It is currently Wed Jul 23, 2014 5:30 am

All times are UTC - 8 hours




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 119 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4
Author Message
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sat Jun 19, 2010 3:48 pm 
Offline
Friend of SPCR

Joined: Fri Mar 28, 2008 1:15 pm
Posts: 336
Location: Portland, Oregon
xan_user wrote:
ID supporters wont relent until they actually see radiation make a positive mutation inside a dna strand in real time, and then only if they can see it with there own naked eyes.


Not necessarily. As m0002 pointed out already (and I had surmised earlier) - they will just use that as evidence for "how do you know that that piece of DNA wasn't supposed to come out on purpose on our designers grander plan?"

What ID proponents don't get about scientific theory is this... You have CreatureA and CreatureC both existing in the fossil record about 4 billion years apart. These two are very similar but have a few significant differences. These are your scientific facts in the Theory.

Based on these facts (the existence of the two creatures) scientists surmise (via the Theory of Evolution) that there should be a CreatureB that exhibits features evolutionary between A and C, and that creature should exist in the fossil record at roughly 2 billion years after A and 2 billion years before C.

In several cases these creatures have been found AFTER scientists had predicted that they should exist (based on Evolution) and accurately placed in time in the record. This is what has made Evolution a Scientific Theory that is both testable (by finding these B creatures) and repeatable (by finding more than 1 of these B creatures).


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sat Jun 19, 2010 6:10 pm 
Offline

Joined: Wed Feb 04, 2004 2:12 am
Posts: 2831
Location: USA
psyopper wrote:
Not necessarily. As m0002 pointed out already (and I had surmised earlier) - they will just use that as evidence for "how do you know that that piece of DNA wasn't supposed to come out on purpose on our designers grander plan?"

What ID proponents don't get about scientific theory is this... You have CreatureA and CreatureC both existing in the fossil record about 4 billion years apart. These two are very similar but have a few significant differences. These are your scientific facts in the Theory.

Based on these facts (the existence of the two creatures) scientists surmise (via the Theory of Evolution) that there should be a CreatureB that exhibits features evolutionary between A and C, and that creature should exist in the fossil record at roughly 2 billion years after A and 2 billion years before C.

In several cases these creatures have been found AFTER scientists had predicted that they should exist (based on Evolution) and accurately placed in time in the record. This is what has made Evolution a Scientific Theory that is both testable (by finding these B creatures) and repeatable (by finding more than 1 of these B creatures).

I may regret getting back into this, but here goes.

I think there is a misunderstanding here. I personally (and ID in general) does not disagree with evolution. I don't know why people keep making this claim. Evolution has clearly happened, and humans have evolved from lower life forms.

The problem is when people say that evolution is caused by random mutations. That is the part that is unproven and is only a theory at this point. I don't see how someone can predict a change in a species as you have described above if evolutionary is caused by random mutations.

It seems to me that there is some evolutionary force that has not been discovered. Maybe science will discover it at some time, just like DNA, Gnomes, etc have been discovered by science. I personally don't regard DNA or Gnomes as random designs, and it appears to me that there is possibly some intelligence that created them. But this last part is theory also, and in no way limits one ability to study these things via science just because someone believes there is (or was) a intelligent creator.

One other point. If an intelligent creator (not a person) exists (or existed) to create the fundamental force behind evolution, as well as the big bang and universe in general, that does not mean that the intelligence controls everything that happens. In other words, forces of nature are created (gravity, space, time, life DNA, Gnomes, etc) but are allowed to function in the context of the laws of nature, where science is able to discover them and sometimes understand how they work. In no way does ID demand that intelligence replace the laws of nature that observe, but only theorizes that some intelligence created them.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sun Jun 20, 2010 12:57 pm 
Offline
Patron of SPCR

Joined: Wed Dec 15, 2004 12:00 pm
Posts: 3301
Location: Essex, England
For m0002a

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indirect_DNA_damage

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_radicals

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carcinogen

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DNA_repair

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DNA_damage_theory_of_aging

And finally (not that you will read any of this stuff simply because you are not capable of "allowing" yourself to change what you believe to be true/false like a scientist or any sensible or logical person would do) here are journals (peer reviewed if you read the link that was posted for your benefit) with a huge quantity of information (with evidence) included for you to look through. Or you might just not bother and carry on believing in God (with no evidence at all).

http://www.elsevier.com/wps/find/journa ... escription


Andy

_________________
Main PC, P180, CM Silent Pro 500M, i5 3570k @ 4.2Ghz, 8-GB @ 2,000MHz, 256 GB Samsung 830, 500-GB 7K500, MSI 660Ti Twin Frozr, PC is super quiet :o
Server, 6-TB RAID-5 array, + 2 x 2-TB backup drives, 380W Enermax Pro82+, 4x very quiet fans, positive pressure only, no exhaust fans
Living Room PC, 3500+, 2-GB RAM, HD501LJ


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sun Jun 20, 2010 1:30 pm 
Offline

Joined: Wed Feb 04, 2004 2:12 am
Posts: 2831
Location: USA
andyb wrote:
For m0002a

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indirect_DNA_damage

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_radicals

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carcinogen

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DNA_repair

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DNA_damage_theory_of_aging

And finally (not that you will read any of this stuff simply because you are not capable of "allowing" yourself to change what you believe to be true/false like a scientist or any sensible or logical person would do) here are journals (peer reviewed if you read the link that was posted for your benefit) with a huge quantity of information (with evidence) included for you to look through. Or you might just not bother and carry on believing in God.

http://www.elsevier.com/wps/find/journa ... escription

Andy

Nothing I have said is in conflict with science. Neither is ID in conflict with science. Whether or not there is an intelligent design in the laws of nature or whether the laws of nature came into existance randomly (or maybe you believe in stupid design instead of randomness or ID), has no bearing on science.

There is not one shred of scientific evidence that you have provided (aside from a bunch of theories) to support the claim that evolution is solely the result of random mutations. Quoting an article that claims it is true is not evidence (not that I have anything against theories without evidence, so long as one understands they are just theories). I have also not provided any evidence to support ID, so both our beliefs are theory at this point. If I get some real evidence about evolution being random, I will gladly change my views, especially since it would not force me to change my belief about the nature of the universe and being.

Although science can study and explain how laws of nature appear to work, science cannot explain what caused the physical universe and the laws of nature to come into existence. Anyone who believes that science has an answer to this question belongs to some kind of religious cult (even if the religious cult calls itself science). So if I believe that nature has an intelligent design, that fact has no bearing on science or my scientific understanding of nature, since it is outside the realm of science.

The good news is that we can all agree that evolution has occurred, regardless of whether it is caused by random mutations, or some kind of intelligence such as a genetic evolutionary map, or parts of DNA that we don't about, or some other intelligent design in nature.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sun Jun 20, 2010 3:07 pm 
Offline
Patron of SPCR

Joined: Wed Dec 15, 2004 12:00 pm
Posts: 3301
Location: Essex, England
Quote:
There is not one shred of scientific evidence that you have provided (aside from a bunch of theories) to support the claim that evolution is solely the result of random mutations


Quote:
If I get some real evidence about evolution being random, I will gladly change my views, especially since it would not force me to change my belief about the nature of the universe and being.


I simply cant be bothered to repeat myself.

Quote:
Although science can study and explain how laws of nature appear to work, science cannot explain what caused the physical universe and the laws of nature to come into existence.


It can, but has little evidence, due to the speed that the evidence is travelling at.

Quote:
Anyone who believes that science has an answer to this question belongs to some kind of religious cult (even if the religious cult calls itself science).


Yes, I am a Christain, God created the universe, that is the answer, lets not bother looking any further.................

Quote:
So if I believe that nature has an intelligent design, that fact has no bearing on science or my scientific understanding of nature, since it is outside the realm of science.


Who created the designer (most people use the word creator) would be my second point, come back to think about this (if you can).

Lets re-look at that and demonstrate my point by emboldening various words as my first point (because if you have already finsished thinking about the second question you really have not actually rubbed any brian cells together, go and try again. This really is the second question, but as I am thoughtful to people in your condition I gave a nice gesture, some advanced notice (before the first question)).

Quote:
I believe that nature has an intelligent design, that fact has no bearing on science or my scientific understanding of nature, since it is outside the realm of science.


You might have also noticed that I have italicised and underlined some parts because they obvioisly come staright from the heart.

So far Science has kept us amazed for centuries, the future of science is to continue the work, there is simply nothing that is ouside the realms of science. However science often takes decades (centuries or millennia) to catch up with "ideas" or questions. Almost all of the questions that were asked 200 years ago, and almost everything that was thought to be impossible at that time is either now understood or possible.

GOD has had the square root of fuck all to do with anything useful in the last thousand years, what makes you think that GOD is right now when everything else that has ever had that name pinned to it has been proven wrong, proven, tested, re-tested, argued against, re-tested again, and finally accepted, GOD must die, you are only dragging out his eventual death with this long winded fiasco. Just because something is mysterious now does not mean that it will always be so, get to grip with reality and put down the dambed bible.


Andy

_________________
Main PC, P180, CM Silent Pro 500M, i5 3570k @ 4.2Ghz, 8-GB @ 2,000MHz, 256 GB Samsung 830, 500-GB 7K500, MSI 660Ti Twin Frozr, PC is super quiet :o
Server, 6-TB RAID-5 array, + 2 x 2-TB backup drives, 380W Enermax Pro82+, 4x very quiet fans, positive pressure only, no exhaust fans
Living Room PC, 3500+, 2-GB RAM, HD501LJ


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sun Jun 20, 2010 7:52 pm 
Offline

Joined: Wed Feb 04, 2004 2:12 am
Posts: 2831
Location: USA
If there is intelligent design in the universe (or at least if there was when the universe came into existence), such intelligent design obviously would have existed before life forms evolved into humans. Personally, I don't know much about religion, the bible, or your kiddie concept of God, so lets leave those things out of this discussion since they are clearly irrelevant. Your continued mention of these things is nothing but circus side-show to draw attention away from the real issues and your failure to produce the evidence you claim to have.

Your claim that science can explain the sum total of all knowledge ("there is simply nothing that is outside the realms of science") is not accepted by most intellectuals, and not even by most scientists. Can science explain the concepts of Justice, Beauty, Love? Are these just chemical reactions in our brains, or do these concepts exist outside of our minds even before life evolved into humans evolved on this planet.

What about mathematics? Is there not an intelligent design exhibited in mathematics that exists apart from the physical world, and that existed before humans evolved on this planet. Before the big bang (when the physical universe came into existence) did the concept of 2+2 equal 4 still apply before then? I think it did, even if there were no physical objects to count. That sounds like some kind intelligent design to me.

Certainly science can answer many questions about the physical world, including the fact that humans evolved from lower life forms. But science cannot actually explain the first cause that made it happen it that way, other than to say there is no first cause, or that the first cause is beyond the realm of science (obviously you think there is no first cause).

This obsession with random mutations being the fundamental first cause of evolution is particularly strange IMO because it is not needed to explain that evolution happened and it seems to be the antithesis of science, which draws conclusions based on repeatable experiments conducted and the resulting outcomes. Imagine what would happen if every scientific experiment yielded different results because the outcomes were random or were caused by random events. It would render every scientific experiment to be invalid. If mathematics were random (if there is no mathematical order in the universe) then 2+2 = 4 is apparently not always true (at least not according to you). I find that to be logically absurd.

I know that you think this all just a bunch of religion and you don't want anything to do with it. But I think your believe that science can answer all questions in the universe is itself a very dangerous religion, a theory for which there is no evidence to support (which doesn't make it automatically false, but makes it a theory). Given that neither of us can prove our theories about whether the universe exists without any underlying intelligent design, or whether there is some intelligent design, why not let students hear both sides and let them decide? What are you afraid of?


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sun Jun 20, 2010 8:50 pm 
Offline
Friend of SPCR

Joined: Fri Mar 28, 2008 1:15 pm
Posts: 336
Location: Portland, Oregon
m0002a wrote:
Given that neither of us can prove our theories about whether the universe exists without any underlying intelligent design, or whether there is some intelligent design, why not let students hear both sides and let them decide? What are you afraid of?


Yours is not a "given", but the rest of the statement is really the root of the problem we have here. ID was made up by some religious fundamentalists is an attempt to debase science and their loosing foothold in the classroom and in the political spectrum.

Did you even follow the Dover decision at all? It was proven, in point of fact, that members of the school board very specifically are quoted as saying they want to bring God back into the classroom. When their idea is shot down they substitute God with Intelligent Design. This is proven with a typo in their own dogmatic readings where they improperly cut and pasted "design proponent" inside of the word "creationist" and accidentally let it out as cdesign proponentist. It really is laughably dumb.

It's fake. It's a farce. You are currently believing in something akin to the Boogey Man, Tooth Fairy and/or Easter Bunny. They roped you and your malleable and unsuspecting mind in with their "It's not God" rhetoric. It IS God, it IS about religion, it IS NOT about good science or proving facts.

It's a dead parrot.

I think where you are confused is the structure of the DNA and the mutations that are happening. When you modify a certian place in the structure, specific changes happen. I can modify a section of DNA and turn someones eyes from brown to blue. I get that you think that this is not random, but rather a specific design principle built into the structure. Except that it's not. People are supposed to have brown eyes. At one point some rogue particle hit an egg in an ovary in just the right place and that egg became a child with blue eyes. It wasn't supposed to have blue eyes, it was supposed to have brown eyes. Who knew that if you knocked that gene around it would do that? No one. It wasn't designed that way either. It was pure random chance that it happened. And now we have a bunch of beautiful Swedish women!

Where things are random yet are acceptable are:

Some particle bouncing around the universe (random 1)
In some place (random 2)
At some time (random 3)
Hit the right egg (random 4)
That was inseminated (random 5)
And the child birthed and lived to be old enough to reproduce (random 6)

If you believe that the hand of an Intelligent Designer assisted in making any of those random things happen I question your statement about being generally agnostic.

If you believe that it was an "intelligent design" because changing that one thing would give someone blue eyes and it was there on purpose, I really wonder about your not believing in God or believing that our Intelligent Designer did it that way on purpose because this "designer" just happened to know that all of the above random chances would happen specifically so we could have beautiful Swedish women.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Jun 21, 2010 5:19 am 
Offline

Joined: Wed Feb 04, 2004 2:12 am
Posts: 2831
Location: USA
psyopper wrote:
Yours is not a "given", but the rest of the statement is really the root of the problem we have here. ID was made up by some religious fundamentalists is an attempt to debase science and their loosing foothold in the classroom and in the political spectrum.

Did you even follow the Dover decision at all? It was proven, in point of fact, that members of the school board very specifically are quoted as saying they want to bring God back into the classroom. When their idea is shot down they substitute God with Intelligent Design. This is proven with a typo in their own dogmatic readings where they improperly cut and pasted "design proponent" inside of the word "creationist" and accidentally let it out as cdesign proponentist. It really is laughably dumb.

It's fake. It's a farce. You are currently believing in something akin to the Boogey Man, Tooth Fairy and/or Easter Bunny. They roped you and your malleable and unsuspecting mind in with their "It's not God" rhetoric. It IS God, it IS about religion, it IS NOT about good science or proving facts.

It's a dead parrot.

I think where you are confused is the structure of the DNA and the mutations that are happening. When you modify a certian place in the structure, specific changes happen. I can modify a section of DNA and turn someones eyes from brown to blue. I get that you think that this is not random, but rather a specific design principle built into the structure. Except that it's not. People are supposed to have brown eyes. At one point some rogue particle hit an egg in an ovary in just the right place and that egg became a child with blue eyes. It wasn't supposed to have blue eyes, it was supposed to have brown eyes. Who knew that if you knocked that gene around it would do that? No one. It wasn't designed that way either. It was pure random chance that it happened. And now we have a bunch of beautiful Swedish women!

Where things are random yet are acceptable are:

Some particle bouncing around the universe (random 1)
In some place (random 2)
At some time (random 3)
Hit the right egg (random 4)
That was inseminated (random 5)
And the child birthed and lived to be old enough to reproduce (random 6)

If you believe that the hand of an Intelligent Designer assisted in making any of those random things happen I question your statement about being generally agnostic.

If you believe that it was an "intelligent design" because changing that one thing would give someone blue eyes and it was there on purpose, I really wonder about your not believing in God or believing that our Intelligent Designer did it that way on purpose because this "designer" just happened to know that all of the above random chances would happen specifically so we could have beautiful Swedish women.

Have you actually seen the references to ID in Texas textbooks? I doubt that it is more than a sentence or two, and not like anything such as you are imagining (such as religious fundamentalism).

Associating ID to religious fundamentalists and trying to discredit ID for that reason is like saying that because the vast majority of criminals, Marxists, and terrorists vote for Democrats much more often than Republicans, that therefore the Democratic Party is a criminal, Marxist, and terrorist organization. This guilt by association tactic you use is decidedly anti-intellectual, and is pure demagoguery.

There may be some who are using ID as an objection to the fact of evolution (and specifically that humans evolved from lower life forms), but I am not one of those, nor is Melanie Phillips, nor is the State of Texas until you can prove that allegation. What most people who advocate ID believe is that some are using the fact of evolution in attempt to prove that God does not exist (and even cannot exist if one believes in evolution). I am saying that is wrong, and evolution has nothing to do with being able to prove that God does, or does not, exist, and that such religious beliefs as this (that science can answer all questions and that science has proved God does not exist) should be taken out the classroom (or at least making sure that evolution is detached from this question).

Regarding your points about randomness. I don't want to get into a discussion of "who makes what happen." I never claimed (nor does ID claim) that anyone makes anything happen. Rather the claim of ID is that there is some intelligent design in the universe and that randomness cannot account for how such designs came into existance.

Nor did I ever claim that everything that happens in the universe is by intelligent design (that is clearly false). All I said is there is some intelligent design in the universe in some instances, and that one of those instances is the force that causes life forms to evolve from micro-organisms into intelligent beings (I just don't think that could have happened randomly).

I certainly do agree that there are many things that happen randomly in the universe, even though I don't believe that everything was created randomly. I don't know much about how we get eye color, but if you say it is random then I don't necessarily object to that. What I mean by not-random is that the laws of nature exhibit a design to them (and I would classify them as intelligent design instead or stupid design or randomness), and no one has proven that such things came into existence randomly. It just does not seem statistically likely to me that these laws of nature were created randomly.

So please do not project your simplistic idea of God onto me (especially since I am quite sure that you do not believe that God even exists) that believes God is making every decision about everything. There may have been an intelligence that created the laws of nature and other forces that allow life to exist and to evolve, but that does not mean that such intelligence is constantly making every decision along the way (or even making any decisions). It just means that something as complex as life and evolution of life from micro-organisms to humans (and all the associated mechanism that control life, such as DNA, Gnomes, etc) did not likely come into existence randomly, even though there may be some random events that happen as part of the design.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Jun 21, 2010 8:57 am 
Offline
Friend of SPCR

Joined: Fri Mar 28, 2008 1:15 pm
Posts: 336
Location: Portland, Oregon
m0002a wrote:
Have you actually seen the references to ID in Texas textbooks? I doubt that it is more than a sentence or two, and not like anything such as you are imagining (such as religious fundamentalism).


And by this statement, you haven't seen them either.

m0002a wrote:
Associating ID to religious fundamentalists and trying to discredit ID for that reason is like saying that because the vast majority of criminals, Marxists, and terrorists vote for Democrats much more often than Republicans, that therefore the Democratic Party is a criminal, Marxist, and terrorist organization. This guilt by association tactic you use is decidedly anti-intellectual, and is pure demagoguery.


I am not trying to discredit ID because it is tied to religious fundamentalists.

I am discrediting it because it is not a valid scientific theory and as such it shouldn't be taught as fact to our children. You can't really disprove the existence of the Tooth Fairy either, so why isn't that also included in the Texas school books? Oh, right - you can discredit the Tooth Fairy because it was made up by the imaginations of some thopughtful parents. ID was also made up by the imaginations of some thoughtful parents when their children came home and questioned their faith. "Daddy, Mrs. Smith said we didn't come from Adam and Eve..."

There is factual evidence for this.

m0002a wrote:
...evolution has nothing to do with being able to prove that God does, or does not, exist...


True. Evolution has nothing to do with the existence of God. It has everything to do with explaining the existence of the flora and fauna on Earth today. It does this by making predictions on observable facts.

m0002a wrote:
...and that such religious beliefs as this (that science can answer all questions and that science has proved God does not exist) should be taken out the classroom (or at least making sure that evolution is detached from this question).


I'm not exactly sure where my religious beliefs come in to play here. Scientists observed facts and made predictions based on those facts. When those predictions fail we don't turn to God for the answer, we turn to the facts to see why our predictions were wrong. In fact a wrong prediction is yet another data point to be considered in the process of understanding the larger universe. Science is not about God, science is about the observable universe and cataloging it, understanding it and more commonly - manipulating it.

m0002a wrote:
Regarding your points about randomness. I don't want to get into a discussion of "who makes what happen." I never claimed (nor does ID claim) that anyone makes anything happen.

OK.
m0002a wrote:
Rather the claim of ID is that there is some intelligent design in the universe and that randomness cannot account for how such designs came into existance.


Ummm, didn't you just say you didn't want to talk about that? Or is this some way of not using the word God, or Dog or Designer, some sort of method of not personifying the "designer" because you recognize that as soon as it's personified it falls apart.

m0002a wrote:
I certainly do agree that there are many things that happen randomly in the universe, even though I don't believe that everything was created randomly. I don't know much about how we get eye color, but if you say it is random then I don't necessarily object to that. What I mean by not-random is that the laws of nature exhibit a design to them (and I would classify them as intelligent design instead or stupid design or randomness), and no one has proven that such things came into existence randomly. It just does not seem statistically likely to me that these laws of nature were created randomly.


Have you looked into the theories surrounding the Multiverse? String Theory? The research into the Grand Unified Theory migh be of interest to you. Scientists are exploring facts into the functioning of the universe:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grand_Unified_Theory


m0002a wrote:
So please do not project your simplistic idea of God onto me (especially since I am quite sure that you do not believe that God even exists) that believes God is making every decision about everything.


I would never dare to foist God upon anyone. People choose to believe in God, and when they do they go to Church to discuss Him, similar to how people choose to go to school to understand facts. A minister doesn't talk about World War II and nor should a science teacher talk about myths. Until ID can present facts, or become provable by fact, it shouldn't be taught in the science class.


m0002a wrote:
There may have been an intelligence that created the laws of nature and other forces that allow life to exist and to evolve, but that does not mean that such intelligence is constantly making every decision along the way (or even making any decisions). It just means that something as complex as life and evolution of life from micro-organisms to humans (and all the associated mechanism that control life, such as DNA, Gnomes, etc) did not likely come into existence randomly, even though there may be some random events that happen as part of the design.


Listen to yourself. Say that first sentence out loud. Say it out loud at yourself in front of a mirror and look yourself in the eye when you say it.

"An intelligence... created... the laws of nature"

Nope, you're not a creationist. You're a cdesign proponentist.


Last edited by psyopper on Mon Jun 21, 2010 3:22 pm, edited 2 times in total.

Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Jun 21, 2010 9:14 am 
Offline
Patron of SPCR

Joined: Wed Dec 15, 2004 12:00 pm
Posts: 3301
Location: Essex, England
Quote:
Can science explain the concepts of Justice, Beauty, Love? Are these just chemical reactions in our brains


Pretty much spot on.

Quote:
What about mathematics? Is there not an intelligent design exhibited in mathematics that exists apart from the physical world, and that existed before humans evolved on this planet. Before the big bang (when the physical universe came into existence) did the concept of 2+2 equal 4 still apply before then?


I have just realised something, you are barking MAD.

Quote:
But science cannot actually explain the first cause that made it happen it that way


Yet.

Quote:
other than to say there is no first cause


Never heard anyone say that.

Quote:
or that the first cause is beyond the realm of science (obviously you think there is no first cause).


Why do you think that I think that, I dont think that.

Quote:
This obsession with random mutations being the fundamental first cause of evolution is particularly strange


It is not and never has been "the fundamental first cause of evolution", RNA was far more likely, and that lives in the realm of Chemistry (which happens before Bioligy BTW).

Quote:
IMO because it is not needed to explain that evolution happened and it seems to be the antithesis of science, which draws conclusions based on repeatable experiments conducted and the resulting outcomes. Imagine what would happen if every scientific experiment yielded different results because the outcomes were random or were caused by random events. It would render every scientific experiment to be invalid. If mathematics were random (if there is no mathematical order in the universe) then 2+2 = 4 is apparently not always true (at least not according to you). I find that to be logically absurd.


There is a wonderful phrase about not arguing with nutcases, so I wont.

Quote:
I know that you think this all just a bunch of religion and you don't want anything to do with it.


Yes I do, the whole concept of saying "God did it" for everything and anything that has not been answered yet is moronic, and what is more moronic still is that you seem to think that kind of behaviour is not religious (supernatural) at all.

Quote:
But I think your believe that science can answer all questions in the universe is itself a very dangerous religion, a theory for which there is no evidence to support (which doesn't make it automatically false, but makes it a theory).


I made the mistake of using words that are too strong, science can probably not prove or disprove everything that has ever happened or will ever happen, however science has surprised everyone many times in the past. Also believing in provable things is not a religion, belief in things without the slightest shred of evidence (God or whatever you want to call the Inteligent designer) is religious.

Quote:
Given that neither of us can prove our theories about whether the universe exists without any underlying intelligent design, or whether there is some intelligent design, why not let students hear both sides and let them decide? What are you afraid of?


Buy and then read "The God Delusion" that argument is totally destroyed in the first half of the book (in more than one way), only a religious person would not want to read it because they might wake up and smell the shit.


Andy

_________________
Main PC, P180, CM Silent Pro 500M, i5 3570k @ 4.2Ghz, 8-GB @ 2,000MHz, 256 GB Samsung 830, 500-GB 7K500, MSI 660Ti Twin Frozr, PC is super quiet :o
Server, 6-TB RAID-5 array, + 2 x 2-TB backup drives, 380W Enermax Pro82+, 4x very quiet fans, positive pressure only, no exhaust fans
Living Room PC, 3500+, 2-GB RAM, HD501LJ


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Jun 21, 2010 12:19 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue Jan 08, 2008 5:09 am
Posts: 397
Location: Copenhagen, Denmark
Quote:
If I get some real evidence about evolution being random, I will gladly change my views, especially since it would not force me to change my belief about the nature of the universe and being.


LOL!

_________________
Main rig: Antec NSK1380 | Lapped Xeon E3110 | ASUS P5QPL-VM (using IGP) | 2x 2GB Corsair XMS2 800 MHz | MTRON Mobi 3525-32 GB | WD Caviar GP 1TB (Scythe Quiet Driv'ed, on foam) AAM=128 | Lapped Scythe Ninja Rev. A fanless + Arctic Silver 5 | PicoPSU-160-XT + Dell DA-2 200 W brick | M-Audio Audiophile 2492 | 1x Nexus 120 mm @ 550 RPM


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Bunk
PostPosted: Mon Jun 21, 2010 4:08 pm 
Offline

Joined: Mon Feb 09, 2009 12:28 am
Posts: 26
Location: Pasadena, CA
Here in California, I've watched the public schools deteriorate over my lifetime as proven, functional programs have been replaced by stylish failures designed by fools. For example, the "Whole Language" and "English as a Second Language" programs (replacing phonics and simple immersion) produced a generation of illiterates. What we've done to our children is a crime. So it's a sad statement about the human condition that people foam at the mouth and scream cheap insults because Texas is in the news for a violation of political correctness. I don't know enough about the Texas program to comment in detail, and I doubt anyone else does either. But I sure see how our own horrendous decisions have pushed our kids a few rungs down the ladder, if we haven't actually ruined their lives. We need to put our own house in order and lead by example, instead of looking for a remote scapegoat. At this point, it's pretty clear Texas has got nothing to learn from us, except maybe as a cautionary example of what happens when you let the lunatics run the asylum. Maybe we should stop with the screaming and see what we can learn from them.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Jun 21, 2010 4:59 pm 
Offline

Joined: Wed Feb 04, 2004 2:12 am
Posts: 2831
Location: USA
psyopper wrote:
And by this statement, you haven't seen them either then.

True, but I did not start this thread claiming that Texas is going back to the caveman era without even looking at the text in question.

psyopper wrote:
I am not trying to discredit ID because it is tied to religious fundamentalists. I am discrediting it because it is not a valid scientific theory and as such it shouldn't be taught as fact to our children. You can't really disprove the existence of the Tooth Fairy either, so why isn't that also included in the Texas school books? Oh, right - you can discredit the Tooth Fairy because it was made up by the imaginations of some thopughtful parents. ID was also made up by the imaginations of some thoughtful parents when their children came home and questioned their faith. "Daddy, Mrs. Smith said we didn't come from Adam and Eve..."


I don't know if you have read all the posts in this thread, or what the problem is in you understanding what I previously said, but at no time did I ever express any reservations about whether humans evolved from micro-organisms. That is a proven scientific fact, and Intelligent Design has no problem with that (links provided in previous threads).

The claim that evolution was completely the result of random mutations (as opposed to some genetic code, gnomes, or other intelligent design) is what I said is an unproven theory. No one has offered a scientific study to prove this theory of random mutations causing all evolutionary change.
psyopper wrote:
True. Evolution has nothing to do with the existence of God. It has everything to do with explaining the existence of the flora and fauna on Earth today. It does this by making predictions on observable facts.

I would generally agree that evolution has nothing to do with the existence of God. However, many in this thread are obsessed with the theory of random mutations as the sole cause of evolution, and they are clearly trying to use evolution to prove that Intelligent Design does not exist. This is true even though there is no real scientific evidence to support this idea of randomness being the sole cause of evolution (it is just a theory).

psyopper wrote:
I'm not exactly sure where my religious beliefs come in to play here. Scientists observed facts and made predictions based on those facts. When those predictions fail we don't turn to God for the answer, we turn to the facts to see why our predictions were wrong. In fact a wrong prediction is yet another data point to be considered in the process of understanding the larger universe. Science is not about God, science is about the observable universe and cataloging it, understanding it and more commonly - manipulating it.

I don't have a problem with that. Unfortunately, some believe that the observable universe is the only one that exists or has ever existed. That is the problem and why we are discussing this.

psyopper wrote:
[Ummm, didn't you just say you didn't want to talk about that? Or is this some way of not using the word God, or Dog or Designer, some sort of method of not personifying the "designer" because you recognize that as soon as it's personified it falls apart.

Personifying the "designer" ? Not sure what you mean. It does appear that there is some sort of design to many things we see in nature, and that they are not all random. That begs the question of where did such a design come from, or what existed before the physical universe existed, but that is beyond the scope of this discussion, which is whether evolution can be completely explained by random mutations.

psyopper wrote:
Have you looked into the theories surrounding the Multiverse? String Theory? The research into the Grand Unified Theory migh be of interest to you. Scientists are exploring facts into the functioning of the universe:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grand_Unified_Theory

Yes, I am familiar with them. Some of these may have a truth to them and some may be completely wrong, but at this point they are theories (as you pointed out). The same is true with the idea that evolution can be completely explained by random mutations (it may be true, but is just a theory at this point). ID is also a theory.

psyopper wrote:
I would never dare to foist God upon anyone. People choose to believe in God, and when they do they go to Church to discuss Him, similar to how people choose to go to school to understand facts. A minister doesn't talk about World War II and nor should a science teacher talk about myths. Until ID can present facts, or become provable by fact, it shouldn't be taught in the science class.

If schools are only concerned with facts, then they should not teach the theory that evolution of life from micro-organisms to humans was solely the result of random mutations. This is only a theory, not a fact. The vast majority of science dealing with the beginnings of the universe are not facts, they are only theories , many of which mutually exclusive and cannot all be true. Personally, I don't have a problem with discussing theories in school, as long as students understand that they are theories.

Again, you are projecting your idea of God on others who may believe that there is some ultimate reality beyond the realm of nature and science. Reality has nothing to do with religion or a church, which are mere social constructs of humans. If there is a reality beyond science, then it existed before humans, religion, or churches existed, which makes them irrelevant to this discussion. I don't care about labels like God or Science, I am only interested in Truth.

It sounds to me like you believe in God (apologies if I misunderstood), and go to church to discuss "Him" but don't believe that God has anything to do with cosmology or the beginnings and evolution of life forms. On the other hand, I do believe that there may be an existence beyond the capability of science to understand, which is relevant to these cosmological questions, but I never go to church and never read the bible. This is a very interesting juxtaposition of beliefs and actions.
psyopper wrote:
Listen to yourself. Say that first sentence out loud. Say it out loud at yourself in front of a mirror and look yourself in the eye when you say it.

"An intelligence... created... the laws of nature"

Nope, you're not a creationist. You're a cdesign proponentist.

It is amazing how people who claim they are intelligent and intellectually sophisticated succumb to name-calling instead of rational argument.

Yes, I believe that there is some order in the universe, which is one reason that science is able to discover it with repeatable experiments. I personally believe it is absurd to rationally think otherwise (unless one has a religious a priori belief in to the contrary). Science has yet to explain how the universe, or the order in it, came into existence (alhtough some are working on these theories), but I suspect that something exists beyond the physical world and beyond the ability of science to understand it. I don't know exactly what that is, other than it does not appear to be random to me. Obviously, this is just a theory, as is also is the theory that everything (including evolution) is the result of random events.

Regarding the comprehensive explanatory theories that cosmologists are working on to explain the universe, upon close examinations these are mostly dealing with how the universe works, as opposed to explaining what caused it initially came into existence. The theories that do deal with the question of how the universe came into existence, are purely theoretical and/or metaphysical and will always require faith in order to accept them. As I previously mentioned, I am more interested in truth than in artificial categorizations like science and metaphysics.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Bunk
PostPosted: Mon Jun 21, 2010 5:11 pm 
Offline

Joined: Wed Feb 04, 2004 2:12 am
Posts: 2831
Location: USA
TalkinHorse wrote:
Here in California, I've watched the public schools deteriorate over my lifetime as proven, functional programs have been replaced by stylish failures designed by fools. For example, the "Whole Language" and "English as a Second Language" programs (replacing phonics and simple immersion) produced a generation of illiterates. What we've done to our children is a crime. So it's a sad statement about the human condition that people foam at the mouth and scream cheap insults because Texas is in the news for a violation of political correctness. I don't know enough about the Texas program to comment in detail, and I doubt anyone else does either. But I sure see how our own horrendous decisions have pushed our kids a few rungs down the ladder, if we haven't actually ruined their lives. We need to put our own house in order and lead by example, instead of looking for a remote scapegoat. At this point, it's pretty clear Texas has got nothing to learn from us, except maybe as a cautionary example of what happens when you let the lunatics run the asylum. Maybe we should stop with the screaming and see what we can learn from them.

It is always easy to bash Texas, especially if one lives in Massachusetts. That is why Oliver Stone was able to claim that LBJ likely had JFK killed, and why many young people actually believe this is a fact.

The true believers of the randomness of the universe in general, and of random mutations being the sole cause of evolution in particular, don't have anything to worry about regarding what Texas puts in its textbooks. Very, very, few students will even read the short blurbs in texts on this subject. Now if Oliver Stone makes a movie about evolution, that would be a cause for concern.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Jun 21, 2010 6:34 pm 
Offline
*Lifetime Patron*

Joined: Sun May 21, 2006 9:09 am
Posts: 1766
Location: Northern California.
Image of the Globe from a new Texas textbook .

Image

_________________
“USA is not America, America is a continent!”


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Jun 21, 2010 7:41 pm 
Offline

Joined: Wed Feb 04, 2004 2:12 am
Posts: 2831
Location: USA
xan_user wrote:
Image of the Globe from a new Texas textbook

That is obviously a fake. This is the real thing:

Image


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Jun 21, 2010 8:34 pm 
Offline
*Lifetime Patron*

Joined: Sun May 21, 2006 9:09 am
Posts: 1766
Location: Northern California.
Perfect example. I love how in your picture they think nothing exists below the rio grande! Ah the isolated bubble of Texas , its not just a state, its a state of mind(lessness)!

Image

It will sure be nice when Texas can rewrite history to say what a boon to the economy and environment the oil spew of 2010 really was.

_________________
“USA is not America, America is a continent!”


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Jun 22, 2010 1:46 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue Dec 26, 2006 10:52 am
Posts: 592
Quote:
Can science explain the concepts of Justice, Beauty, Love?

No, science can not explain that.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Jun 23, 2010 1:17 pm 
Offline
Patron of SPCR

Joined: Wed Dec 15, 2004 12:00 pm
Posts: 3301
Location: Essex, England
Quote:
No, science can not explain that.


They can and have, amusingly "beauty" and "love" are easier to explain in some ways than "justice", but justice has also been explained by science, as has "empathy", (niether of which has anything to do with religion as many people have been told, albeit usually by someone infected by religion).


Andy

_________________
Main PC, P180, CM Silent Pro 500M, i5 3570k @ 4.2Ghz, 8-GB @ 2,000MHz, 256 GB Samsung 830, 500-GB 7K500, MSI 660Ti Twin Frozr, PC is super quiet :o
Server, 6-TB RAID-5 array, + 2 x 2-TB backup drives, 380W Enermax Pro82+, 4x very quiet fans, positive pressure only, no exhaust fans
Living Room PC, 3500+, 2-GB RAM, HD501LJ


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Jun 23, 2010 2:18 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue Dec 26, 2006 10:52 am
Posts: 592
Quote:
They can and have

No, they have not because they can't.

I have stated in the past, albeit briefly, that science cannot explain love...nor can religion.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Jun 23, 2010 2:55 pm 
Offline
Patron of SPCR

Joined: Wed Dec 15, 2004 12:00 pm
Posts: 3301
Location: Essex, England
Quote:
I have stated in the past, albeit briefly, that science cannot explain love...nor can religion.


OK, I will give you the benefit of the doubt that science has not yet (and might never be able to) "totally" explained "love".

However is has made some serious inroads into understanding some of the simple (and complex) components of human physiology, psycology, body language, and other social interations that make up many of the various components of "love".

I know that many romantics (in the same way as many religious people) enjoy the mystery, and never want to hear about the science, let alone understand it and believe the science that explains it.

I really do understand that, and fully respect people not wanting to tarnish such a thing a beauty or love with the brush of science, and I respect their wishes and wont expect people to change their views that this subject is firmly "off limits" to science - so if you dont want to know any details of how science has already unravelled many of the mysteries of beauty and love simply dont read on.

However science already has unravelled many of the componenets of love, and many are provable beyond any doubt. I expect there are many other components and componet interaction that have not been proven, or even discovered, and most of these will lie in the realm of psycology, which is still a huge mystery by comparison to "germ theory" or "nuclear fusion".

Religion certainly cant explain anything that is not already an obvious point to this subject, so I am happy to leave it out completely.

Justice has been explained almost fully, alongside compassion and fairness. Interestingly the best participants of the tests are children (who all posess the abilities to to be fair, deal justice and be compassionate (even if they dont understand what they are doing). The childs mind is wonderful (so long as it has not been polluted by horrible concepts such as religion or hatred without cause or understanding as to why).

Beauty has also been explained in quite great detail, and shares many of the same components as love.

I can happily point you towards a wonderful BBC TV series called "Human Instinct" that does not specifically try to answer any of these points, but does a pretty good job of pointing out some of the fundamental points of Justice, Beauty and indeed Love. It is as far as I am concerned a must watch series, I have watched it twice and need to watch it again.

http://www.google.co.uk/#hl=en&q=%22hum ... 1e0a386f13


Andy

_________________
Main PC, P180, CM Silent Pro 500M, i5 3570k @ 4.2Ghz, 8-GB @ 2,000MHz, 256 GB Samsung 830, 500-GB 7K500, MSI 660Ti Twin Frozr, PC is super quiet :o
Server, 6-TB RAID-5 array, + 2 x 2-TB backup drives, 380W Enermax Pro82+, 4x very quiet fans, positive pressure only, no exhaust fans
Living Room PC, 3500+, 2-GB RAM, HD501LJ


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Jun 24, 2010 11:45 am 
Offline

Joined: Tue Dec 26, 2006 10:52 am
Posts: 592
So you acknowledge then that science cannot scientifically explain it, then where's the disagreement.

I have seen the BBC series before, found it to be interesting.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Jun 24, 2010 12:21 pm 
Offline
*Lifetime Patron*

Joined: Thu Apr 10, 2003 7:16 am
Posts: 1300
Location: en.gb.uk
walle wrote:
So you acknowledge then that science cannot scientifically explain it, then where's the disagreement.


Generally speaking the disagreement lies in what's inferred from the (current) lack of a scientific explanation for those things.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Jun 24, 2010 1:26 pm 
Offline
Patron of SPCR

Joined: Wed Dec 15, 2004 12:00 pm
Posts: 3301
Location: Essex, England
Quote:
So you acknowledge then that science cannot scientifically explain it, then where's the disagreement.


I did not say that, let me quote myself.

Quote:
OK, I will give you the benefit of the doubt that science has not yet (and might never be able to) "totally" explain "love".


So whats the point of misquoting me and then saying "whats the disagreement", what disagreement, I must have missed it, feel free to point it out to me.

Quote:
I have seen the BBC series before, found it to be interesting.


Glad to hear it, I have just started watching it again :)


Andy

_________________
Main PC, P180, CM Silent Pro 500M, i5 3570k @ 4.2Ghz, 8-GB @ 2,000MHz, 256 GB Samsung 830, 500-GB 7K500, MSI 660Ti Twin Frozr, PC is super quiet :o
Server, 6-TB RAID-5 array, + 2 x 2-TB backup drives, 380W Enermax Pro82+, 4x very quiet fans, positive pressure only, no exhaust fans
Living Room PC, 3500+, 2-GB RAM, HD501LJ


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sun Jun 27, 2010 1:39 am 
Offline
*Lifetime Patron*

Joined: Sun Dec 21, 2003 11:24 am
Posts: 1735
Location: 'Sunny' Cornwall U.K.
psyopper wrote:
It's a dead parrot.

Yes... but what kind of a 'Dead Parrot' is it?.....


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Jul 02, 2010 1:57 am 
Offline

Joined: Fri Dec 19, 2008 2:55 am
Posts: 257
Location: Naples, Italy
I love them, what about restoring Witch-hunt too? :)
You know, usually the politicans who blame on gays, unmorality, drugs and so on, are the first who do like meeting transgenders, secretly loving men, using cocaine and so on.
I'd like to investigate into their private life, let's see who's a principled person and who's not :roll:
"Do as I say, don't do as I do", an old saying tells.

[quote]The Texas Republican Party gives a whole new meaning to the word conservative.

The GOP there has voted on a platform that would ban oral and anal sex. It also would give jail sentences to anyone who issues a marriage license to a same-sex couple (even though such licenses are already invalid in the state).

“We oppose the legalization of sodomy,â€

_________________
Visit my site www.flapane.com - MY GALLERY - MY Linux/OSX REPOSITORY
PC Intel i3-2120 - Ibook 12'' 1,33ghz 1.5GB PC333 160GB- MBP 15'' i7 2,2ghz 4GB - T-Mobile Vibrant - YamahaP90 - Nikon D80/18-105


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Jul 02, 2010 6:07 am 
Offline

Joined: Wed Feb 04, 2004 2:12 am
Posts: 2831
Location: USA
flapane wrote:
I love them, what about restoring Witch-hunt too? :)
You know, usually the politicans who blame on gays, unmorality, drugs and so on, are the first who do like meeting transgenders, secretly loving men, using cocaine and so on.
I'd like to investigate into their private life, let's see who's a principled person and who's not :roll:
"Do as I say, don't do as I do", an old saying tells.

Republican office holders are not bound to support the platform. Republicans control the State Government in Texas (including the State Supreme Court), but you won't see very many changes in Texas law to the above items. Sounds like when they discussed the platform, most GOP delegates went to happy hour, and the remaining ones created the platform.

However, some provisions probably would be supported by most Republicans and many Democrats. For example, regarding marriage licenses for same-sex couples, it is already illegal in the vast majority of states (including Texas). They are just supporting changing the penalties to state officials (judges, etc) who issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples in violation of existing law.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sat Oct 09, 2010 9:36 pm 
Offline
Friend of SPCR

Joined: Fri Mar 28, 2008 1:15 pm
Posts: 336
Location: Portland, Oregon
I hate to necro-post, but thought this was interesting and pertained to some earlier points in this conversation

http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/2010/ ... evolution/

Adolsescent nails that are exposed to certian levels of platinum fail to produce a shell, effectively becoming slugs; or more accurately taking a step along the evolutionary path because they crawled in the wrong dirt.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sun Oct 10, 2010 7:48 am 
Offline

Joined: Wed Aug 13, 2008 11:45 am
Posts: 519
Location: 128.0.0.1
walle wrote:
I have stated in the past, albeit briefly, that science cannot explain love.


Let me correct you on this: Science cannot fully explain love yet.

"Explain Love" is not a scientific question. What do you mean by love and what do you mean by explain? Different sciences provide good explanations for various aspects of love: biology explains your physical symptoms, neuro-biology explains how your brain is malfunctioning, psychology explains your motivations. A lot of this is not yet fully coherent, but it looks like there is no stardust involved and so eventually science will find the answers.

That is the concept behind science: we assume that everything can be explained. If little chubby infants with wings shoot arrows in our heart (I think I'm paraphrasing House here) then a scientific approach will sooner or later find them. If some alien entity created the universe, a scientific approach will sooner or later find out.

I think no scientist ever hoped that we would one day have that unifying, all-encompassing theory that explains why John Doe farted that one time he was in the elevator and listened to Pink Floyd. That doesn't mean that "Science has its limits" - because if one could go back to that moment and get a read of all scientific variables involved, one could probably explain the flatulance - it only means that we have our limits.


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 119 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4

All times are UTC - 8 hours


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group