|
 Lakefingers
Registered: 08/26/05
Posts: 5,660
Loc: mumuland
Last seen: 4 months, 27 days
|
 Re: Intellegent Design- a 'science' occupying the negative space of evolutionary theory? [Re: OrgoneConclusion]
#10525151 - 06/17/09 04:28 PM (2 years, 11 months ago) |
|
|
That makes sense, so that must be the answer. Solved! Next.
|
 johnm214
 
Registered: 05/31/07
Posts: 14,292
Loc: Americas
|
Re: Intellegent Design- a 'science' occupying the negative space of evolutionary theory? [Re: ChiefGreenLeaf]
#10527109 - 06/17/09 08:49 PM (2 years, 11 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
ChiefGreenLeaf said:
I need proof that what you asserted is actually science. Could you share your methodology for experiments? How did you come to a conclusion? I have not seen any peer-reviwed studies confirming this. I need evidence. You can't just go around making claims without proof.
seriously though, you are in for a big surprise. it's not your fault though, mainstream corporate 'science' has hi-jacked your mind
WTF are you actually asking for? A study on the ID claims I've heard? The consequences that are observable among those claims? The whole point of the post was that I've not heard any ID claims that have testable consequences, and I think its pretty clear that no study exists chronicling the material I've been exposed to. If you feel I've missed something in my statements then feel free to throw it out there, but your request for a study showing that I've not seen certain things is pretty bizzarre.
Was this post actually in good faith? I have no idea what you want a study regarding, please clarify. Additionally, are the rules such that comments about another's mind and your evaluation of the consequences thereof are allowed?
Quote:
ChiefGreenLeaf said:
Quote:
Zanthius said:
Quote:
zouden said:
ID proponents argue that life was created as-is, but this disagrees with all the evidence in favour of evolution. Of which is there is a lot.
I certainly believe in evolution, but I am also open to the possibility of inherent consciousness/intelligence in nature.
If you were the size of an atom and living inside of your body, you would never be able to perceive your own body as a conscious being.
Compared to the size of the universe, we are almost like atoms compared to your body, and because of the huge difference in size it is extremely difficult for us to perceive the universe as a conscious being.
wow man you are spot on
No, he's making the mistake of presuming that size is entirely relative and that our solar system could be an atom in a being's figer, or vice versa.
This is obviously wrong- physcial processes dependant upon size do not change linearly as the scale changes. Size actually does have a real meaning- it is not an arbitrary and purely relative thing.
Inherent conciousness in nature seems to have nothing to do with this discussion, but it is similar to the extent that like ID it appears to be more thought experiments with no basis in the real world.
If you can't demonstrate it exists there is no reason for anyone to conclude it does- and if there are no observable consequences of your mystical theory than it is probably wholly meaningless anyways.
|
ChiefGreenLeaf
Cherriest of All Humans
Registered: 01/11/07
Posts: 1,409
Loc: Pineal Gland
Last seen: 7 months, 10 days
|
Re: Intellegent Design- a 'science' occupying the negative space of evolutionary theory? [Re: johnm214]
#10527546 - 06/17/09 10:11 PM (2 years, 11 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
johnm214 said:
No, he's making the mistake of presuming that size is entirely relative and that our solar system could be an atom in a being's figer, or vice versa.
This is obviously wrong- physcial processes dependant upon size do not change linearly as the scale changes. Size actually does have a real meaning- it is not an arbitrary and purely relative thing.
Do you have proof of this?
dude, I'm just fuckin with ya. that is how most people respond to my ideas about ID, so I thought that I would give you a taste of your own medicine. seems pretty ridonkulous, no?
and now i know your gonna come back with I'm right and you are stupid because I don't have "evidence". it's cool though I don't need to debate this, it's not like that's gonna do anything. just keep fighting it until your last breath. if luck has it you will "see" before then. may we all realize our true selves. namaste
--------------------
ABSENCE OF EVIDNCE IS NOT EVIDENCE OF ABSENCE
A man said to the universe:
"Sir, I exist!"
"However," replied the universe,
"the fact has not created in me
a sense of obligation."
|
Noteworthy
Sophyphile
Registered: 10/05/08
Posts: 5,539
Last seen: 1 month, 7 days
|
Re: Intellegent Design- a 'science' occupying the negative space of evolutionary theory? [Re: ChiefGreenLeaf]
#10527738 - 06/17/09 10:49 PM (2 years, 11 months ago) |
|
|
I have seen no evidence that can confirm any written hypothesis that evolution allowed life to arise from non-living matter. I can just keep repeating this and maybe one day someone might get it. Evolution is a great theory. I support it all the way. But no part of evolutionary theory - no scientist on this earth - has an idea of how this theoretical process occured. Evolution is one function of this universe. It is a basic tennant along with the other laws of nature. This we know, and we know will affect us right now. Evolution is a significant theory.
Evolution is different to the theory that all complexity came from evolution. The latter, which I often refer to as evolutionary theory, is not supported and is merely 'the only idea that we can tie with physical artifacts'.
I love the way that people can keep avoiding the issue by reminding us that evolutionary theory correlates with fossil evidence. Who cares? That just means we need to include it in our idea of the universe. That does NOT mean that we can then hypothesise that it in fact is all there is in the universe.
It is just wrong to ever try to describe the creator, if you are open to the idea of intelligent design. And I think this is where a lot of people become insecure. Because everyone wants to know the full story, they cant handle being open to intelligent design because they cant handle keeping that aspect of their reality unknown. But if you just stop and dont claim to have any idea what the designer is like, then intelligent design becomes a matter of 'unknown factor'. In positing the origin of the universe, we have some mechanisms, eg evolution, that we know were involved. However since that is not the whole story, we have another bunch of factors, which we can gather together as 'unknown factor'.
This 'unknown factor' cannot be denied. We dont know how life came to be. But it is here. Some factor was involved, and we dont know it.
We know that a certain amount of variation in life is accounted for by evolution. The rest of the variation is unnacounted for.
And thus you have two options: to suggest that evolution indeed was responsible for the diversity and complexity of all life.
or suggest that some other influence was also involved.
This other influence could be anything.
It is just as probable than evolution, because neither theories have been shown any validity.
However evolution is already known as a process and thus we can be confident about it, whereas any specific 'designer' that people propose is just.. well.. imaginary.
This can blind us to the fact that even though evolution is evidenced, it is not evidenced in the matters that we are most concerned about - eg species proliferation.
Thus evolution is not really evidenced.
Because science cannot make an experiment to test evolution.
It can only maintain that evolution is not a contradiction.
--------------------
 
|
DieCommie
El Guapo
Registered: 12/11/03
Posts: 22,787
Loc: Street of Dreams
|
Re: Intellegent Design- a 'science' occupying the negative space of evolutionary theory? [Re: Noteworthy]
#10527800 - 06/17/09 11:00 PM (2 years, 11 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Because science cannot make an experiment to test evolution.
It can only maintain that evolution is not a contradiction.
All scientific theories are tested by looking for contradictions.
|
Noteworthy
Sophyphile
Registered: 10/05/08
Posts: 5,539
Last seen: 1 month, 7 days
|
Re: Intellegent Design- a 'science' occupying the negative space of evolutionary theory? [Re: DieCommie]
#10527811 - 06/17/09 11:03 PM (2 years, 11 months ago) |
|
|
Yes and so far this science has allowed us to find contradiction in creationism, therefor creationism can be discarded.
--------------------
|
johnm214
Registered: 05/31/07
Posts: 14,292
Loc: Americas
|
Re: Intellegent Design- a 'science' occupying the negative space of evolutionary theory? [Re: Noteworthy]
#10527901 - 06/17/09 11:24 PM (2 years, 11 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
I have seen no evidence that can confirm any written hypothesis that evolution allowed life to arise from non-living matter.
Dude, we've been around this bend before. Evolution has nothing to do with things coming from nonliving matter. This issue is one of the straw men people beat up on when they don't like evolution but it has nothing to do with it.
Anyways, while things could come frmo chance it seems, there is no way I know of to determine how life arose. The best we can do is try to determine conditions and the plausibility of certain events occuring, but it would be difficult to find any evidence of what happened it seems to me.
Chiefgreenleaf- I'm referring to the fact that numerous properties depend on the scale of the item and they don't change linearly with respect to themselves as the scale increases. For example, the volume of a sphere increases faster than the surface area with respect to the radius. Because of this, a very large cell would be unable to sustain anything remotely similar to any life we know of for the same reason you don't have animals or bacteria with cells even an inch big.
When the volume of a cell is quite large relative to its surface area it becomes difficult to sustain life within that cell. Diffusion becomes quite difficult to use, and you become unable to sustain life. Its one of hte reasons the things with large cells generally have slower metabolisms, otherwise they couldn't get enough stuff into them to sustain life.
And in any case, I just enjoy discussing things I'm interested in. If you don't think you'll change your mind then that's fine, but I enjoy discussing them just the same.
|
Noteworthy
Sophyphile
Registered: 10/05/08
Posts: 5,539
Last seen: 1 month, 7 days
|
Re: Intellegent Design- a 'science' occupying the negative space of evolutionary theory? [Re: johnm214]
#10528024 - 06/17/09 11:49 PM (2 years, 11 months ago) |
|
|
A straw man eh? I dunno Im sure you think the same of me but I think youre on the wrong boat mate. Evolution doesnt have anything to do with life originating from non-life eh?
Look ive not been living under a rock, I know very well that people all over the world are argueing over whether evolution allowed life to arise in an otherwise non-living universe.
The question of whether evolution occurs or not is no longer a matter of much debate. Science has proven evolution does occur. The morphology of the significant numbers of any given species will change over time given any environmental stress.
I think you are wasting your time with creationists if you still think the argument is whether evolution exists or not!
--------------------
|
johnm214
Registered: 05/31/07
Posts: 14,292
Loc: Americas
|
Re: Intellegent Design- a 'science' occupying the negative space of evolutionary theory? [Re: Noteworthy]
#10528202 - 06/18/09 12:33 AM (2 years, 11 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Noteworthy said:
Look ive not been living under a rock, I know very well that people all over the world are argueing over whether evolution allowed life to arise in an otherwise non-living universe. .....
Well then they have no idea what the theory of evolution is and should probably figure that out before they presume to take issue with it.
Your argument seems to be akin to the "teach the controversy" argument of the dover schools ID case. Just cuz lay people bitch about ID and evolution doesn't mean there is a legitimate scientific controversy over it that begs teaching. As relevant to this thread: just cuz you claim people debate whether things 'evolved' from non living matter doesn't change evolutionary theory to encompase it.
Evolution has to do with the way life changes over time due to natural selection and other events, it has nothing to do with life coming from nonliving matter- at all.
While the word "evolution" may be used to describe many things (evolution of clouds, evolution of philosophy, et cet) the theory of evolution itself says nothing about them and it says nothing about abiogenesis. It would be helpful if critics could understand what they are arguing against before presuming to do so.
(BTW, I wasn't saying you were deliberatly constructing a straw man, I was just saying it was a straw man argument often used by people either ignorant or intentionally seeking to argue against evolutionary theory on spurious grounds)
Quote:
I think you are wasting your time with creationists if you still think the argument is whether evolution exists or not!
Why would you presume i am not a creationist? And what evidence do you have to suggest they generally believe in evolution? Unless your using the word in general (in which case you shoudl surely specify such given the topic of this thread regards the theory of evolution rather than the generic word) they absolutely do take issue with it. There's a great many people that accept small changes (I guess to explain why their kids have obviously novel traits at times) but deny evolutionary theory is plausible as the age of the earth is too young, their is no evidence to support it, the bible says animals where created outright, and there's no ape-men. Do you really doubt this fact? It is easy to find creationists discussing their views that higher order animals where created and so I've not cited any. Is it neccesary?
|
zouden
Neuroscientist
Registered: 11/12/07
Posts: 7,091
Loc: Australia
Last seen: 2 years, 7 months
|
Re: Intellegent Design- a 'science' occupying the negative space of evolutionary theory? [Re: Noteworthy]
#10528295 - 06/18/09 12:55 AM (2 years, 11 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Noteworthy said:
Look ive not been living under a rock, I know very well that people all over the world are argueing over whether evolution allowed life to arise in an otherwise non-living universe.
Well, there are scientific theories about how life could have originated (abiogenesis), but it's a separate matter to how life evolved. Two different questions.
Quote:
Science has proven evolution does occur. The morphology of the significant numbers of any given species will change over time given any environmental stress.
Agreed.
Quote:
I think you are wasting your time with creationists if you still think the argument is whether evolution exists or not!
Only 13% of Americans believe in evolution, while 45% of Americans believe that God created humans in their present form less than 10,000 years ago.
Here in Australia it's a very different story.
--------------------
I know... that just the smallest
part of the world belongs to me
You know... I'm not a blind man
but truth is the hardest thing to see
|
Noteworthy
Sophyphile
Registered: 10/05/08
Posts: 5,539
Last seen: 1 month, 7 days
|
Re: Intellegent Design- a 'science' occupying the negative space of evolutionary theory? [Re: johnm214]
#10528345 - 06/18/09 01:16 AM (2 years, 11 months ago) |
|
|
In the context of the creationist furor,
many ID proponents want ID to be tought in schools along side evolution as an explination for the diversity of life.
This would not be an issue if it was not being tought by science curriculums.
I think that schools should not be allowed to tell students things like where diversity of life came from because humans dont know that.
Since we mostly disagree on what people agree on, it is hard to make any claims, but I am under the impression that many schools teach evolution as if it has been proven to allow diverse species to arise from eachother.
I am under the impression that schools teach children that the giraffe has a long neck because those pregiraffes with longest necks had the best survival chances, and eventually the girraffes without long necks were so disadvantaged that they became extinct, leaving the long necked pregiraffes to make up the living gene pool.
However this is pure speculation that has not been proven scientifically.
The mechanism of evolution should be tought to all people on earth
but the implications of it are another matter.
And should not be tought at schools, just like how we believe creationism should not be tought at schools.
--------------------
|
zouden
Neuroscientist
Registered: 11/12/07
Posts: 7,091
Loc: Australia
Last seen: 2 years, 7 months
|
Re: Intellegent Design- a 'science' occupying the negative space of evolutionary theory? [Re: Noteworthy]
#10528381 - 06/18/09 01:37 AM (2 years, 11 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
However this is pure speculation that has not been proven scientifically.
It's not pure speculation. It's educated speculation. Like all science.
Do you think schools shouldn't teach Newton's theory of gravity either?
--------------------
I know... that just the smallest
part of the world belongs to me
You know... I'm not a blind man
but truth is the hardest thing to see
|
Zanthius
Ideologist
Registered: 02/05/09
Posts: 1,159
|
Re: Intellegent Design- a 'science' occupying the negative space of evolutionary theory? [Re: Noteworthy]
#10528542 - 06/18/09 03:05 AM (2 years, 11 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Noteworthy said:
I think that schools should not be allowed to tell students things like where diversity of life came from because humans dont know that.
Of course we know that the diversity comes at least partially from evolution. There might be hidden variables involved in how the biological diversity was formed, but we know that a lot of diversity comes from what we currently identify as evolution.
Quote:
Noteworthy said:
I am under the impression that schools teach children that the giraffe has a long neck because those pregiraffes with longest necks had the best survival chances, and eventually the girraffes without long necks were so disadvantaged that they became extinct, leaving the long necked pregiraffes to make up the living gene pool.
However this is pure speculation that has not been proven scientifically.
Sounds like science to me, and biological sciences are a lot more scientific than social sciences. There might be hidden variables involved in how the Giraffe attained its long neck, but the best explanation biologists can give today, is that the giraffes with long necks had a higher survival rate.
Edited by Zanthius (06/18/09 03:12 AM)
|
Noteworthy
Sophyphile
Registered: 10/05/08
Posts: 5,539
Last seen: 1 month, 7 days
|
Re: Intellegent Design- a 'science' occupying the negative space of evolutionary theory? [Re: Noteworthy]
#10528592 - 06/18/09 03:42 AM (2 years, 11 months ago) |
|
|
Why do we need to talk about our best explination as if it is an answer to anything? Why cant we accept that we dont know?
--------------------
|
zouden
Neuroscientist
Registered: 11/12/07
Posts: 7,091
Loc: Australia
Last seen: 2 years, 7 months
|
Re: Intellegent Design- a 'science' occupying the negative space of evolutionary theory? [Re: Noteworthy]
#10528660 - 06/18/09 04:26 AM (2 years, 11 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Why cant we accept that we dont know?
When have humans ever accepted that?
--------------------
I know... that just the smallest
part of the world belongs to me
You know... I'm not a blind man
but truth is the hardest thing to see
|
Noteworthy
Sophyphile
Registered: 10/05/08
Posts: 5,539
Last seen: 1 month, 7 days
|
Re: Intellegent Design- a 'science' occupying the negative space of evolutionary theory? [Re: zouden]
#10528725 - 06/18/09 05:13 AM (2 years, 11 months ago) |
|
|
This isnt about what it is likely for humans to do/think, but what is rational. I mean, when have humans ever thought freely? Some do but most dont. And most dont care if theyre thinking right or wrong, they just care whether they are approved by their peers.
--------------------
|
OrgoneConclusion
Pharoah & Balanced
Registered: 04/01/07
Posts: 29,361
Loc: Luxor
|
Re: Intellegent Design- a 'science' occupying the negative space of evolutionary theory? [Re: zouden]
#10528745 - 06/18/09 05:21 AM (2 years, 11 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Well, there are scientific theories about how life could have originated (abiogenesis), but it's a separate matter to how life evolved. Two different questions.
And yet, the exact same IDers/Creationsists must bring this exact same flawed issue up multiple times in every single thread on Evolution no matter that it was covered in detail in the previous thread. It is almost as if they want to publicly demonstrate their inability to learn and are proud of it.
--------------------
This is your drain on brugs.
|
Zanthius
Ideologist
Registered: 02/05/09
Posts: 1,159
|
Re: Intellegent Design- a 'science' occupying the negative space of evolutionary theory? [Re: johnm214]
#10529117 - 06/18/09 07:54 AM (2 years, 11 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
johnm214 said:
No, he's making the mistake of presuming that size is entirely relative and that our solar system could be an atom in a being's figer, or vice versa.
This is obviously wrong- physcial processes dependant upon size do not change linearly as the scale changes. Size actually does have a real meaning- it is not an arbitrary and purely relative thing.
So what? That physical processes depend upon size and don't necessarily change linearly as scale changes, doesn't necessarily forbid consciousness to exist at larger scales. There might be a completely different type of consciousness at a larger scale. Perhaps a much higher form of consciousness than what you are possessing.
|
deCypher
Registered: 02/10/08
Posts: 52,515
|
Re: Intellegent Design- a 'science' occupying the negative space of evolutionary theory? [Re: Noteworthy]
#10529394 - 06/18/09 09:09 AM (2 years, 11 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Noteworthy said:
Why do we need to talk about our best explination as if it is an answer to anything? Why cant we accept that we dont know?
Because a best guess is better than no guess.
--------------------
We are all in the gutter, but some of us are looking at the stars.
  
|
ChiefGreenLeaf
Cherriest of All Humans
Registered: 01/11/07
Posts: 1,409
Loc: Pineal Gland
Last seen: 7 months, 10 days
|
Re: Intellegent Design- a 'science' occupying the negative space of evolutionary theory? [Re: OrgoneConclusion]
#10530642 - 06/18/09 01:21 PM (2 years, 11 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
OrgoneConclusion said:
Like aliens genetically altering primates to form humans...
--------------------
ABSENCE OF EVIDNCE IS NOT EVIDENCE OF ABSENCE
A man said to the universe:
"Sir, I exist!"
"However," replied the universe,
"the fact has not created in me
a sense of obligation."
|
|
Previous
Index
Next
Threaded
Shop for: 
Edit 
Reply 
