclusion. sorta a "things are so not random they have to be by choice, not chance" Perhaps so, but it's not science. It's thought out ideas, and no way to test ( that I know of ) until we get the FTL and big telescope out & look back in time. Even then, If we see a gigantic hand shaping the galaxies, it's not proof. Ok, I'd buy that as proof. This is akin to "proof" of what forces built up a particular mountain range. You can't replicate it in a lab, and you can't go back in time and observe it first hand. You can however examine many individual pieces of evidence, much of which can be verified and various theories can be proposed. At that point you look at each theory both for it's strengths and weaknesses and can reasonable determine which ones offer promise of best explaining the evidence before us. Of course I'm leaving out much detail of the methods used in this scientific process, but I have no doubt that you are pretty aware of what I'm talking about. I think the leap you speak of is actually beyond the ID theory. I admit it's difficult separate because it's the 800 pound gorilla in the room question once you accept the validity of ID as science. | ||
| Sifo |
So here's the thing... We have a program called SETI looking for extraterrestrial intelligence. We scan the skies searching for a signal that is not of natural origin. What do we look for? We are looking for data that is not comprised of noise. We are looking for data that is more than a simple repeating sequence that has no meaning. In a nutshell we are looking for a reasonably long quantity of meaningful data. Why? The answer is simple. We know from experience that large quantities of meaningful data just isn't assembled randomly in nature. You might randomly get a dozen bytes of data randomly assembled in nature. A couple dozen bytes of info becomes exponentially more unlikely. When you get to hundreds of bytes of useful information we see that as a distinct sign of intelligence. There is no doubt about it, we just don't know of any cases where nature does this on it's own. When you have millions of bytes of useful, non-repeating data the evidence is overwhelming. If we were to ever receive a signal with that quantity of useful, unique data what would we say of the scientist who made the claim that it was an act of randomness of natural causes? They would quickly find themselves shunned by their peers, unable to get papers published, and unable to get grant money for research. For some reason when we look at DNA we see a string of millions of bytes of information that determines how living being are constructed from basic elements, grow and form complex biological system that support life and replicate themselves. That is a marvelous treasure trove of information. Even for the simplest forms of life that we know of, it's an astounding amount of information. So we are asked to believe that this information was assembled by random chance? Keep in mind that until you actually achieve life, natural selection plays no part in any of this. You are literally asking me to believe that millions of bytes of useful data have been randomly assembled with little junk data included (less and less junk data as we learn more and more about the genome) through nothing but random chance. Science tells us that this simply doesn't happen. This is why if we were to get a signal from space with just a fraction of that amount of useful data there would be a virtually unanimous conclusion that we have been contacted by an intelligence. We are simply setting very different standards based solely on the implications of where the answers lead. One set of standards if it leads to the conclusion that there's other intelligent life in the universe, but a wholly different standard if the conclusion leads to an intelligent designer as the origin of life. | ||
| Hughlysses |
Tom- that's an interesting and appropriate analogy. Interestingly, there's sort of a related connection in Carl Sagan's book "Contact" (not included in the movie with Jodie Foster). IIRC, when the character Jodie plays visits with the aliens, they hint to her that God left his signature on the universe where we could find it. From wikipedia: "In a kind of postscript, Ellie, acting upon a suggestion by the senders of the message, works on a program which computes the digits of Pi; to record lengths and in different bases. Very, very far from the decimal point (1020) and in base 11, it finds that a special pattern does exist when the numbers stop varying randomly and start producing 1s and 0s in a very long string. The string's length is the product of 11 prime numbers. The 1s and 0s when organized as a square of specific dimensions form a rasterized circle. The extraterrestrials suggest that this is an artist's signature, woven into the very fabric of space-time. It is another message, one from the universe's creator. Yet the extraterrestrials are just as ignorant to its meaning as Ellie, as it could be still some sort of a statistical anomaly. They also make reference to older artifacts built from space time itself (namely the wormhole transit system) abandoned by a prior civilization. A line in the book suggests that the image is a foretaste of deeper marvels hidden even further within pi. This new pursuit becomes analogous to SETI; it is another search for meaningful signals in apparent noise. This idea, among other plot points, was omitted from the film version." IIRC, Sagan was an atheist (or at least an agnostic) so maybe this was his idea of what kind of proof he'd require for the existence of God. I thought it was a neat idea. Who knows? Maybe an equivalent proof exists right there in DNA? | ||
| Mr_grumpy |
So if one accepts the principle of Intelligent design over that of evolution, where do we go? Is it all done by one God? If so, which one? Or are different Gods responsible for different things? One might think so looking at some creatures, for instance the Duck-Billed Platypus must have been done by the Gods animal design team after one the herb design Gods came along & said "Hey guys have a bang on this" Whatever the answer is, large parts of the world's population are going to be wrong. I have no answers, so don't ask me, I'm perfectly happy to accept that things are as they are. | ||
| Sayitaintso |
I'm kind of a slow one sometimes so here is what I understand the positions to be (if I'm wrong let me know): Evolution explains things once the ball (life) gets rolling but not so much as to how things got started. ID kinda throws its hands up and says we dont know but random chance doesn't seem plausable, something must have had "its" hands in the design. | ||
| Sifo |
So if one accepts the principle of Intelligent design over that of evolution, where do we go? I'm kind of a slow one sometimes so here is what I understand the positions to be (if I'm wrong let me know): Evolution explains things once the ball (life) gets rolling but not so much as to how things got started. ID kinda throws its hands up and says we dont know but random chance doesn't seem plausable, something must have had "its" hands in the design. Good question Grumpy and a good but incomplete answer by Sayitaintso. ID doesn't necessarily nullify evolution. The flavor presented in the book I just read stops the theory at the point of first life. Evolutionary theory really does nothing to explain first life so these theories can happily coexist. There are however promoters of ID that take it farther and believe that the designer started life with many designs right from the beginning. While this was mentioned in the book, he didn't really get into the scientific support or weaknesses of this aspect of ID. There may be some weakness in the idea of everything we now see evolving from the same set of DNA though. As pointed out early in this thread evolution theory really doesn't account for adding new information to the DNA chain. It only accounts for changes in certain points in the DNA chain. At least that's my understanding of it at this point. I'm sure evolutionists theorize that this happens, but I'm not familiar with a mechanism that would actually allow for it. Reading a book supporting evolution theory at this same depth may fill in a potential mechanism for adding new DNA though. I honestly don't have that answer. Hughlysses, I have to admit that the movie Contact was popping into mind as I wrote that. Sounds like I need to read the book. I love that kind of Sci-Fi. Lately Sci-Fi is mixed with the Fantasy section and is getting to be far less into science. Issac Asimov was one of my favorite Sci-Fi writers. He seemed to get just about the right amount of science involved with with a good story line. | ||
| Aesquire |
I agree that ID and Evolution can co-exist. They attempt to explain different things. As once taught in schools, Darwinian Evolution is good as far as it goes, but obviously is incomplete, and has several flaws. Darwin didn't know what we do about DNA, etc. Doesn't mean there is No validity to Evolution. But most people bog down in the emotional issues, like "I got no apes in my family". At heart, it's an observation, that usually, the fittest survive and reproduce, making them more numerous. I still don't know where the medium necked Giraffes are. All science is incomplete. Even Einstein's gravity theories have, oddities. We use gravity well trajectories to toss probes around, and sometimes they don't do what we expected. So there's more to learn. Subtle things like parts of Chaos Theory, and the fractal nature of DNA encoding, certainly have elegant aspects that one can accept as "proof" of a God. But it's not scientific proof, it's just cool. Blake, Philosophy is argument, reasoning, introspection, and speculation. It's older, and is some ways more "natural" than the Scientific method, which is itself a philosophy of method of thought. But Philosophy is not science. "I think therefor I am", the shadows on the wall of the cave, or Maya, the veil of illusion, are grand and provoking concepts, but don't move freight. Thermodynamics, Reynolds Numbers, Coefficients of friction, Ohms Law, those move freight. We went to the moon on "equal and opposite reaction", quantum tunneling, and radio telescopes. I will say, that without the Dream Of Flight, the Need to See Beyond The Horizon, and the Pride of Freedom, we would not have gone. I don't however confuse the 2. I am NOT trying to disprove God(s). That would be silly and childish. And that Laminin thing is pretty cool. A final word on Evolution. Some believe that when Man starts protecting the unfit, Evolution Stops for man. Nonsense. It's just not "natural" anymore. We will soon be able to manipulate our DNA and experiment with changing ourselves. I speculate the first things done will be: the elimination of certain diseases. the improvement of the body for Sports. and most dangerous, the thing that could End mankind, the enhancements of sexual characteristics. We're doing that now, without direct manipulation of DNA. I leave you speculate on how messed up that can get. | ||
| Slaughter |
We have ALWAYS manipulated DNA Back in the day, hybrid plants went against God's Laws. Remember, USURY - spoken SPECIFICALLY against in the bible - is a sin. Who is going to their credit card companies and calling blasphemy on their card rates? | ||
| Danger_dave |
Not only are you sucked in - you've devolved to CAPITALS! Get this man a soap box. | ||
| Slaughter |
YES DAMMIT! SOAP BOX... I DEMAND MY SOAP BOX!!! | ||
| Danger_dave |
When the big letters go red we worry for the keyboard. | ||
| Slaughter |
YES DAMMIT! SOAP BOX... I DEMAND MY SOAP BOX!!! Just tell me the devil didn't make me do it! | ||
| Hughlysses |
Lately Sci-Fi is mixed with the Fantasy section and is getting to be far less into science. Glad to know I'm not the only person that hates that! | ||
| 86129squids |
I can disprove Intelligent Design Theory. The answer has been in the BW archives all along. http://www.badweatherbikers.com/buell/messages/406 2/617484.html | ||
| Sifo |
Subtle things like parts of Chaos Theory, and the fractal nature of DNA encoding, certainly have elegant aspects that one can accept as "proof" of a God. But it's not scientific proof, it's just cool. Aesquire, I'll just focus on the part where you discuss DNA. Nothing is being presented as being part of design simply because of it's elegance, or a fractal nature. You've just tossed in a red herring. You can do better.  | ||
| Aesquire |
Not a red herring, just the stuff that convinces ME that "there is a higher...". Feel free to be inspired where you will. The leaves on a tree, the path of nerves, blood vessels, etc. are encoded in dna. But the exact path is not specified. A leaf, for example, seems ( what we now think ) to have the basic shape encoded, but the exact pattern of the veins and cells seems to be fractal in it's coding. Not proof of anything, but a very cool insight that could not have happened a century ago, before math guys figured out fractals. ( sorta figured out.... not done yet ) My argument that ID is not science is based on my observation that it seems purely "too complicated to be random". I even agree it sure seems life is too complicated to be random. But that's philosophy. And, I object to Milla being called a red herring. She's much prettier than that. Inspires me, don't know about you. | ||
| Ferris_von_bueller |
In the physical realm, there is no such thing as an actual infinite. Infinity is a mental construct. It does not exist in reality of space time, nor any conceivable space time, and outside of space time, it would seem to have no meaning. Huh? Aren't space and time infinite? | ||
| Aesquire |
Infinite? not the late 20th century view, anyway. The Universe has a vast, but finite amount of stuff, as it seems to be a bubble expanding in an unknown void. We can "see" ( actually hear ) the echo of the big bang. maybe. The trouble is that we seem to be in the middle of a 14 billion+ year rough sphere, but nearly any perspective might seem like that. So, we could be wrong about that. ( darn science! ) but in a 14 billion + sized space there's lots, but not infinite. Truthfully, that concept also borders on philosophy. It's not like science and philosophy are strangers. I simply define the difference at the method of questioning the answers your philosophy leads you to. Bad science, ( IMHO Global Warming and Megavitamin snake oil are at that level ) and "soft" sciences, ( economics, psychology, political theory, etc. ) are offshoots of philosophy that uses argument to determine the answer rather than independently researched facts. ( you can argue that economics uses numbers... i agree, my definition is not pure, but there are shades of grey, economics is not all numbers ) The base principal is that one can propose an explanation, and perform an experiment, that others can replicate, and then reconcile the facts with our view of reality. The base assumption is your knowledge is incomplete. I'm sure there's a Zen Koan that states you can't learn until you know you know nothing? A religious person is trapped by religion. A perfect person is trapped by perfection. An occultist is trapped by the occult. A human is trapped by the human. A squirrel is trapped by squirrel traps. No that's not it. |
