31 Dec 05
1 edit
Originally posted by aardvarkhomeIn contrast to ignorant falling - which is what happens when things fall in random directions and rates?
Dear Coletti,
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 superio ...[text shortened]... d to exclude the supernatural from calculations on how things move.
Or am I missig the point?
What are the equations for "common descent"?
But engineers do design for failure. The older design method looked at deflections, but did not consider the failure point. The intelligent method considers the failure point of a design, and deflection is a secondary consideration.
TOE is like a deflection design because there is no possible failure point to consider. It's impossible to falsify - so we can not prove it is false. It's like an theist saying prove there is no God. The TOE-ist says prove TOE is false - can't do it? so must be true. That's irrational.
31 Dec 05
1 edit
Originally posted by ColettiHorse.
In contrast to ignorant falling - which is what happens when things fall in random directions and rates?
What are the equations for "common descent"?
But engineers do design for failure. The older design method looked at deflections, but did not consider the failure point. The intelligent method considers the failure point of a design, and deflection The TOE-ist says prove TOE is false - can't do it? so must be true. That's irrational.
Just show it doesn't work and it goes away.
EDIT: Show us how the Okla reactor is consistent with a "young earth" while you're at it.
31 Dec 05
Originally posted by ColettiQuestion: why do things have genetic commonality:
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.
a) all living things evolved from a common ancestor
b) all living things had a common designer
Genetic commonality is no more evidence of a designer than is extreme genetic diversity. (b) could be the answer to almost any natural question. Further, it has no dependence upon what we observe in nature. On the otherhand, evolution would not be consistent with a world full of organisms that were all extremely dissimilar from one another, or in which genetic similarity could not be predicted based upon proximity in the evolutionary tree.
Consider that today we can extract the entire DNA-sequence for an organism. This represents a potential challenge to the ToE. If we find that chimps, gorillas, and humans share no more genes in common with each other than they do with flies, radishes, and octopi, the ToE will almost certainly be dealt a death blow. How could the ToE, which depends upon gradual mutuational change, harmonize itself with such a discovery? Of course, we've found nothing of the sort. So far the amount of similarity between species increases the more related the species are in the evolutionary tree, a fact that we predicted with the ToE, but that could never predict based upon ID.
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 . . . Science should not be speculating about the origins of life, but how life functions.
How the diversity of life arose and persists is what the ToE is about. The origin of life is the study of abiogenesis. As you point out in the quote above, general ID is not an alternative to the ToE, as they are not mutually exclusive. ID may not even be an alternative to abiogenesis, since one can always claim the designer designed life by creating the processes and substances such that life would arises from the interaction of basic chemicals (theistic abiogenesis). That's the thing with ID: it fits with anything that does not explicitly depend upon the non-existence of a designer.
31 Dec 05
1 edit
Originally posted by AThousandYoungHumans have limitations true; however, that does not mean that
If 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.
design cannot be seen that doesn't come from humans. The material
within the universe are the material in the universe, it can be taken
and molded to suit any level of skill sets that have the ability, the
desire, and will to act. God can do it better, yes. That does not enter
into the ID debate though unless you want to make it a religious
discussion instead of science or opinion. ID does not mean God, it
can, but not always. Those times God should be given credit, to
know when to give Him credit means you'd have to be able to know
what God does and why in order to say this is God's doing by sight.
Just as you'd have to know the skill sets of a bird when looking at a
nest to say this nest belongs to that type of bird.
Design is the issue in ID, not God, and the only reason to bring God
into this is to make God the issue; which in my opinion would only
be done for one of two reasons, first to give God credit, second to
change the subject because it may lead to having to give God credit.
Kelly
31 Dec 05
Originally posted by scottishinnzSo an energy source must be a 'speying' type of enegy source to not
Stars 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.
The point is, if life spontaneously came into being from simple gasses and liquids, with no tangible source of power (i.e. lightning di ...[text shortened]... ard to thermodynamics, and that god could therefore exist.
Such a thing has never happened.
go against that law? Hmmm, odd I have not heard that qualifier
before. Is 'speying energy' part of the law? I don't recall that word
being in there.
Kelly
31 Dec 05
Originally posted by scottishinnzSo how do you know that isn't how it works? You told me that it takes
Well 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 ...[text shortened]... lves (both one species - Canis lupis (although dogs get the subspecies designation domestica)).
millions/billions (I forget the number) a long time, for these changes
to occur. Even if the scriptures were true what we see would still be
taking place, the only difference between that view and reality with
evolution would be that in the beginning there were several life forms
that started dividing and the splitting into different groups strait away.
You could see creatures becoming specialized rather quickly in a
relative sort of time span. The universal truth of the matter would still
have changes within life, but the length of time these changes have
been occurring would be smaller, and how far changes can go would
be smaller. By smaller I mean you would not get a worm into a whale,
but there would be foxes and dogs.
Kelly
31 Dec 05
Originally posted by scottishinnzCommon designer, no one has even agreed that we are looking at
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 ...[text shortened]... tion and derivation are correct, and I'm more than happy with evolution.
a design yet! I write code for scripts at work, I like the language Perl,
for most of the stuff I do, sometimes I'll write in a shell for a quick
and dirty script. Different languages, same designer (me), and there
are others where I work that all do the same thing with greater skills
in those languages and others as well. Looking at the code out at
where I work, you may guess who did it by style, but odds are, no
way unless they signed their names in a help portion of the program,
you are not going to know who did it. What you can know is that
code didn't appear out of the thin blue sky and started parsing data
and so on. ID is about design; do not make it something else, or you
change the subject.
Kelly
31 Dec 05
Originally posted by ColettiSo 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.
[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]... y, but an ontological preconception of reality. It's not science, it's philosophy.[/b]
Cool, I like that!
Kelly
31 Dec 05
1 edit
Originally posted by scottishinnzFirst off, the chances of a chihuahua and a great dane breeding are remote, but not impossible.
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 f ghosts.
THIS IS WHY ID WILL ALWAYS BE UNPROVABLE AND WILL ALWAYS BE 'UNSCIENTIFIC'.
When I was growing up and about maybe 7 years old at my
grandmother's house, her neighbors had St. Bernard. Anyway it was
female and it laid down so a little Chihuahua could mate with it. My
cousins and I all rolled on the ground laughing at the sight. Had that
been possible the other way around I imagine the little dog would die
giving birth to the huge offspring, which would in the wild mean that
the pups would die too much more times than not.
Kelly
31 Dec 05
Originally posted by aardvarkhomeYea, your missing the point.
Dear Coletti,
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 superio ...[text shortened]... d to exclude the supernatural from calculations on how things move.
Or am I missig the point?
Kelly
01 Jan 06
Originally posted by KellyJayvery sorry - a typo. I meant, of course, spewing.
So an energy source must be a 'speying' type of enegy source to not
go against that law? Hmmm, odd I have not heard that qualifier
before. Is 'speying energy' part of the law? I don't recall that word
being in there.
Kelly
01 Jan 06
Originally posted by KellyJayNo, he's not missing the point. "Intelligent falling" (i.e. God making things fall down by divine intervention on a daily basis) is an excellent analogy! There is no theoretical way that we could differentiate between intelligent falling and gravity - and yet gravity is a universally accepted 'truth'. Newtonian gravitational theory does not include god for two reasons. One, it doesn't have to include god to explain why things fall the way they do, and two, 'intelligent falling' is completely untestable, but is explainable by a testable, more parsimonious, explanation.
Yea, your missing the point.
Kelly
01 Jan 06
Originally posted by ColettiWhy should it trip me up?
Why 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.
It's 'tripped' thousands of scientists up! If god's out there, and he designed all this, and he's omniscient, he must have known that people would come up with evolution. He chose to 'trip me up'.
Your point that because things look similar that's evidence of a divine creator. It is not. It is only proof that things are similar. You and I have different ideas of why. The only difference between your IDea and sciences' explanation of TOE is that TOE is testable - ID is not. You cannot do an experiment to prove or disprove god. We CAN do experiments to test all the tennents of evolutionary theory.
The important thing here for you is to prove that the way the world is is as a result of god. We both know you cannot do that scientifically, and TOE is the most parsimonious argument. For reference see 'Occams razor'