|
johnm214
Registered: 05/31/07
Posts: 17,582
Loc: Americas
|
Re: Intellegent Design- a 'science' occupying the negative space of evolutionary theory? [Re: deCypher]
#10531405 - 06/18/09 04:38 PM (14 years, 9 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Zanthius said:
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.
Ok, I was just responding to the comment that people or solar systems could be but an atom on our finger or the corrolary of our solar system being an atom or whatnot.
Since I have no idea what this "different type of consciousness at a larger scale" actually means I have no comment on it except to say that it seems so vague as to be meaningless.
There's all sorts of things that are possible. God could be controlling me, flowers could be made of fire, we could go to an afterlife in a puppy's belly, but untill there's any evidence for them the whole thing seems pointless to suggest.
Quote:
OrgoneConclusion said:
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.
Yeah, its frustrating to see people just make up a ridiculous tennant of evolution and then attack it when that tennant has nothing to do with evolution. Especially when it is CONSTANTLY done and anybody remotely interested in evolution or ID shoudl by now be aware of it.
But there's no reason to think noteworthy fits this mold, so I'm not referring to him and I'd disagree with you if you are. It is frustrating, but he may just not be all that in to the discussion on these issues, and there's no reason he should have a perfect understanding of them. We're all laypeople here, mostly.
The problem is when people take political action or make policy decisions on silly grounds. This seemed to be the case with the Dover trial, certainly. They didn't even know what ID was any yet they voted for it!
Quote:
Furthermore, Board members somewhat candidly conceded that they lacked sufficient background in science to evaluate ID, and several of them testified with equal frankness that they failed to understand the substance of the curriculum change adopted on October 18, 2004. (31:175, 181-82 (Geesey); 32:49-50 (Cleaver); 34:117-18, 124-25 (Harkins)).
In fact, one unfortunate theme in this case is the striking ignorance concerning the concept of ID amongst Board members. Conspicuously, Board members who voted for the curriculum change testified at trial that they had utterly no grasp of ID. To illustrate, consider that Geesey testified she did not understand the substance of the curriculum change, yet she voted for it. (31:181-82 (Geesey); 29:11-12 (Buckingham); Buckingham Dep. 1:59-61, January 3, 2005; 34:48-49 (Harkins); 33:112-13 (Bonsell); 26:21 (Nilsen)). Moreover, as she indicated on multiple occasions, in voting for the curriculum change, Geesy deferred completely to Bonsell and Buckingham. (31:154-55, 161-62, 168, 184-87, 190 (Geesey)). Second, Buckingham, Chair of the Curriculum Committee at the time, admitted that he had no basis to know whether ID amounted to good science as of the time of his first deposition, which was two and a half months after the ID Policy was
Dover pg 121 of the opinion
These are the people who've decided their ignorance is better than the science teachers reasoned decisions? Wow.
By the way, Noteworthy, regarding your claim that people don't seriously doubt that evolution occurs only how its directed or how life was created:
Quote:
Pandas states, in pertinent part, as follows:
Darwinists object to the view of intelligent design because it does not give a natural cause explanation of how the various forms of life started in the first place. Intelligent design means that various forms of life began abruptly, through an intelligent agency, with their distinctive features already intact – fish with fins and scales, birds with feathers, beaks, and wings, etc. P-11 at 99-100 (emphasis added).
Stated another way, ID posits that animals did not evolve naturally through evolutionary means but were created abruptly by a non-natural, or supernatural, designer. Defendants’ own expert witnesses acknowledged this point. (21:96-100 (Behe); P-718 at 696, 700 (“implausible that the designer is a natural entity”); 28:21-22 (Fuller) (“. . . ID’s rejection of naturalism and commitment to supernaturalism . . .”); 38:95-96 (Minnich) (ID does not exclude the possibility of a supernatural designer, including deities).
The textbook that was central to the case and the defense's own witnesses said the evolution was wrong and that life was created abruptly- contrary to evolution. In any case, there's the demonstration that you asked for.
Quote:
deCypher said:
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.
Yeah, plus it seems yet more silliness to suggest that science claims to know anything. Everything we know is predicated upon presumptions that could be wrong- including the conclusions themselves.
Evolution isn't a thought experiment like ID appears to be or like several posters' suggested realities in this thread. Evolution is an explanation for observations that manifests testable consequences that have been found to be correct.
It is fundamentally wrong to suggest that this is all some post hac rationalization when new advances constantly affirm our predictions about evolution. Genetics itself was ahuge test that passed.
We will never know anything certainly and science has nothing to do with this. I find the discussion about metaphysical certainty to be quite silly given that it has nothing particularly to do with evolution. Its a juvenile observation quite plain to everyone and doesn't seem to have anything to do with science particularly, and yet folks routinely assert the opposite without any evidence.
|
Zanthius
Mean Alien
Registered: 02/05/09
Posts: 1,570
|
Re: Intellegent Design- a 'science' occupying the negative space of evolutionary theory? [Re: johnm214]
#10531767 - 06/18/09 05:44 PM (14 years, 9 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
johnm214 said: Since I have no idea what this "different type of consciousness at a larger scale" actually means I have no comment on it except to say that it seems so vague as to be meaningless.
There's all sorts of things that are possible. God could be controlling me, flowers could be made of fire, we could go to an afterlife in a puppy's belly, but untill there's any evidence for them the whole thing seems pointless to suggest.
It wouldn't necessarily seem so pointless to you, if you were more conscious of yourself and your environment. Perhaps more consciousness is what you need in order to see the meaning of it. Not necessarily more evidences.
|
deCypher
Registered: 02/10/08
Posts: 56,232
|
Re: Intellegent Design- a 'science' occupying the negative space of evolutionary theory? [Re: ChiefGreenLeaf]
#10531926 - 06/18/09 06:10 PM (14 years, 9 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
ChiefGreenLeaf said:
Quote:
BlueCoyote said: I think evolution is intelligent
case closed
Please provide some sources. Evolution is blind.
-------------------- We are all in the gutter, but some of us are looking at the stars.
|
Arden
לנשום
Registered: 09/01/08
Posts: 7,666
Loc: Α & Ω
|
Re: Intellegent Design- a 'science' occupying the negative space of evolutionary theory? [Re: deCypher]
#10532016 - 06/18/09 06:21 PM (14 years, 9 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Evolution is blind.
But he still leaves home, walking aimlessly about.
Wonder where he's going? Maybe to the park to play?
|
Silversoul
Rhizome
Registered: 01/01/05
Posts: 23,576
Loc: The Barricades
|
Re: Intellegent Design- a 'science' occupying the negative space of evolutionary theory? [Re: deCypher]
#10532111 - 06/18/09 06:35 PM (14 years, 9 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
deCypher said: Please provide some sources. Evolution is blind.
Please provide evidence for the italicized assertion.
--------------------
|
deCypher
Registered: 02/10/08
Posts: 56,232
|
Re: Intellegent Design- a 'science' occupying the negative space of evolutionary theory? [Re: Silversoul]
#10532194 - 06/18/09 06:50 PM (14 years, 9 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Silversoul said:
Quote:
deCypher said: Please provide some sources. Evolution is blind.
Please provide evidence for the italicized assertion.
The fact that no evidence has been shown to indicate any kind of design or purposeful nature to natural selection?
-------------------- We are all in the gutter, but some of us are looking at the stars.
|
Arden
לנשום
Registered: 09/01/08
Posts: 7,666
Loc: Α & Ω
|
Re: Intellegent Design- a 'science' occupying the negative space of evolutionary theory? [Re: deCypher]
#10532238 - 06/18/09 06:55 PM (14 years, 9 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
The fact that no evidence has been shown to indicate any kind of design or purposeful nature to natural selection?
So therefore the opposite is true?
By this reasoning, because there was no amount of evidence to prove the planets in fact revolved around the sun, then by default it was the sun revolving around the earth?
Just playing a logical Devil's advocate here.
|
DieCommie
Registered: 12/11/03
Posts: 29,258
|
Re: Intellegent Design- a 'science' occupying the negative space of evolutionary theory? [Re: Arden]
#10532401 - 06/18/09 07:29 PM (14 years, 9 months ago) |
|
|
Intelligent or blind simply aren't characteristics that apply to the process of evolution.
|
Silversoul
Rhizome
Registered: 01/01/05
Posts: 23,576
Loc: The Barricades
|
Re: Intellegent Design- a 'science' occupying the negative space of evolutionary theory? [Re: deCypher]
#10532545 - 06/18/09 08:00 PM (14 years, 9 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
deCypher said:
Quote:
Silversoul said:
Quote:
deCypher said: Please provide some sources. Evolution is blind.
Please provide evidence for the italicized assertion.
The fact that no evidence has been shown to indicate any kind of design or purposeful nature to natural selection?
Well, I could bring up the Donald Rumsfeld defense that the absence of evidence is not evidence of absence, but since there isn't an absence of evidence here, I will instead refer you to the work of Dr. Lynn Margulis, former wife of Carl Sagan, on a phenomenon known as symbiogenesis. Here's a good run-down on her endosymbiotic theory, now generally accepted as the most plausible explanation of the origin of eukaryotic cells. In her phenomenal book Dazzle Gradually, coauthored with her son, Dorion Sagan, she explains how similar purposive, symbiotic behavior of these micro-organisms helped generate complex life. Thus, choices made by individual organisms(in other words, purposive behavior) play a major role in evolution.
--------------------
|
DieCommie
Registered: 12/11/03
Posts: 29,258
|
Re: Intellegent Design- a 'science' occupying the negative space of evolutionary theory? [Re: Silversoul]
#10532583 - 06/18/09 08:08 PM (14 years, 9 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Thus, choices made by individual organisms(in other words, purposive behavior) play a major role in evolution.
... which is not at all equal to evolution being intelligent.
|
Lion
Decadent Flower Magnate
Registered: 09/20/05
Posts: 8,775
Last seen: 1 month, 4 days
|
Re: Intellegent Design- a 'science' occupying the negative space of evolutionary theory? [Re: Silversoul]
#10532609 - 06/18/09 08:11 PM (14 years, 9 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Silversoul said:
Quote:
deCypher said:
Quote:
Silversoul said:
Quote:
deCypher said: Please provide some sources. Evolution is blind.
Please provide evidence for the italicized assertion.
The fact that no evidence has been shown to indicate any kind of design or purposeful nature to natural selection?
Well, I could bring up the Donald Rumsfeld defense that the absence of evidence is not evidence of absence, but since there isn't an absence of evidence here, I will instead refer you to the work of Dr. Lynn Margulis, former wife of Carl Sagan, on a phenomenon known as symbiogenesis. Here's a good run-down on her endosymbiotic theory, now generally accepted as the most plausible explanation of the origin of eukaryotic cells. In her phenomenal book Dazzle Gradually, coauthored with her son, Dorion Sagan, she explains how similar purposive, symbiotic behavior of these micro-organisms helped generate complex life. Thus, choices made by individual organisms(in other words, purposive behavior) play a major role in evolution.
Reproduction, migration in search of food, and other survival behaviors have biological purposes and catalyze evolutionary changes, but how is that similar to the evolutionary process having intelligence and purpose per se?
-------------------- “Strengthened by contemplation and study, I will not fear my passions like a coward. My body I will give to pleasures, to diversions that I’ve dreamed of, to the most daring erotic desires, to the lustful impulses of my blood, without any fear at all, for whenever I will— and I will have the will, strengthened as I’ll be with contemplation and study— at the crucial moments I’ll recover my spirit as was before: ascetic.”
|
ChiefGreenLeaf
Registered: 01/11/07
Posts: 1,596
|
Re: Intellegent Design- a 'science' occupying the negative space of evolutionary theory? [Re: deCypher]
#10532612 - 06/18/09 08:12 PM (14 years, 9 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
deCypher said:
Quote:
ChiefGreenLeaf said:
Quote:
BlueCoyote said: I think evolution is intelligent
case closed
Please provide some sources. Evolution is blind.
how is evolution blind please provide evidence.
so what is a computer? you have little circuits interacting with each other either yes/no from this we can build computers that preform computation, process information, analyze, etc. I look at a cell It has little molecules and stuff that do things based on tiny electrical charges of atoms positive and negative yes and no yin and yang 0101010101 so they do their thing but what makes them do it electrons zipping about trying to stabilize the outer orbitals and keep electrical equilibrium more 0101100101 just packaged differently and I'm supposed to believe from these little packets of energy everything was just randomly created. once you get down to it you realize that their is an underlying intelligence in all nature what I'm trying to say is we can design a computer that is intelligent (AI) and at its most basic essence it is operating on strictly yes no relationships well there is quantum computing. i think the most fundamental level of reality (consciousness) operates in a quantum computing type framework and this is how we have free will (kind of) anywayz.... so my question is, why can't all of nature operate on yes no relationships just like our computers? and if it does then some power had to go about establishing the circuits. ya know?
DAOISM FTW!!!!
what I'm saying isn't science by any means, but I don't really think our version of science will ever be able to even consider things like this. especially considering how barbaric we are with our fossil fuels and GMOs and nanotech. It's disgusting.
edit: to the below poster, I'm not saying that this is created randomly. There are set laws that govern nature again the 010100111 stuff. The problem with modern scientific thinking is that everyone has bought into the idea that these laws were randomly created, selected, and implemented, I beg to differ.
Edited by ChiefGreenLeaf (06/18/09 08:25 PM)
|
DieCommie
Registered: 12/11/03
Posts: 29,258
|
Re: Intellegent Design- a 'science' occupying the negative space of evolutionary theory? [Re: ChiefGreenLeaf]
#10532630 - 06/18/09 08:15 PM (14 years, 9 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
and I'm supposed to believe from these little packets of energy everything was just randomly created.
No, your not supposed to believe that at all. Thats not what the theory of evolution by natural selection entails. Review your biology texts...
|
Silversoul
Rhizome
Registered: 01/01/05
Posts: 23,576
Loc: The Barricades
|
Re: Intellegent Design- a 'science' occupying the negative space of evolutionary theory? [Re: DieCommie]
#10532649 - 06/18/09 08:18 PM (14 years, 9 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Qubit said:
Quote:
Thus, choices made by individual organisms(in other words, purposive behavior) play a major role in evolution.
... which is not at all equal to evolution being intelligent.
I was referring to his comment about natural selection having a purposeful nature. Clearly, intention denotes purpose. QED
--------------------
|
DieCommie
Registered: 12/11/03
Posts: 29,258
|
Re: Intellegent Design- a 'science' occupying the negative space of evolutionary theory? [Re: Silversoul]
#10532663 - 06/18/09 08:22 PM (14 years, 9 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Silversoul said: I was referring to his comment about natural selection having a purposeful nature. Clearly, intention denotes purpose. QED
So anthropomorphizing early life with purposeful intention is sufficient for a QED? Ha, I dont think so.
|
Silversoul
Rhizome
Registered: 01/01/05
Posts: 23,576
Loc: The Barricades
|
Re: Intellegent Design- a 'science' occupying the negative space of evolutionary theory? [Re: DieCommie]
#10532806 - 06/18/09 08:44 PM (14 years, 9 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Qubit said:
Quote:
Silversoul said: I was referring to his comment about natural selection having a purposeful nature. Clearly, intention denotes purpose. QED
So anthropomorphizing early life with purposeful intention is sufficient for a QED? Ha, I dont think so.
Behavior that displays intentionality is well-documented among microorganisms. Certain protozoans will eat certain types of food when they are starved, but not under other circumstances, which indicates a decision on whether or not to eat it. Slime molds have managed to navigate mazes to get to the hidden food. There are numerous other instances. One may dismiss this as nothing but unguided chemical determinism, but one cannot easily do so without also implying the same for our own decisions.
--------------------
|
Lion
Decadent Flower Magnate
Registered: 09/20/05
Posts: 8,775
Last seen: 1 month, 4 days
|
Re: Intellegent Design- a 'science' occupying the negative space of evolutionary theory? [Re: Silversoul]
#10532837 - 06/18/09 08:48 PM (14 years, 9 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Silversoul said:
Quote:
Qubit said:
Quote:
Silversoul said: I was referring to his comment about natural selection having a purposeful nature. Clearly, intention denotes purpose. QED
So anthropomorphizing early life with purposeful intention is sufficient for a QED? Ha, I dont think so.
Behavior that displays intentionality is well-documented among microorganisms. Certain protozoans will eat certain types of food when they are starved, but not under other circumstances, which indicates a decision on whether or not to eat it. Slime molds have managed to navigate mazes to get to the hidden food. There are numerous other instances. One may dismiss this as nothing but unguided chemical determinism, but one cannot easily do so without also implying the same for our own decisions.
I for one am not uncomfortable implying that. I have observed in myself no evidence of free will.
-------------------- “Strengthened by contemplation and study, I will not fear my passions like a coward. My body I will give to pleasures, to diversions that I’ve dreamed of, to the most daring erotic desires, to the lustful impulses of my blood, without any fear at all, for whenever I will— and I will have the will, strengthened as I’ll be with contemplation and study— at the crucial moments I’ll recover my spirit as was before: ascetic.”
|
Silversoul
Rhizome
Registered: 01/01/05
Posts: 23,576
Loc: The Barricades
|
Re: Intellegent Design- a 'science' occupying the negative space of evolutionary theory? [Re: Lion]
#10532844 - 06/18/09 08:50 PM (14 years, 9 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Lion said:
Quote:
Silversoul said:
Quote:
Qubit said:
Quote:
Silversoul said: I was referring to his comment about natural selection having a purposeful nature. Clearly, intention denotes purpose. QED
So anthropomorphizing early life with purposeful intention is sufficient for a QED? Ha, I dont think so.
Behavior that displays intentionality is well-documented among microorganisms. Certain protozoans will eat certain types of food when they are starved, but not under other circumstances, which indicates a decision on whether or not to eat it. Slime molds have managed to navigate mazes to get to the hidden food. There are numerous other instances. One may dismiss this as nothing but unguided chemical determinism, but one cannot easily do so without also implying the same for our own decisions.
I for one am not uncomfortable implying that. I have observed in myself no evidence of free will.
Maybe you're not trying hard enough.
--------------------
|
DieCommie
Registered: 12/11/03
Posts: 29,258
|
Re: Intellegent Design- a 'science' occupying the negative space of evolutionary theory? [Re: Silversoul]
#10532882 - 06/18/09 08:55 PM (14 years, 9 months ago) |
|
|
And how do you equate intention of an organism to intention of natural selection?
|
Silversoul
Rhizome
Registered: 01/01/05
Posts: 23,576
Loc: The Barricades
|
Re: Intellegent Design- a 'science' occupying the negative space of evolutionary theory? [Re: DieCommie]
#10532902 - 06/18/09 08:58 PM (14 years, 9 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Qubit said: And how do you equate intention of an organism to intention of natural selection?
If intentional behavior leads to new adaptions then intention plays a role in natural selection.
--------------------
|
|