03 May 08
Originally posted by KellyJayThere's no precise definition of "life" that would allow a precise transition from non-life to life. It's like saying that there's a precise moment when a child becomes an adult. We've arbritrarily decided to call them adults at 18 here in the US, but there's no clear biological distinction. Likewise with life.
A point I continue to make, yes, even if you refuse to believe in God
or gods at some point non-living matter has to turn into living matter.
The material going from non-life to life has to be a harder change
than non-living to non-living, unless you can show me it isn't.
Kelly
Why does the change from non-life to life "have to be a harder change than non-living to non-living"? I bet it's much easier than for, say, an electron to turn into a galaxy.
03 May 08
Originally posted by KellyJayWhat's a "machine" according to you? One of the five simple machines is the lever. Every time a rod shaped object is hit by a force anywhere but it's center of mass (e.g. a dead stick hit by a falling rock) there's a machine in action.
Can you show me a machine that does not require design? I keep
asking people to stop bringing up mythical creatures to this, they have
no part of this discussion. I will not call you ignorant in this discussion
could you treat me the same way from here on out?
I would also point out that Urey and Miller had design built into it as
well, if you saw it ...[text shortened]... s areas that were put in place to cause
certain actions to occur and not occur by design
Kelly
03 May 08
Originally posted by KellyJayI've just given you billions of examples, how many do you need?!?!?
You realize that we are discussing if life was made by ID or not.
So your example of the very topic in dispute is something that is
self evident, in your opinion, how scientific of you. That has to
right up there with, we just project the numbers, it has to be right.
You have another example or is that all you got?
Kelly
Actually, AThousandYoung has given you another example and of course, as he says, the definition of a 'machine' is crucial.
I suspect your definition probably includes some aspect of being intelligently designed.
--- Penguin.
03 May 08
Originally posted by KellyJayYes, once you get them, but how do you get them? Not denying they
Yes, once you get them, but how do you get them? Not denying they
are here, nor am I denying that we see processes here in the now as
well. The processes like life, had to start some where, some how.
Which is why I do not think claiming ID shows evolution is wrong, it
only speaks to the beginning of the process, and how it is possible to
get past som ...[text shortened]... s of evolution where no one
has a clue how somethings could have been done in evolution.
Kelly
are here, nor am I denying that we see processes here in the now as
well. The processes like life, had to start some where, some how.
And with, of the order of a billion billion planets in the universe, it can be an extraordinarily improbable event. A five thousand billion to one chance will still occur millions of times throughout the universe.
--- Penguin
04 May 08
Originally posted by KellyJayIt seems the "expelled" people of the title were trying to pass religion off as science and got their fingers rapped.
http://www.expelledthemovie.com/playground.php
Thoughts
Kelly
It's definitely NOT as the guy in the trailer says, scientists are not trying to lead a diverse of science and religion. They are merely maintaining a perfectly reasonable, logical standpoint. Religion is based upon untestable ideas. Science requires all ideas to be backed with evidence.
Over politicising, or bringing religion into a science classroom, where it has no place being, will almost certainly lead to disciplinary actions, as well it should. Trying to publish religion as science will lead to rejection.
04 May 08
Originally posted by KellyJayAirline pilots who can't fly would be similarly handicapped however. If you cannot use the logical processes of science, and you willfully teach non-mainstream work as the scientific concensus you are always going to be in a tenuous position, and rightly so.
You prove the point that people who think ID is possible can get their
lives ruined by the attitude you are portraying here now.
04 May 08
Originally posted by KellyJayYou really are out to put words in peopels mouths aren't you. Something you complain about enough yourself.
Which is the point isn't it, "but whatever you teach had better be good
science and ID isn't good science.” It does not matter to you, as soon
as ID is expressed as a possibility they are in your eyes no longer
suited to teach that topic. Right away you have put the fear of losing
a job if you are a teacher or grants if that is what you do just for
thinking something could be true. The more you talk, the more I want
to see this movie.
Kelly
The problem is that ID isn't good science, since it is based upon an untestable assumption. Devise a test for it, test it, get the evidence, and we'll all listen. Until then, it is opinion, not science.
PERSONAL OPINIONS, WITHOUT ANY BASIS IN EMPIRICAL EVIDENCE SHOULD NOT BE TAUGHT AS SCIENCE.
If you want to go out and get a research grant to look for this design, and to test for a designer, then go for it. You probably won't get the grant though, not unless you've got some results already (often in science people need to pay for some pilot work out of other funds before they can get a grant to do experiments). Even so, in most countries, only about 20% of proposals get funded in any given round, and I cannot imagine an ID grant would be looked on sympathetically, unless there was some resolution of the ideas and the logic.
04 May 08
Originally posted by KellyJayYou are lying right there.
You are free with the word liar. At no point have I lied here, it is
sickening that you would suggest it too. I have no doubt after talking
to you, you would sink someone's lively hood because they don't
agree with you after on this matter. That isn't a lie, I believe it and
I'm saying it because I do believe it.
Kelly
He wouldn't be sinking their career because they didn't agree with him. He'd be sacking someone for misrepresenting the scientific concensus (i.e. teaching lies) and for failing to do their job properly.
If a Professor of Medicine taught his students, future doctors, that migranes are demons inside the persons brain which need to be released by labotomy, would you defend him so rigourously?
04 May 08
Originally posted by KellyJayNo. Those companies are full of real people making real things in the real world. I can measure and prove the existence of all those things. I can make measurements.
Wow so companies like Ford, GM, 3M, Motorola, Intel, and AMD are all
like magic to you? Since they design things and make them out of the
material they have available to them?
Kelly
What measurements can I make of your intelligent deisgner?
04 May 08
Originally posted by PenguinI disagree we need not talk to the designer, nor do we have to know
We cannot see the factory, we cannot see the original blueprints, we cannot see a designer creating a design and we cannot talk to the designer.
Actually, the factory is the parent organism itself and the blueprints are the dna but we certainly can't see a designer creating a design and neither can we talk to the designer. Even if we could, to [i]fully[/i ...[text shortened]... le to explain life is the blind, unintelligent designer of Natural Selection.
--- Penguin.
who the designer is as well, we just need to be able to see design.
That does not require knowing the designer, only that we know that
design is before us, as I have pointed out is true with cars, we do not
need to see the factory, blue prints, or to talk to anyone to know that
a car was made by design. To suggest natural selection is the designer
is to lay claim to knowledge about the designer is it not, and with that
I'd also say that natural selection is not a designer, unless you want
to tell me that the laws of the universe have natural selection forcing
life to behave a certain way like gravity causes things to behave a
certain way. You may as well say God did it as to suggest that is true
too.
Kelly
04 May 08
Originally posted by AThousandYoungYou must in your opinion find and talk to the designer or in your
The people who run those companies are quite easy to find and talk to unless they're dead or hiding. We know Ford was made by intelligent design because we have detailed records of the entire history of Ford, the people involved, exactly how, what, where, when they did things. We didn't assume an intelligent designer - we watched him as he designed and built the company!
Where's the guy who ID'd the universe?
opinion you cannot see design?
Kelly