30 Dec 05
Originally posted by ColettiIf a human designs things, those things will have similarities because the human has limitations. When you expose such a person to a peer, over time he will tend to pick up some of the other person's style because the other person knows how to do certain things better than the first. God supposedly knows how to do everything perfectly, and is not limited to a finite number of ways to do things like humans are.
If you look up the current definition of species, you'll see that different breeds of dogs should be considered different species. Wow,! we do have evidence of speciation!
Anatomic similarities supports ID, genetic similarities (even more) supports ID. I've heard we share about 70% genes with a flea, and 40% with yeast and bananas. Ironically, the ...[text shortened]... ong with the herd. Are you all a bunch of sheep? Hmmmm... Sure looks like it.
30 Dec 05
Originally posted by KellyJayStars don't go against Thermodynamics because they're speying out huge amounts of energy all the time. Their net entropy is increasing even if they are also decreasing the entropy of certain atoms within their core.
So do stars go against the second law of thermodynamics because
they are real? Why would God being going against that law if He
is real, reality is what it is.
Kelly
The point is, if life spontaneously came into being from simple gasses and liquids, with no tangible source of power (i.e. lightning discharges, heating, etc) then that would be against the 2nd law of thermodynamics. It would prove that life can be made without regard to thermodynamics, and that god could therefore exist.
Such a thing has never happened.
30 Dec 05
Originally posted by KellyJayWell foxes are related to dogs. But that's not the way it works. An ancestoral organism, that was neither a dog nor a fox, split at some point into populations that did not interbreed (hence differential genetic mutations could build up in each population). One population went on to become the group of animals that includes foxes, and the other went on to become the group that includes dogs and wolves (both one species - Canis lupis (although dogs get the subspecies designation domestica)).
I agree with that, but your dealing with kinds of animals that may
give us different flavors, but it does not mean that you can go from
worm to eagle, maybe dog to fox.
Kelly
30 Dec 05
Originally posted by ColettiActually, technically, dogs are all one species along with wolves (Canis lupis), although the chances of a say a chihuahua breeding with a great dane are remote. These will probably one day become different species. But don't worry -Stephen Jay Gould covered this in one of his books a dozen years ago.
If you look up the current definition of species, you'll see that different breeds of dogs should be considered different species. Wow,! we do have evidence of speciation!
Anatomic similarities supports ID, genetic similarities (even more) supports ID. I've heard we share about 70% genes with a flea, and 40% with yeast and bananas. Ironically, the ...[text shortened]... ong with the herd. Are you all a bunch of sheep? Hmmmm... Sure looks like it.
"Anatomic similarities supports ID, genetic similarities (even more) supports ID. I've heard we share about 70% genes with a flea, and 40% with yeast and bananas. Ironically, the thing that most supports ID, is genetic commonality between diverse species."
How so? Explain. I've stated it before and I will do again - if god is all powerful and can do anything he wants why make everything so similar - it's amazingly unlikely. If it were me, i'd make things all different. Evolution gives a sensible explanation of why these things are all similar. All ID can do is wave it's hands about a bit and go... 'Well, that's the way god made em'.
"All the facts that support "common decent" also support "common designer". Funny how a slight change in your presuppositions changes your view of the facts."
Now all you need to do is show one piece of unequivocal evidence that there is a designer and we'll all be with you. However, until that time common descent is the most parsimonious argument, in that it only requires that which is real.
"Logically, TOE requires as much faith as ID."
Nope, because TOE does not rely on the totally unproven existance of the supernatural.
And I'm not a sheep. I've over turned a couple of models of how plants work, and I plan to do alot more of that. I'm a reformer, interested in making sure the fundamentals of biological experimentation and derivation are correct, and I'm more than happy with evolution.
30 Dec 05
1 edit
Originally posted by scottishinnzActually, technically, dogs are all one species along with wolves (Canis lupis), although the chances of a say a chihuahua breeding with a great dane are remote. These will probably one day become different species. But don't worry -Stephen Jay Gould covered this in one of his books a dozen years ago.
Actually, technically, dogs are all one species along with wolves (Canis lupis), although the chances of a say a chihuahua breeding with a great dane are remote. These will probably one day become different species. But don't worry -Stephen Jay Gould covered this in one of his books a dozen years ago.
"Anatomic similarities supports ID, genetic sim tion and derivation are correct, and I'm more than happy with evolution.
If you compare the morphological differences between a chihuahua and a great dane, and as you said "chances of a say a chihuahua breeding with a great dane are remote", then by the definition of biological species, these should be a separate species.
I've stated it before and I will do again - if god is all powerful and can do anything he wants why make everything so similar - it's amazingly unlikely.
And this is all you can say??? So your rejection of ID, and acceptance of TOE, hinges on you speculation that if God had a hand in it, things wouldn't be so similar. You call that scientific?
Evolution gives a sensible explanation of why these things are all similar.
So does ID. They are similar because there was one Designer. He worked with the same tools, same materials, similar interconnections. If you build everything from Legos, you'd expect everything to have Lego parts. Of course, either way is speculative, TOE and ID are equally speculative.
Now all you need to do is show one piece of unequivocal evidence that there is a designer and we'll all be with you. However, until that time common descent is the most parsimonious argument, in that it only requires that which is real.
So TOE is an ontology theory. You have presupposed that only those things you can sense are real. TOE then is based on the presupposition of empiricism. Basically, it is not so much a science as it is a philosophy. What is "real"?
Nope, because TOE does not rely on the totally unproven existence of the supernatural.
Yes, TOE is based on the rejection of the supernatural. That's been the motive for the TOE from the beginning. Not some pure objectivity, but an ontological preconception of reality. It's not science, it's philosophy.
30 Dec 05
Originally posted by ColettiFirst off, the chances of a chihuahua and a great dane breeding are remote, but not impossible. One species definition - there are about a dozen, all with merit, but with all the variation in physiology, life cycles, somethings being asexual, some fungi having multiple sexes and eveything, none is universal - states that if the cannot reproduce and have viable offspring they are different species. Great danes and chihuahuas are the same species.
[b]Actually, technically, dogs are all one species along with wolves (Canis lupis), although the chances of a say a chihuahua breeding with a great dane are remote. These will probably one day become different species. But don't worry -Stephen Jay Gould covered this in one of his books a dozen years ago.
If you compare the morphological differences ...[text shortened]... , but an ontological preconception of reality. It's not science, it's philosophy.[/b]
btw. I talk of great variation - and that's true, between Kingdoms (the highest level of biological taxonomy), but within Kingdoms there is relatively little difference.
All the rest of your points I've already covered.
I don't reject Id because species tend to have fundamental underlying similarities. I reject it because there is no proof for it which cannot be explained without the incorporation of the supernatural. If the supernatural could be proven, and if it were necessary, we'd include it.
FOR EXAMPLE; A marble rolls down a hill. Gravity? Or was a ghost pushing it? I'll take gravity every time. It's simpler. We can, and have, shown gravity many times, however there is NO PROOF of the existance of ghosts.
THIS IS WHY ID WILL ALWAYS BE UNPROVABLE AND WILL ALWAYS BE 'UNSCIENTIFIC'.
30 Dec 05
1 edit
Originally posted by ColettiDo you ever wish that you weren't so mentally inept?
It rest on the rejection of the supernatural. That's been the motive for the TOE from the beginning. Not some pure objectivity, but an ontological preconception of reality. It's not science, it's philosophy.
30 Dec 05
Originally posted by scottishinnzBut there is not proof for TOE either. You rejected ID because it includes the supernatural and can not be proven, then you should reject TOE because it presupposes no supernatural, which is equally unprovable. There is nothing "common decent" that can be proven.
First off, the chances of a chihuahua and a great dane breeding are remote, but not impossible. One species definition - there are about a dozen, all with merit, but with all the variation in physiology, life cycles, somethings being asexual, some fungi having multiple sexes and eveything, none is universal - states that if the cannot reproduce and ha ...[text shortened]... f ghosts.
THIS IS WHY ID WILL ALWAYS BE UNPROVABLE AND WILL ALWAYS BE 'UNSCIENTIFIC'.
Take gravity. You can not sense it directly. You feel the effects of gravity. But you don't know what it is, is it a form of energy? It's a force. Well what is a force? Do you see any strings pulling on the marble? Yet with gravity we can at least model it mathematically (although not perfectly).
"Common descent" can not be modeled. It's purely speculative that everything "evolved" from a common genes pool . It's really a statement of faith. No evidence can prove it any more than you can prove God exists.
Consider this. You said if God made things, then there would not be genetic commonality. Well if life evolved spontaneously, why did it not happen at different times and places so that there were a diversity of genes. Why only ONE gene pool? Why should a flea have genes in common with a human? Any answer you give would be speculative and unprovable. So why should I believe it? It's really no better than ID.
30 Dec 05
Originally posted by ColettiThe word that you seem to be stumbling on every time is 'presuppose'. TOE presupposes nothing - it is merely the most parsimonious description of real life.
But there is not proof for TOE either. You rejected ID because it includes the supernatural and can not be proven, then you should reject TOE because it presupposes no supernatural, which is equally unprovable. There is nothing "common decent" that can be proven.
Take gravity. You can not sense it directly. You feel the effects of gravity. But you ...[text shortened]... culative and unprovable. So why should I believe it? It's really no better than ID.
There may be no uneqivocal 'proof' of TOE, but there is a huge amount of evidence that it is correct. No such evidence exists for ID that cannot be explained by TOE, although plenty can be explained by TOE that cannot be explained by ID - unless you've got a really active imagination.
Common descent CAN be modelled mathematically - all you need is a couple of hypothetical populations, a hypothetical 'gene', and using arbitrary (but realistic) rates of population mortality and birth you can model the prevalence of that gene in the population. I'm doing it at the moment for Kelly.
Why only ONE gene pool?
One single word.
Competition.
I can show you competition in the field. Very very easily. Show me god.
31 Dec 05
Furthermore Colletti, since you seem to have such a perfect knowledge of god and his ways, answer me this question.
Why DID god make things so similar? If he's omniscient he'd know, when he created the Universe, that creating things so alike would trip people up. Why did he do it then? Why, if he's so benevolent, would he actively choose to trip people up? Why would he actively choose to send people to hell?
31 Dec 05
Originally posted by Coletti[B]You rejected ID because it includes the supernatural and can not be proven, then you should reject TOE because it presupposes no supernatural, which is equally unprovable. [/B]
But there is not proof for TOE either. You rejected ID because it includes the supernatural and can not be proven, then you should reject TOE because it presupposes no supernatural, which is equally unprovable. There is nothing "common decent" that can be proven.
Take gravity. You can not sense it directly. You feel the effects of gravity. But you ...[text shortened]... culative and unprovable. So why should I believe it? It's really no better than ID.
Not to say I told you so, but if people go back to page 18 they will be reminded that I anticipated this very BS of yours. I pointed out that while I and others have corrected you in the past concerning the TOE's position in regards to the supernatural you have no interest in understanding. This can only be deliberate stubborness on your part.
For Chrissake, Col, the TOE doesn't presuppose that Socrates was a real person even though this is also unprovable.
Let's make this clear for the last time (although I'm sure this is a waste of my time). Not presupposing X is not the same thing as presupposing (not X).
The ID you guys are talking about explicitly relies on the existence of the supernatural. The ToE does not make any suppositions about the nature of the supernatural. It may exist. It may not. In either case, the ToE is not affected. As I pointed out on page 18, gravity and every other scientific theory are similar to the ToE in this regard. They do not presuppose anything about the supernatural. Period.
What you are really demanding is that every scientific theory take an explicit stand on the supernatural. That's just preposterous.
31 Dec 05
Originally posted by scottishinnzWhy should that trip you up? Similarity, especially genetic commonality, shows God's hand in the creation of things. It is evidence of the creator. Just like similar coding in different computer programs points to a particular programmer. If there was no programmer, you'd expect that no common blocks of code between different programs.
Furthermore Colletti, since you seem to have such a perfect knowledge of god and his ways, answer me this question.
Why DID god make things so similar? If he's omniscient he'd know, when he created the Universe, that creating things so alike would trip people up. Why did he do it then? Why, if he's so benevolent, would he actively choose to trip people up? Why would he actively choose to send people to hell?
31 Dec 05
Originally posted by telerionI agree, to not believe X is not the same as to believe not-X. But to assert TOE depends on believing not-X. If one is open to the possibility of a creator, then ID is a reasonable answer.
...
Let's make this clear for the last time (although I'm sure this is a waste of my time). Not presupposing X is not the same thing as presupposing (not X).
The ID you guys are talking about explicitly relies on the existence of the supernatural. The ToE does not make any suppositions about the nature of the supernatural. It may exist. It may not ...[text shortened]... very scientific theory take an explicit stand on the supernatural. That's just preposterous.
Question: why do things have genetic commonality:
a) all living things evolved from a common ancestor
b) all living things had a common designer
TOE is an attempt to answer how life came to be as we see it today. It is a philosophical question, an ontological question even. But TOE is only one possible answer. It can not be tested, it can not be falsified. Either one assumes not-X (no ID) and everything must have evolved, or one assumes possibly X, and things may have evolved or were created by an intelligent designer.
Natural Science should be the study of what we can observe, measure, predict, using the scientific process of hypothesis and falsification. Science should not be speculating about the origins of life, but how life functions.
31 Dec 05
Originally posted by ColettiDear Coletti,
I agree, to not believe X is not the same as to believe not-X. But to assert TOE depends on believing not-X. If one is open to the possibility of a creator, then ID is a reasonable answer.
Question: why do things have genetic commonality:
a) all living things evolved from a common ancestor
b) all living things had a common designer
TO ...[text shortened]... ification. Science should not be speculating about the origins of life, but how life functions.
When an engineer such as yourself designs a bridge do they make their calculation based on intelligent falling?
Intelligent falling is a perfectly reasonable explaination of why things fall towards the earth as objects are clearly guided by a supernatural being in the directionality and rate of their fall.
Clearly it is a superior theory than that of gravity as Newton (devout christian as he was) wanted to exclude the supernatural from calculations on how things move.
Or am I missig the point?