My blog about my experiences defending science [Archive]

StarkRavingMad

May28-06, 02:31 AM

At first I was intrigued and thought I would want to read more. But in your first entry you write:
Basically tell everyone you know who voted for GW Bush that this meeting is going to take place. And it's free and open to the public.

What an odd generalization to make. Especially since you repeat it at the end of the post. I'm sorry but it brings your motivations into question. For a person who claims to be so objective, you make wierd subjective assumptions about who your audience is. And why make it political to begin with?

Since your opening premise implies that Intelligent Design and Creationism are the same thing... I then have to question your credibility as well, since I have doubts you've bothered to actually investigate ID or you would not make that corallary.

Your mantra "there is no debate" is also rather dismissive. It trumps any attempt to point out that part of your premise is flawed (Creationism is purely religious and ID is more philosophical employing scientific methods). I'm sure you also use it to deflect any attempt to point out that there is no logical connection between radioactive dating and the ultimate conclusions that Darwin comes to about how complex life evolves.

But since there is no debate, I won't enter into one either.

silkworm

May28-06, 02:43 AM

It looks that way Gokul.

StarkRavingMad, I used that to try to get as many creationsim/ID supporters to the CORR meetings as possible. You can't deny that conservative christians generally support both GW Bush and creationism/ID. Also, there is no real difference between creationism/ID as the ID movement/supporters claim to be more open minded simply as a legal maneuver (an attempt to circumvent serperation of church and state). Attending these meetings held by YEC's, they let it be known that they support ID and at the same time a literal interpretation of the Bible. One of the constant attendees of these meetings actually wrote a book for ID and his bio can be found at the Institute of Creation Research.

And there simply is no debate. You can only debate policy. You can't debate whether or not evolution is scientifically valid because it is. You can't debate whether or not creationism/ID is valid science because it simply isn't. You can debate whether or not to ignore the truth, but who would do that?

I'm not sure what you're getting at with radioactive dating (but I should mention (just in case) that you can't use C-14 in the atmosphere to determine the age of the Earth)), but evolution did not begin or end with Darwin and neither did our understanding of it.

My main point is larger than there not being a debate. The main point is, and I'm assuming this due to your zero post count, people like you believe what they believe because they've been lied to about what textbook science says. I believe that many creationism/ID supporters are good people simply trying to do the right thing, and I believe this because these are the people I grew up with and was raised by, but they have simply been lied to. A simple investigation by anyone with any scientific knowledge of any creationism/ID literature and presentations makes that incredibly clear.

Rach3

May28-06, 03:18 AM

I suggest you rethink your priorities. First off, what are you trying to accomplish? If you're trying to convert people out of a fundamentalist religion, that's both deeply offensive, and essentially impossible. It seems you're confusing distinct things here; creationism is a theological statement about the origins of the life, whereas ID pretends to justify creationism from empirical, scientific means. Since creationism does not attempt to use science towards it means, it readily coexists with evolutionary biology, cosmology, etc. - just look at the Catholic church. ID crosses this line. The purpose of ID is to bring creationist ideas into the public schools, under a cloak of "science"; this is why they have fake researchers trying to create an illusion of a scientific debate (e.g., the Discovery Institute). The focus should obviously be on keeping real science in schools and reigning in the ID juggernaut, without going around converting people - a very sensitive and emotional task! This is the briliance of ID - it uses religious impulses to achieve political goals in the arena of public education.

To be frank, I don't think you know what's going on well enough to do any productive outreach quite yet.

Pengwuino

May28-06, 03:19 AM

I wouldn't trust anyone whos so close minded. You've already made generalizations, claimed that some thing can't be debated (scientists never believe or dare claim any theory is 100% perfect and non-debatable), then insulted someone based on their post count which is only 2 off of yours. Be more scientific before deciding who's unscientific and who isn't.

Pengwuino

May28-06, 03:21 AM

I suggest you rethink your priorities. First off, what are you trying to accomplish? If you're trying to convert people out of a fundamentalist religion, that's both deeply offensive, and essentially impossible. It seems you're confusing distinct things here; creationism is a theological statement about the origins of the life, whereas ID pretends to justify creationism from empirical, scientific means. Since creationism does not attempt to use science towards it means, it readily coexists with evolutionary biology, cosmology, etc. - just look at the Catholic church. The purpose of ID is to bring creationist ideas into the public schools, under a cloak of "science". The focus should obviously be on keeping real science in schools and reigning in the ID juggernaut, without going around converting people - a very sensitive and emotional task! This is the briliance of ID - it uses religious impulses to achieve poltical goals in the arena of public education.

Yah and like Rach is saying, it's very discouraging to see someone wanting to defend science against unscientific ideas when the person doesn't even know what they're trying to defend science from. I mean how many people have we seen on this board alone try to defend Evolution or attack creationism with little to no knowledge of either.

Rach3

May28-06, 03:25 AM

One more piece of advice - don't attent ID'ers meetings! You're outnumbered a hundred to one, no one will listen to you and you'll only be stressing yourself out. Our arena is not convincing the die-hard charlatans, but convincing the general public, and the polticians in power (:ugh:), that ID is not scientific and does not deserve to displace real science in the schools. That's where the battle is.

Rach3

May28-06, 03:32 AM

And there simply is no debate. You can only debate policy. You can't debate whether or not evolution is scientifically valid because it is. You can't debate whether or not creationism/ID is valid science because it simply isn't. You can debate whether or not to ignore the truth, but who would do that?

This kind of language is not convincing - you have to actually defend your assertions, not just assert them strongly.

Rach3

May28-06, 03:34 AM

Oh yeah, there's no point in going to ID public lectures either - they're on the podium, and they're geniuses at abusing that power and manipulating their audience. They can very easily silence you. You can't beat them on their own ground.

Trust me, I've been there.
http://www.physicsforums.com/archive/index.php/t-96533.html

Pengwuino

May28-06, 03:41 AM

silkworm

May28-06, 03:53 AM

I'm sorry, I haven't gotten the hang of the quote system here yet.

Rach3
If you're trying to convert people out of a fundamentalist religion, that's both deeply offensive, and essentially impossible.

I go to defend nonscientists from being lied to about textbook science. It's been my experience that the vast majority of science presented in both the literature and at these meetings is misrepresented and then the misrepresentation is then criticized. I simply go there to tell people that what they're being told is a lie. What they worship or who they worship is of no concern to me, as long as they don't use it to victimize anyone and understand that science does not consider the presence of the supreme being in its study. I've had success in this venture.

Penguino
You've already made generalizations, claimed that some thing can't be debated (scientists never believe or dare claim any theory is 100% perfect and non-debatable), then insulted someone based on their post count which is only 2 off of yours.

First of all, mechanisms of evolution are what is being debated about in the scientific community. Evolution as the basic concept that leads to the great diversity of living organisms is however as real as we are, and as a scientific concept absolutely indisputable. I wasn't aiming to insult StarkRavingMad with my mention of the zero post count, I mentioned that to show that I thought that he/she was an creationsim/ID supporter because his/her first post was dedicated to my post about my blog. There was no insult there.

Penguino
Yah and like Rach is saying, it's very discouraging to see someone wanting to defend science against unscientific ideas when the person doesn't even know what they're trying to defend science from. I mean how many people have we seen on this board alone try to defend Evolution or attack creationism with little to no knowledge of either.

I'm defending it against being misrepresented, and I'm defending nonscientists from being lied to about science. Basically I'm defending my parents and friends from making decisions based on false information and children from growing up ignorant because they believe science is evil. Please consult my blog here: (https://silkworm.wordpress.com/2006/04/09/corr-reposted-from-april-9-2006/)

Rach3
One more piece of advice - don't attent ID'ers meetings! You're outnumbered a hundred to one, no one will listen to you and you'll only be stressing yourself out. Our arena is not convincing the die-hard charlatans, but convincing the general public, and the polticians in power (:ugh:), that ID is not scientific and does not deserve to displace real science in the schools. That's where the battle is.

I have attended IDer meetings, and I have been outnumbered a hundred to one, but I have been listened to and have had success. These are my people. My approach works. And who do you think voted for those politicians?

Rach3
This kind of language is not convincing - you have to actually defend your assertions, not just assert them strongly.

First you read my blog before making judgements about it or what I'm doing.

silkworm

May28-06, 03:59 AM

Rach3
Oh yeah, there's no point in going to ID public lectures either - they're on the podium, and they're geniuses at abusing that power and manipulating their audience. They can very easily silence you. You can't beat them on their own ground.

Actually, I do quite well. The first Lucas lecture was odd because of the format, and the next will be more odd because our interaction will take place via CCTV. I know that at his first lecture my presence did make a difference, just not as much as I would have liked because I did make mistakes there.

Pengwuino

May28-06, 04:02 AM

Ah your use of "defend" is so rare in the conversations i've been in lately that you'll have to excuse me if i took some of what you said the wrong way. I hear "defend" almost exclusively in a provoking manner such as "I will defend my right to eat cookies" or whatever that i almost forgot theres a (haha) defensive way of "defending" someone/something.

silkworm

May28-06, 04:02 AM

Double post

StarkRavingMad

May28-06, 04:14 AM

See what I mean? I wasn't going to reply, but you had to make it personal.

You make broad stroke assumptions about both christians and people who voted for Bush (as if neither could agree with the theory of evolution and need to be enightened), you then go on to assume the motivations of proponents of Intelligent Design -- more or less calling them liars--, and somehow come to sweeping conclusions about anyone who may agree with any of the above. But you don't stop there, you then make a personal conclusion about me.

That's not logic. That's belligerence. I'm sorry.

Thank you for acknowledging that I might be a good person at least. I like how the only way to have an opposing interpretation is because it is based on a lie. See... what you perceive as "incredibly clear", another equally intelligent person will look at and see as hopelessly flawed.

If the premise is baseless (as in Darwinism), or if the conclusion based on the evidence does not follow (again... as in Darwinism), it does not matter what happens in between. One does not have to accept the whole argument to agree with the science of it.

You look at those who adamantly support ID and see christian conservatives who just want to justify their blind faith. I look at those who adamantly refuse to accept ID as politically motivated secularists who just want to justify their aethists beliefs.

Note how I did not offer an opinion of those who accept the theory of evolution in there. Because Intelligent Design, despite your unquestionable knowledge of it, does not refute the science of the evolution of the Earth or the age of species. It only takes issue with the philosophical doctrine behind Darwinism.

And that IS up for debate.

I have no problem believing that most creationists now support ID. But it does not follow that all students of ID inherently believe in a literal translation of creation and dismiss all aspects of evolution... not to the extent that you can refer to them as a singular name with a / in it.

Anyone who claims that ID is some kind of scientific "proof" for the notion that we were created 10,000 years ago in a one week timespan is not being intellectually honest. And I dare say a good number of legitimate ID theorists would not support them either. No moreso than Darwinist scientists accept money from left-leaning special interest groups at least.

An article I found on creationdigest.com sums it up better...
"The best place to [start] is not with Genesis I and the six days of creation, arguing about how long those days may have been. That immediately gets people into an issue that divides believers. The best place to start is with the Scripture that teaches the meaning of creation rather than the timetable"

Even though you are so convinced that ID is some scientificy bait and switch to somehow justify creationist beliefs, it is, AAMOF, the opposite. ID is a way to enlighten Creationists to get them more on board with science.

I won't deny that some fundamentalist christians misuse ID any more than atheist activists have misused Darwin's theories for their own agendas. But it does not make them equal.

So I'm sorry for questioning your reality in which all christians voted for Bush and believe that Genesis 1 was a scientific journal, and where there are no other possible perspectives on scientific theories... But Darwin's theory has serious, gaping, nonsensical holes that are no more grounded in science than Moses' written account of the Creation Hymn.

Pengwuino

May28-06, 04:17 AM

Oh and before i completely disgrace the forum, I might want to remind you guys of the Terms you agreed to (or at least were suppose to have agreed to) that specifically bans most of this discussion.

StarkRavingMad

May28-06, 04:24 AM

Rach... and here I was about to agree with you.
...whereas ID pretends to justify creationism from empirical, scientific means. ... The purpose of ID is to bring creationist ideas into the public schools, under a cloak of "science"; this is why they have fake researchers trying to create an illusion of a scientific debate (e.g., the Discovery Institute).

No... it's not. Perhaps some people try to misuse it as such, just as secular humanists have glommed onto Darwin as their vehicle to take religion OUT of our society. But that is not how I understand ID's intent at all.

Believe it or not, not all (again, dare I say most) reasonable Christians do not accept Creationism. We're not all fundamentalists, okay? Isn't it possible for anyone to accept something that coincides with religious beliefs as, oh I don't know... genuine?

The focus should obviously be on keeping real science in schools and reigning in the ID juggernaut,

Obviously -_-

This is the briliance of ID - it uses religious impulses to achieve political goals in the arena of public education.

Wow... and you said that trying to convert people from fundamentlists belief was insulting.

To be frank, I don't think [the O.P.] know[s] what's going on well enough to do any productive outreach quite yet.

Well at least we can agree on something.

StarkRavingMad

May28-06, 04:32 AM

Oh and before i completely disgrace the forum, I might want to remind you guys of the Terms you agreed to (or at least were suppose to have agreed to) that specifically bans most of this discussion.

Yeah sorry. I'm done. I tried hard to stay neutral, but it's still skirting the line.

silkworm

May28-06, 04:37 AM

StarkRavingMad
I wasn't going to reply, but you had to make it personal.

I did?

...AAMOF...

I'm sorry, what does that mean?

ID is a way to enlighten Creationists to get them more on board with science.

By inserting consideration of a supernatural being and no longer requiring empirical data as has been done here in Kansas?

You're apparently giving Darwin, who I do admit I love, way too much credit. But you seem like an ID advocate. Let's check things out. You tell me what the defining work of ID is, and if I've read it/watched it we'll talk about it. If I haven't, I will and then we will.

silkworm

May28-06, 04:45 AM

Oh and before i completely disgrace the forum, I might want to remind you guys of the Terms you agreed to (or at least were suppose to have agreed to) that specifically bans most of this discussion.

I have expressed no issue against any religion or religious people, and I hope you see that my posts don't bash anyone. All religions and religious beliefs are equal to me.

Pengwuino

May28-06, 05:18 AM

I have expressed no issue against any religion or religious people, and I hope you see that my posts don't bash anyone. All religions and religious beliefs are equal to me.

I don't believe discussions about ID are allowed anymore...

StarkRavingMad

May28-06, 05:24 AM

I said I was done with the debate and I am. It runs the risk of inviting someone less tactful to chime in to start -really- bashing one or both of us.

AAMOF is "as a matter of fact". It's an acronym used in chats and forums. Sorry for the assumption on that one. :blushing:

I will only add that, while I am no expert, what I have read on the subject does not coincide with how you or Rachel treat it. It alarms me to learn that this is how the philosophy is perceived. If this is people's most common exerpience with ID, then there may be more people misrepresenting it than I would have expected.

That's tragic, because I understood it to be the most brilliant reconciliation between science and faith to come into popular thought. To me it still is. It should be fuel for discussion, not another excuse to divide people.

Hootenanny

May28-06, 05:29 AM

I think is has been stated before, but it is worth emphisising that; in science nothing can ever be proved, only disproved. No one can ever claim that a theory is indisputably true (well they can but they'd be wrong). No matter how much evidence is presented in support of a theory, it only takes one peice of solid evidence to bring this theory into question. Even now there is debate into the theory of evolution, such as the "adaptive mutation" theory. I cannot tell you how serious these debates are as I am not a biologist, but still a debate occurs.

Any scientist who claims that a theory is 100% unquestionably is setting themself up for a large fall.

~H

Hootenanny

May28-06, 05:37 AM

Religious Discussion Guidelines:
Discussions that assert the a priori truth or falsity of religious dogmas and belief systems, or value judgments stemming from such religious belief systems, will not be tolerated. As a rule of thumb, some topics pertaining to religion might be permissible if they are discussed in such a way so as to remain neutral on the truth of, or value judgments stemming from, religious belief systems. However, it is essential to use good judgment whenever discussing religious matters to ensure that the discussion does not degenerate into a messy dispute. If in doubt, err on the side of caution.

Because of the complexity and ambiguity of this subject matter, there are no hard and fast moderation rules that apply over all possible cases. Ultimately, it is up to the administrators and mentors to decide what is appropriate and what it not on a case-by-case basis. Discuss religious matters at your own risk: Administrators and mentors retain the right to lock or delete any religious thread or post at any time without warning or explanation. All administrator and mentor action taken with regard to religious discussions will be final and will not be up for dispute.

This thread is liable to be locked as soon as a mentor comes online. It has turned into a messy debate.

~H

StarkRavingMad

May28-06, 05:45 AM

In my defense (since I was "part of the problem")... I'd like to stress this part of the guidelines...

As a rule of thumb, some topics pertaining to religion might be permissible if they are discussed in such a way so as to remain neutral on the truth of, or value judgments stemming from, religious belief systems.

I think we have been very neutral on the reglious front. This has been the most alarmingly civil discussion on the topic I have ever witnessed. o:) Of course that may be because it occurred at three in the morning between like four people when most of the community is :zzz:

Hootenanny

May28-06, 05:48 AM

Of course that may be because it occurred at three in the morning between like four people when most of the community is :zzz:

Its noon here in the UK :rolleyes:

~H

silkworm

May28-06, 05:51 AM

I meant no religious matters to be discussed here, I was simply introducing my blog and my cause, which is to defend science from being misrepresented and nonscientists against being lied to. This sort of thing is everpresent in creationism/ID literature and presentations and is the current focus of my efforts.

Also, evolution as a scientific theory is indesputable, due to many things but also that any alternative considering a supernatural being ceases being science due to science being the study of nature. Since this is a physics forum, you may be interested to know that evolution will most likely not be talked about in the next meeting. The man presenting claims to have made a super-duper equation, "The Electrodynamic Force Law," and enjoys misrepresenting physics. There's more about that on my blog including a link to their site. (Long story short, I agree with what you're saying Hootenanny but I will gladly set myself up for a fall on evolution)

And although this thread went somewhere I wish it wouldn't have, I'd like to ask my question once more to StarkRavingMad, What is the definitive work of ID?

Rach3

May28-06, 05:56 AM

Actually things like that are very annoying Rach. He basically went up and got slaughtered because he didn't know anything. Like i said previously, I hate when people try to defend things they don't understand because he probably convinced more people ID was right then wrong with his little showcase. I found it sad so many forumers cheered his display when i saw it as a pathetic display that hurt the scientific community in its own little way. People have pretty big egos when they try to silence someone else's ego.

And to make it even worse, he basically shot himself in the foot philisophically. We're trying to convince people to believe science and not listen to people who spout their belief and refuse to listen to another approach and laugh off other ideas.... yet for example here, he basically proclaimed everything this guy said as BS, refused to listen, and laughed. This isn't how you win over minds.

edit: Who or what is this directed at?

edit2 (upon clarification):
Excuse me? That was me in the link, and I must protest your awful mischaracterizations. I most certainly DID know what I was talking about - thermodynamics! And my unworthy PhD opponent also knew what he was talking about - he willfully and blatantly misrepresented it. And I most certainly did NOT refuse to listen or call BS - I refuted point after point, all for nothing though (the audience was mostly fundamentalists). Do you spout off ill-considered nonsense like this intentionally, or is it merely an a reading comprehension difficulty which none should blame you for?

Pengwuino

May28-06, 06:01 AM

Excuse me? That was me in the link, and I must protest your awful mischaracterizations. :grumpy: I most certainly DID know what I was talking about - thermodynamics! And my unworthy PhD opponent also knew what he was talking about - he willfully and blatantly misrepresented it. And I most certainly did NOT refuse to listen or call BS - I refuted point after point, all for nothing though (the audience was mostly fundamentalists). Do you spout off ill-considered nonsense like this intentionally, or is it merely an a reading comprehension difficulty which none should blame you for?

You make the impression that you were shot down and you even said you were shot down pretty much. I also don't see how anyone could pull out of that post that you saw what he said as anything but BS. Hopefully you put more thought into your arguments at the lecture then you did when you summarized the lecture.

Pengwuino

May28-06, 06:01 AM

edit: Who or what is this directed at?

OP

ten characters yo

silkworm

May28-06, 06:01 AM

And I most certainly did NOT refuse to listen or call BS - I refuted point after point, all for nothing though (the audience was mostly fundamentalists). Do you spout off ill-considered nonsense like this intentionally, or is it merely an a reading comprehension difficulty which none should blame you for?

The fundamentalist part doesn't matter, the crowd is looking for some sort of scientific affirmation of their faith. For that the scientific part has to be preserved. The problem is much of the crowd is likely to have no frame of reference so you must put things in the most practical of terms, and look for feedback. If you still don't think they understand, say it again, and if still nothing say it differently.

May I ask who the PhD was?

silkworm

May28-06, 06:06 AM

OP

ten characters yo

Is that me?

I certainly don't do that. The man is a lunatic though. While at the meetings I treat everyone with respect, but they last 3 hours and then I'm there for at least 2 afterwards talking to people so it's hard to put everything down verbatim with that much conversation. I'm trying to solve this. I got a request for a webcast of the CCTV, and I'll do my best to secure that. I think it would be good for this sort of explaination. I'm also trying to think of the best way to document and present what occurs at these meetings, it is A LOT of material however.

Rach3

May28-06, 06:06 AM

OP

ten characters yo

It appeared to have been directed at the preceding post, which was mine. My bad. :shy:

(but you really should have made that clear...)

Rach3

May28-06, 06:09 AM

The fundamentalist part doesn't matter, the crowd is looking for some sort of scientific affirmation of their faith. For that the scientific part has to be preserved. The problem is much of the crowd is likely to have no frame of reference so you must put things in the most practical of terms, and look for feedback. If you still don't think they understand, say it again, and if still nothing say it differently.

May I ask who the PhD was?

I forget his name. He got a PhD in metallurgy at some third-tier school, then joined one of the ID institues and now goes on tour giving a standard talk. He's a stereotypical charlatan.

Rach3

May28-06, 06:12 AM

Pengwuino

May28-06, 06:14 AM

OP as in the original post in the linked thread... not hte original post here

Pengwuino

May28-06, 06:15 AM

I forget his name. He got a PhD in metallurgy at some third-tier school, then joined one of the ID institues and now goes on tour giving a standard talk. He's a stereotypical charlatan.

PhD in metallurgy? What's he doing talking about physics. Tell him to go... melt something...

Rach3

May28-06, 06:15 AM

In that case, my criticism stands. I'm going back and editing it back in.

(hint: I am that other OP...)

Rach3

May28-06, 06:16 AM

PhD in metallurgy? What's he doing talking about physics. Tell him to go... melt something...

Physics, Biology, Theology, he's an expert in it all. :rolleyes:

Pengwuino

May28-06, 06:17 AM

Hootenanny

May28-06, 06:18 AM

Yes, and put this into perspective: what would a competing theory have to explain? The same juggernaut of evidence - speciation, fossil records... in essence it would have to be some variation or superset of evolution. The core phenomenology would be unchanged.

Yes, but one additional element to this theory, as far as I can deduce is that bacterial atleast exhibit some characteristic of Lamarkian evolution. That mutations that are advantageous appear, while those that are not simply do not occur. See this link for more information; http://www.mun.ca/biochem/courses/4103/topics/adaptive_mutation.html

Apologies to silkworm for hijacking your thread.

~H

Rach3

May28-06, 06:19 AM

Ah but let's not expose ourselves to the possibility of falling into the same trap physicists found themselves in before Einstein came along.

What trap? :devil: Everywhere Newtonian mechanics was applied, it remains experimentally correct. SR is only relevant on what was then a very new regime of physics; it is, just as I said, a variation and a superset of Newtonian mechanics, which falls out in the limit c->infinity.

Hootenanny

May28-06, 06:24 AM

What trap? :devil: Everywhere Newtonian mechanics was applied, it remains experimentally correct. SR is only relevant on what was then a very new regime of physics; it is, just as I said, a variation and a superset of Newtonian mechanics, which falls out in the limit c->infinity.

It would be more apt to consider Newtonian mechanics as an approximation of Relativity.

~H

Rach3

May28-06, 06:27 AM

Yes, but one additional element to this theory, as far as I can deduce is that bacterial atleast exhibit some characteristic of Lamarkian evolution. That mutations that are advantageous appear, while those that are not simply do not occur. See this link for more information; http://www.mun.ca/biochem/courses/4103/topics/adaptive_mutation.html

Apologies to silkworm for hijacking your thread.

~H

Interesting, a mechanism competing with natural selection. Hardly evidence that natural selection never occurs, or isn't universally observed... Theories become more sophisticated and accurate over time; while much is thrown out, experimental evidence is here to stay.

Rach3

May28-06, 06:28 AM

It would be more apt to consider Newtonian mechanics as an approximation of Relativity.

~H

That's what I did, you may have misread. Relativity extends Newtonian mechanics, which is recovered as c->infinity.

Rach3

May28-06, 06:31 AM

Or, as ID'ers would call it... Newtonism. :rofl:

Pengwuino

May28-06, 06:36 AM

What trap? :devil: Everywhere Newtonian mechanics was applied, it remains experimentally correct. SR is only relevant on what was then a very new regime of physics; it is, just as I said, a variation and a superset of Newtonian mechanics, which falls out in the limit c->infinity.

:confused: :confused: :confused: Thats a very small part of what Einstein changed.

Rach3

May28-06, 06:38 AM

:confused: :confused: :confused: Thats a very small part of what Einstein changed.

Then I'm afraid you haven't made your point clear at all. What are you thinking about, gravity? Photons? EPR paradox? In each case (GR, QM), there is a limit in which purely classical behavior is recovered - the only regime which was experimentally accessible before then.

Hootenanny

May28-06, 06:40 AM

:confused: :confused: :confused: Thats a very small part of what Einstein changed.

Exactly, GR for example completly changed our understanding of gravitation and our concept of space, time and motion.

~H

Rach3

May28-06, 06:44 AM

But Newton's laws remain valid! That was never in question. Civil engineers don't need differential geometry to do their stuff.

Pengwuino

May28-06, 06:46 AM

But Newton's laws remain valid! That was never in question.

Einstein didn't only theorize on gravity and motion...

Rach3

May28-06, 06:47 AM

Einstein didn't only theorize on gravity and motion...

That's obvious. What exactly is your point?

Hootenanny

May28-06, 06:48 AM

But Newton's laws remain valid! That was never in question. Civil engineers don't need differential geometry to do their stuff.

How about the mass - energy relationship? Before Einstein, they were considered seperate entities, completely unrelated.

~H

silkworm

May28-06, 06:53 AM

I think Rach3's point is that Newtonian physics still work when applied properly. So it wasn't proven wrong, it was just expanded.

Rach3

May28-06, 06:55 AM

How about the mass - energy relationship? Before Einstein, they were considered seperate entities, completely unrelated.

~H

Yes, the theory is completely different, our understanding of the universe changed drastically. The point is that the observations and phenomenology that were described by Newtonian mechanics, remain valid. They may be valid for completely wrong reasons, but they're still valid. My analogy was that, if evolutionary biology underwent an Einstein-like revolution, a lot of very important stuff would still be true - we'd still be seeing speciation, for instance. The new stuff might be far more predictive and general, but it couldn't contradict existing experimental observations.

Rach3

May28-06, 06:58 AM

Here's a relevant organization to this thread.

National Center for Science Education
Defending the Teaching of Evolution in the Public Schools

http://www.natcenscied.org/

silkworm

May28-06, 07:00 AM

Here's a relevant organization to this thread.

National Center for Science Education
Defending the Teaching of Evolution in the Public Schools

http://www.natcenscied.org/

Hey, thank you for the link. And, I just found the quote button. Things are looking up for me.

May28-06, 07:05 AM

If you want it to say "Originally posted by Rach3" then you can just copy his text that you want to cite, and put [quote=Rach3] and [ /quote] tags around it. (without the space)

silkworm

May28-06, 07:11 AM

Thanks Mk. I couldn't figure out how to pick and choose here, and I didn't see the quote button. I'm totally new here. I've posted a bit on other forums (the best of them being SFN), but I like the content here.

Note: I'm pretty much computer illiterate anymore, but I'm working on it.

StarkRavingMad

May28-06, 07:17 AM

Interesting, a mechanism competing with natural selection. Hardly evidence that natural selection never occurs, or isn't universally observed... Theories become more sophisticated and accurate over time; while much is thrown out, experimental evidence is here to stay.

The issue is that natural selection is not grounded in science. Sure there are plenty of ways to determine the age of the Earth at given points and trace transitional and intermediate fossils... but natural selection gets into claiming the motivations or purpose of those transitions. Once you get into the "Why?" of a topic, you're entering the realm of philosophy, not pure science. And in this case, it does not hold up when scrutinized too closely anyway. What Darwin attributed to survival, ID theorists ascribe to a higher purpose.

On the subject of Einstein and Newton... once again you're both right.

In the 19th century, people were locked into the tunnel vision view of Newton mechanics. It could be said that Einstein turned that view on its ear. Or it could be said that he only added to it. The latter kind of diminishes the importance of his word, imo. But regardless, in either case, he changed the way that we perceive and apply Newton's laws. Today we are struggling to come up with ways to reconcile them because they have both been "proven" true, yet they often appear to conflict.

The same could be said of the original topic.

Rach3

May28-06, 07:39 AM

In the 19th century, people were locked into the tunnel vision view of Newton mechanics. It could be said that Einstein turned that view on its ear. Or it could be said that he only added to it. The latter kind of diminishes the importance of his word, imo. But regardless, in either case, he changed the way that we perceive and apply Newton's laws. Today we are struggling to come up with ways to reconcile them because they have both been "proven" true, yet they often appear to conflict.

Newtonian mechanics is most definitely NOT in conflict with special (or general!) relativity - it smoothly falls out as a special case! And neither has been "proven" true - there's no such notion in experimental science.

The issue is that natural selection is not grounded in science...

Then propose an alternate mechanism(s) for antibiotic resistance, and find references to (or perform yourself) experiments which show that this mechanism(s) can in fact explain antibiotic resistance better than natural selection (which is generally accepted). Your paper must be peer-reviewed, of course - I'll accept Science, but Nature will also do.

The entirety of your post is unsubstantiated, and contradicts established science. I refer you to this forum's Posting Guidelines.

Rach3

May28-06, 07:47 AM

I just skimmed through the OP's blog, and WOW - man, learn to control your temper! :eek: Those are NOT productive remarks at all!

PIT2

May28-06, 07:57 AM

I plan on branching out to defending misrepresentations of science in other places, but those presented by the creationism/ID movement are the most pressing and hit closest to home so that's my current focus.

It is good to defend science, as long as u dont mistake it for an absolute path to truth, and thereby turn it into a religion of itself.

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

Study its strengths, weaknesses and boundaries for thy own good.

Rach3

May28-06, 08:07 AM

"Thy"? :uhh:

(you probably meant "thine", or even more probably, plain old "your")

PIT2

May28-06, 08:23 AM

I thought thy was old english ?
English isnt my first language so im probably mistaken.

Anyway, for thine own good then.

Rach3

May28-06, 08:30 AM

It is old english, and that's a problem. Use "your" unless you're being deliberately funny. :biggrin:

PIT2

May28-06, 08:47 AM

They were more like 'wise words' :biggrin:

silkworm

May28-06, 10:55 AM

I just skimmed through the OP's blog, and WOW - man, learn to control your temper! Those are NOT productive remarks at all!

Is this me? What are you talking about? Anything specific?

It is good to defend science, as long as u dont mistake it for an absolute path to truth, and thereby turn it into a religion of itself.

To me, religions have far different requirements that science can allow before being science anymore. Do you have any better suggestions? Any point?

silkworm

May28-06, 11:16 AM

I put this in a seperate post to make sure STARKRAVINGMAD saw it.

This is the third and final time I'm going to ask you, and if you don't answer this time I'll just assume you're not going to:

What is the definitive work of Intelligent Design?

I'm not looking for an attempt at a debate, I'm just looking for an answer.

Gokul43201

May28-06, 11:18 AM

The issue is that natural selection is not grounded in science. Sure there are plenty of ways to determine the age of the Earth at given points and trace transitional and intermediate fossils... but natural selection gets into claiming the motivations or purpose of those transitions. Once you get into the "Why?" of a topic, you're entering the realm of philosophy, not pure science. And in this case, it does not hold up when scrutinized too closely anyway. What Darwin attributed to survival, ID theorists ascribe to a higher purpose.Yikes ! You've been mislead. I take it you have not read any of the hundreds of papers published in mathematics, physics, biology, computer science and statistics journals that involve Bayesian analysis of distributions within large populations. Natural selection may have started off as nothing but a hypothesis based on initial observations (as virtually every successful physical model does), but it has mountains of evidence supporting it now - both observational, and purely theoretical. There is no philosophical handwaving involved. There is no "why ?" that is being answered.

As for most of the rest of this discussion, I concur with Rach - especially about the "pit" that Newtonian physics was supposedly in. The progress of science will strongly be rooted in the correspondence principle, and this will serve as a powerful test for any new development in science.

Evo

May28-06, 12:31 PM

No... it's not. Perhaps some people try to misuse it as such, just as secular humanists have glommed onto Darwin as their vehicle to take religion OUT of our society. But that is not how I understand ID's intent at all.You don't seem to know what ID really is, who created it, and the reasons behind it. It is exactly as Rach described. Their own "Wedge" document clearly startes their purpose, you've never read it?

Governing Goals

To defeat scientific materialism and its destructive moral, cultural and political legacies.

To replace materialistic explanations with the theistic understanding that nature and human beings are created by God.

The social consequences of materialism have been devastating. As symptoms, those consequences are certainly worth treating. However, we are convinced that in order to defeat materialism, we must cut it off at its source. That source is scientific materialism. This is precisely our strategy. If we view the predominant materialistic science as a giant tree, our strategy is intended to function as a "wedge" that, while relatively small, can split the trunk when applied at its weakest points. The very beginning of this strategy, the "thin edge of the wedge," was Phillip ]ohnson's critique of Darwinism begun in 1991 in Darwinism on Trial, and continued in Reason in the Balance and Defeatng Darwinism by Opening Minds. Michael Behe's highly successful Darwin's Black Box followed Johnson's work. We are building on this momentum, broadening the wedge with a positive scientific alternative to materialistic scientific theories, which has come to be called the theory of intelligent design (ID). Design theory promises to reverse the stifling dominance of the materialist worldview, and to replace it with a science consonant with Christian and theistic convictions.

http://www.public.asu.edu/~jmlynch/idt/wedge.html

PIT2

May28-06, 03:10 PM

To me, religions have far different requirements that science can allow before being science anymore. Do you have any better suggestions? Any point?

What requirements?

I said what i meant in my previous post pretty clearly. As soon as one believes science is the absolute path to truth, then one has granted science divine power.

silkworm

May28-06, 04:06 PM

What requirements?

I said what i meant in my previous post pretty clearly. As soon as one believes science is the absolute path to truth, then one has granted science divine power.

Well, and I mean this respectfully, the only thing with any power at all is nature. Science is what we use to study nature, and so is limited by its bounds. Religion requires some sort of superbeing or superforce outside of the bounds of nature.

I'd never marry science and religion because they are incompatable and science is what I value, simply because science studies where I am, including what I am. Inserting a superbeing or superforce into science degrades it to the point of no longer being functional.

I don't understand why you felt the need to make the statement you did. I can very much differentiate between reality and make believe.

StarkRavingMad

May28-06, 04:43 PM

None of what you've shown me in ID directly refutes the science of aging the Earth, examining fossils, or studying microbiology. ID seeks to correct the sociological changes that too many misguided men have created by mistreating this science. I read the same things and see a reconciliation of science and faith. But for some reason you all read the same thing through this filter because I guess it's so abhorrent to think of allegedly random chance as God's hand.

It's ironic that when you look at cosmology and physics, you see men of faith, Newton, Copernicus, Einstein, even Stephen Hawking, acknowleding God in everything they find. The entire field was founded on the premise of exploring and discovering God's methods.

Why is it so different here?

PIT2

May28-06, 05:17 PM

Well, and I mean this respectfully, the only thing with any power at all is nature. Science is what we use to study nature, and so is limited by its bounds. Religion requires some sort of superbeing or superforce outside of the bounds of nature.

But who is to say that nature is what science requires it to be in order to study it?

Inserting a superbeing or superforce into science degrades it to the point of no longer being functional.

Does nature care what is functional for us?
(No, since the limits of science do not determine what reality is.)

I don't understand why you felt the need to make the statement you did. I can very much differentiate between reality and make believe.

I am only pointing out a danger that I have seen people succumb to in creationism and ID debates. I dont know if any of it applies to u since i havent read anything uve written about creationism/ID, but just keep these simple and humbling facts in mind:

Was life created / designed? We dont know.
The universe? Idem dito.

Saying that it isnt science to state that it was designed / created, says nothing about whether it was designed / created. It only says something about science itself.

Rach3

May28-06, 09:04 PM

This thread is frayed in several directions; could I ask the Mods to seperate the posts which aree actually debating the validty of ID to be branched off, maybe into Biology or Skeptism & Debunking?

silkworm

May29-06, 01:45 AM

Hootenanny

May29-06, 10:58 AM

The difference is that science holds no position on the existence of God, and cannot do so because a supreme being cannot be controlled for. If you begin reading scientific journals, you'll be hard pressed to find weighing the existence of God in the conclusion of any article.

But then again, some people say that 'God' has no choice and therefore will make the same decision everytime when faced with a particular question, i.e. always the 'good' choice. If 'God' always makes the 'good' decsion then its 'actions' can be predicted.

~H

silkworm

May29-06, 11:55 AM

But then again, some people say that 'God' has no choice and therefore will make the same decision everytime when faced with a particular question, i.e. always the 'good' choice. If 'God' always makes the 'good' decsion then its 'actions' can be predicted.

~H

Well, I've always had huge amounts of faith in the thoughts of "some people." Some people would wonder, myself included, why would anyone make such an exception, such an edit? What proof would they have? What would be the point?

I could also say God is the Hamburgler from McDonald's, but is too busy stealing Big Macs to make decisions right now.

Or, I could just not worry about it and conduct my experiments and come to my conclusions based on data and not... whatever that is.

I suppose you could do any of those things and still conduct decent science, I just don't know why you'd need to.

silkworm

May31-06, 07:21 PM

But who is to say that nature is what science requires it to be in order to study it?

Does nature care what is functional for us?
(No, since the limits of science do not determine what reality is.)

I am only pointing out a danger that I have seen people succumb to in creationism and ID debates. I dont know if any of it applies to u since i havent read anything uve written about creationism/ID, but just keep these simple and humbling facts in mind:

Was life created / designed? We dont know.
The universe? Idem dito.

Saying that it isnt science to state that it was designed / created, says nothing about whether it was designed / created. It only says something about science itself.

Did I respond to this already? I thought I did, but i can't find the post.

Who knows if science goes far enough, but we do know that it works without the consideration of the supernatural, why fix what isn't broke?

Science is limited to nature.

silkworm

May31-06, 07:23 PM

I just skimmed through the OP's blog, and WOW - man, learn to control your temper! :eek: Those are NOT productive remarks at all!

Rach3, I'm still waiting for a response on this. If you're going to make a statement like this, please qualify it.

Rach3

May31-06, 07:27 PM

Okay then...
At the end I asked, "Are you expecting to be held accountable for endorsing misreprentations and lies about science?"

He asked, "What lies or misreprentations?"

I said, "We've been addressing them and these meetings are so saturated with lies and misreprentations of science I don't see how anyone honest can endorse them."

He asked for me to give him something specific and we could address it and get to the bottom of it.

I said, "These presentations are so vulgarly scientifically inaccurate to address them you'd win by time limitations alone."https://silkworm.wordpress.com/2006/04/21/corr-reposted-from-april-21-2006/

:uhh:

silkworm

May31-06, 07:35 PM

Okay then...
https://silkworm.wordpress.com/2006/04/21/corr-reposted-from-april-21-2006/

:uhh:

Yeah, I know that looks like I'm not saying anything, but I'd already established there were several misrepresentations, and at the meeting I did so as well, constantly bringing up points. Saying it out right and watching them act like, "What are you talking about?" led me to say that as default because they didn't have any accountability.

Either way, I'm not sure what the alarm is about on your end.

Rach3

May31-06, 08:53 PM

It is utterly irresponsible to patronize your audience like that - it doesn't even have a semblance of public speaking in it. You're not addressing the audience there or even the speaker; you're talking to yourself. If you have to resort to colorful public insults, you might as well not show up at all.

silkworm

May31-06, 08:55 PM

No, I am talking to the speaker? What are you talking about?

Rach3

May31-06, 09:00 PM

Not addressing the speaker - you are not in any reasonble way attempting to communicate to him, or the audience. You're venting anger in a public display - that's not communication.

silkworm

May31-06, 09:03 PM

I was talking to him? I can't give a verbatim breakdown of the entire meeting, these things last 3 hours, and then I'm there 2 hours afterwards. I can only recap what I remember. If it's not clear I was talking to speaker and had been talking to him for awhile.

Rach3

May31-06, 09:09 PM

silkworm

May31-06, 09:18 PM

I interpret from your own account of events, you can hardly accuse that source of being unfair to you. You should figure out what your goals are at these places - are you merely there to feel self-righteous and throw around insults? Or do want to appear as a cool-headed representative of science, patiently and methodically refuting points, convincing the audience of your argument with earnest rhetoric? The sleaze and demagogy of the I.D.'er in stark counterpoint to your own straight-talking reason?

I'm not accusing the source of being unfair to me. This is what happened, I told them against about misrepresentations of science. I had been delivering examples throughout and I mentioned it. They pretended like I didn't know what I was talking about. I just don't understand why you're acting kneejerk over this. Do you have some sort of chip on your shoulder over me or something? What's the deal? Your interpretation seems bizarre as do your assumptions about me.

Rach3

May31-06, 09:20 PM

They pretended like I didn't know what I was talking about.

That answer your question?

It is absolutely unproductive to ouright tell your speaker he's a liar, especially if it's true!. It makes you look bad, turns off your audience, demolishes your image, and as a good actor he brushes you right off. Fair? Not at all. If you don't know what else to do, I'm afraid I can't help you.

silkworm

May31-06, 09:28 PM

Actually, me saying that had him make a concession that we focus on one thing and one thing only at future meetings so this won't happen. It was really the best I could do at the time, as my ally and I were hoping for that. That's the "shotgun sprays" thing he said.

Anyway, thanks for answering.

cronxeh

Jun1-06, 02:23 AM

(Hello physics forums. I absolutely love the level of discussion here, and I look forward to contributing as soon as I figure out what you're all talking about.)

I attend creationism/ID meetings to defend against misrepresentations of science. Since there is no debate, I don't attend to do so, I just go expecting a valid scientific argument, explain why what was delivered wasn't one, and point out any misrepresentations of science presented at these meetings. I am blogging my experiences doing so here:

https://silkworm.wordpress.com/

I plan on branching out to defending misrepresentations of science in other places, but those presented by the creationism/ID movement are the most pressing and hit closest to home so that's my current focus.

Science doesnt need to defend itself, and by attending such meeting you give them substance of recognition. Ignore the ignorami and be blissful.

silkworm

Jun1-06, 11:36 AM

Science doesnt need to defend itself, and by attending such meeting you give them substance of recognition. Ignore the ignorami and be blissful.

It really does need defending, I live in a democratic nation and the demographic that supports this attack on science also elected our president. Ignoring the problem will not make it go away, it obviously only makes it worse. I believe the Dawkins Method as well, however a point should be made that a debate is impossible unitl the 2 sides meet. I refuse to have theological discussions, but I will participate in a scientific argument - but before I do valid science must be presented and valid scientific teminology must be used. When the discussion goes theological, I don't participate because it's not my area.

I'm not giving them a podium, I just go and tell those who are looking for a scientific argument why a valid one has not been presented, and the one that was presented was a lie.

silkworm

Jun2-06, 01:33 AM

Well, the plot just thickened. CORR is planning to have guest speakers via CCTV, the first being Dr. Lucas and they hope to have Dr. David Menton, etc.

cronxeh

Jun3-06, 04:23 PM

It really does need defending, I live in a democratic nation and the demographic that supports this attack on science also elected our president. Ignoring the problem will not make it go away, it obviously only makes it worse. I believe the Dawkins Method as well, however a point should be made that a debate is impossible unitl the 2 sides meet. I refuse to have theological discussions, but I will participate in a scientific argument - but before I do valid science must be presented and valid scientific teminology must be used. When the discussion goes theological, I don't participate because it's not my area.

I'm not giving them a podium, I just go and tell those who are looking for a scientific argument why a valid one has not been presented, and the one that was presented was a lie.

It takes intelligence to understand higher truth. Would you play chess with a gorilla? So why are you trying to level with the theologians? IMHO, they are all obsolete generations walking amongst us. You'd think I'm young and arrogant, but work in ER for a while and you'll come to terms with "some people are too stupid to live" statement.

http://cronx.freeshell.org/hehe.jpg

PIT2

Jun5-06, 07:08 AM

Who knows if science goes far enough, but we do know that it works without the consideration of the supernatural, why fix what isn't broke?

The question of the origin of life, the universe, etc. have not been answered by science. Faith that science one day will answer this and that the answer will be what one believes it will be, is still merely faith.

A monk might well say that his meditation skills arent broken, so why fix what isnt broken? Why search for a supernatural physical explanation for his experiences, like "electrons collided and viola: the experience is born"?

Btw u might want to u avoid using the natural/supernatural wording (however bizarre some ideas may be), because in essence this simply boils down to circular reasoning. We just cannot decide in up front what nature is, without knowing what it is.

silkworm

Jun5-06, 07:13 AM

It takes intelligence to understand higher truth. Would you play chess with a gorilla? So why are you trying to level with the theologians? IMHO, they are all obsolete generations walking amongst us. You'd think I'm young and arrogant, but work in ER for a while and you'll come to terms with "some people are too stupid to live" statement.

http://cronx.freeshell.org/hehe.jpg

The supporters are generally good people who were raised in a culture that demonized science and they were lied to about it. They also vote.

silkworm

Jun5-06, 07:15 AM

The question of the origin of life, the universe, etc. have not been answered by science. Faith that science one day will answer this and that the answer will be what one believes it will be, is still merely faith.

A monk might well say that his meditation skills arent broken, so why fix what isnt broken? Why search for a supernatural physical explanation for his experiences, like "electrons collided and viola: the experience is born"?

Btw u might want to u avoid using the natural/supernatural wording (however bizarre some ideas may be), because in essence this simply boils down to circular reasoning. We just cannot decide in up front what nature is, without knowing what it is.

Here's a little help.

Dictionary.com:

Nature:

1. The material world and its phenomena.
2. The forces and processes that produce and control all the phenomena of the material world: the laws of nature.
3. The world of living things and the outdoors: the beauties of nature.
4. A primitive state of existence, untouched and uninfluenced by civilization or artificiality: couldn't tolerate city life anymore and went back to nature.
5. Theology. Humankind's natural state as distinguished from the state of grace.
6. A kind or sort: confidences of a personal nature.
7. The essential characteristics and qualities of a person or thing: “She was only strong and sweet and in her nature when she was really deep in trouble” (Gertrude Stein).
8. The fundamental character or disposition of a person; temperament: “Strange natures made a brotherhood of ill” (Percy Bysshe Shelley).
9. The natural or real aspect of a person, place, or thing. See Synonyms at disposition.
10. The processes and functions of the body.

Supernatural:

1. Of or relating to existence outside the natural world.
2. Attributed to a power that seems to violate or go beyond natural forces.
3. Of or relating to a deity.
4. Of or relating to the immediate exercise of divine power; miraculous.
5. Of or relating to the miraculous.

Basically, if something exists physically inside of our material universe we can test it because it is not supernatural, otherwise it is outside the realm of science. This is easy to understand.

PIT2

Jun5-06, 07:34 AM

Basically, if something exists physically inside of our material universe we can test it because it is not supernatural, otherwise it is outside the realm of science. This is easy to understand.

So the big bang was a supernatural event (or had a supernatural cause) and we human beings have a supernatural consciousness?

Also do u mean that what is outside the realm of science is supernatural?

silkworm

Jun5-06, 08:18 AM

So the big bang was a supernatural event (or had a supernatural cause) and we human beings have a supernatural consciousness?

Also do u mean that what is outside the realm of science is supernatural?

What would make the big bang a supernatural event?

PIT2

Jun5-06, 08:21 AM

What would make the big bang a supernatural event?
Its cause does not exist inside our material universe?

But anyway, we both know that intelligent beings exist in our universe, so everything may still be caused by an intelligent being and still not be supernatural. It may in fact be supernatural to create intelligences from non-intelligences :biggrin:

It is pointless deciding up front what nature is...

silkworm

Jun5-06, 03:45 PM

Its cause does not exist inside our material universe?

But anyway, we both know that intelligent beings exist in our universe, so everything may still be caused by an intelligent being and still not be supernatural. It may in fact be supernatural to create intelligences from non-intelligences :biggrin:

It is pointless deciding up front what nature is...

It's cause does not exist inside out material universe? Can you scientifically support that?

If there is an intelligent being that exists in our universe that did somehow designed the living things on this planet, where is your support for it? Should we just trust your judgement?

What do you mean it may in fact be supernatural to create intelligences from nonintelligences? If it exists in the material universe, scientific data and methodology can support it. It can also falsify it. If such a thing is falsified, it can no longer be a scientific theory.

Again, this isn't difficult to understand.

cronxeh

Jun5-06, 03:51 PM

The supporters are generally good people who were raised in a culture that demonized science and they were lied to about it. They also vote.

And since when is this a true democracy? :rofl:

silkworm

Jun5-06, 06:29 PM

And since when is this a true democracy? :rofl:

Cronxeh, look at who's in power, look at who voted for them, and look at who supports creationism/ID.

Do you see any similarities? There is cause for alarm.

rcgldr

Jun5-06, 07:26 PM

Gokul43201

Jun5-06, 08:03 PM

It is pointless deciding up front what nature is...And it is theology that does this, not science. Science utilizes a systematic approach to investigate nature and make deductions that fit observations.

silkworm

Jun6-06, 03:02 AM

Is there any evidence that demonstrates that mutations are truly random, as least in the cases where natural selection isn't eliminating a sub-species?

Assuming life started out as a single cell plant / animal, does random mutation explain the process that resulted in a huge range of variety and sophistication of living things, taking into account the amount of time living things and their energy sources have existed on earth?

Pardon me, I'm not sure I totally understand your question.

Mutations in genetic information do occur, and as long as these mutations do not make the organism suffer a premature death or make it unable to reproduce, these mutations will spread throughout its species, even without natural selection eliminating some organisms and favoring others.

For more information, I'd consult the Hardy–Weinberg equilibrium (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hardy-Weinberg), which is mathematical and does not assume selection (but also does not assume mutation), and a study of DNA replication.

PIT2

Jun6-06, 07:22 AM

And it is theology that does this, not science. Science utilizes a systematic approach to investigate nature and make deductions that fit observations.

Exactly my point. As soon as one, in the name of defending science, starts calling some things supernatural and other things natural, then one has turned science into a religion.

For instance, when one decides up front that it is supernatural for the universe or life to have been created, then one is making a statement no different from the statements religious people often make (saying that it is supernatural (ridiculous) that the universe or life werent designed).

So yes, technically science isnt a religion. However, i understand fully how some people (without knowing it) can turn science into a religious view of reality. For instance take this article below: http://www.physorg.com/news68731082.html

It discusses the possible options for why the universe is such an improbable cosmic coincidence. Because this is a scientific source, nowhere does it mention that there does infact exist the possibility that the universe might have been created. I can understand that people who read such literature their entire lifes may start to develop the misconception that "because the scientific literature doesnt mention this option, it simply is not an option!".

PIT2

Jun6-06, 07:34 AM

It's cause does not exist inside out material universe? Can you scientifically support that?

Did matter exist at the moment of the big bang?

If there is an intelligent being that exists in our universe that did somehow designed the living things on this planet, where is your support for it? Should we just trust your judgement?

What judgement?
U seemed to be claiming that it is somehow supernatural when intelligence designs 'life' (as opposed to 'computers' or anything else). Im saying that in order to make those judgements, one has to know what nature is.

Deciding up front that life wasnt designed, because science requires it not to be designed, doesnt make non-design true. In fact, it only says something about ones belief-system and is no different from a religious person believing that god designed life.

Similarly, when a painter discovers that he cant create sculptures with his brushes, he shouldnt claim that sculptures are supernatural or that they dont exist.

If it exists in the material universe, scientific data and methodology can support it. It can also falsify it. If such a thing is falsified, it can no longer be a scientific theory.

Thats fine, but it still says nothing about whether something is supernatural or not.
Unless u mean to say that nature is limited by what science can measure (in which case, again, our consciousness is supernatural)

Talking about falsification, can u tell me how abiogenesis is falsified?

rcgldr

Jun6-06, 09:13 AM

Is there any evidence that demonstrates that mutations are truly random, as least in the cases where natural selection isn't eliminating a sub-species?

Mutations in genetic information do occur, and as long as these mutations do not make the organism suffer a premature death or make it unable to reproduce, these mutations will spread throughout its species, even without natural selection eliminating some organisms and favoring others.In higher life forms, this mutation would have to affect the reproductive cells. In the case of human females, it's my understanding that all of the eggs are made before birth, so it's unlikely mutations would affect human eggs, leaving only male reproductive cells, which include a somewhat random sub-set of genes, so the mutation would have to affect the production of reproduction cells. I don't know if other species share this same trait.

But back to my basic question, do the patterns of mutations seem to be random, or do they seem to be biased towards "improvements"? Again, limiting this to the cases where any new sub-species survives and isn't killed off by the environment it's introduced into.

silkworm

Jun6-06, 02:29 PM

Exactly my point. As soon as one, in the name of defending science, starts calling some things supernatural and other things natural, then one has turned science into a religion.

For instance, when one decides up front that it is supernatural for the universe or life to have been created, then one is making a statement no different from the statements religious people often make (saying that it is supernatural (ridiculous) that the universe or life werent designed).

So yes, technically science isnt a religion. However, i understand fully how some people (without knowing it) can turn science into a religious view of reality. For instance take this article below: http://www.physorg.com/news68731082.html

It discusses the possible options for why the universe is such an improbable cosmic coincidence. Because this is a scientific source, nowhere does it mention that there does infact exist the possibility that the universe might have been created. I can understand that people who read such literature their entire lifes may start to develop the misconception that "because the scientific literature doesnt mention this option, it simply is not an option!".

It's not difficult to comprehend the difference between natural and supernatural. I even gave you some very simple definitions to help point that out, and I don't know why you've ignored them. It's pretty self explanatory because it's so obvious. I don't know why you're taking such an issue with this. To insert the actions of deities into science would make it a religion, but science does not do that, it only sticks to scientific methodology and is limited to the physical universe.

silkworm

Jun6-06, 02:43 PM

Did matter exist at the moment of the big bang?

What judgement?
U seemed to be claiming that it is somehow supernatural when intelligence designs 'life' (as opposed to 'computers' or anything else). Im saying that in order to make those judgements, one has to know what nature is.

Deciding up front that life wasnt designed, because science requires it not to be designed, doesnt make non-design true. In fact, it only says something about ones belief-system and is no different from a religious person believing that god designed life.

Similarly, when a painter discovers that he cant create sculptures with his brushes, he shouldnt claim that sculptures are supernatural or that they dont exist.

Thats fine, but it still says nothing about whether something is supernatural or not.
Unless u mean to say that nature is limited by what science can measure (in which case, again, our consciousness is supernatural)

Talking about falsification, can u tell me how abiogenesis is falsified?

The time before the big bang is an extrapolation based on scientific methodology, data, and is limited to the physical universe. So, it is still scientific and it has support.

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

I'm not saying that an alien source for the design of life on this planet would be a supernatural source, however, for such an idea to become accepted science you must first find support for it. Where is it?

Science does not require that life not be designed, it only requires that if it is designed it has to be designed from a natural source and to be accepted as science, it must have support.

Your arguments weak and apparently biased. Your analogy about the sculpture is comical in its irony. When something is falsified it is because it was falsified, not because a supernatural part of the theory was discovered. Take Haeckel for example. He lost his support for biogenetic law by better observation of an organism's development in the embryo, not because it existed outside of the limits of nature.

I can't tell you how abiogenesis can be falsified, because it does have support. It is not a theory. It simply the generation of life from nonliving things, and does not appear to comment on whether or not it IS the source of life on this planet, just that it is possible.

silkworm

Jun6-06, 03:00 PM

In higher life forms, this mutation would have to affect the reproductive cells. In the case of human females, it's my understanding that all of the eggs are made before birth, so it's unlikely mutations would affect human eggs, leaving only male reproductive cells, which include a somewhat random sub-set of genes, so the mutation would have to affect the production of reproduction cells. I don't know if other species share this same trait.

But back to my basic question, do the patterns of mutations seem to be random, or do they seem to be biased towards "improvements"? Again, limiting this to the cases where any new sub-species survives and isn't killed off by the environment it's introduced into.

Females are not born with all of their eggs. They actually continually produce them until menopause. I can understand why you'd think that, as most of the public thinks that females are born with all of their eggs. I thought so for a long time, but I didn't have that cleared up until I studied a bit of current biology.

I'm not sure what you mean by subspecies and I'm not entirely sure by what you mean improvements. I assume by improvements you mean mutations that will make an organism more fit for its environment. The answer is no. There are constantly harmful (debilitating birth defects) or relatively moot mutations that does not "improve" the organism.

PIT2

Jun7-06, 05:18 AM

It's not difficult to comprehend the difference between natural and supernatural. I even gave you some very simple definitions to help point that out, and I don't know why you've ignored them.

The definitions u gave were flawed and boiled down to circular reasoning.

It's pretty self explanatory because it's so obvious. I don't know why you're taking such an issue with this. To insert the actions of deities into science would make it a religion, but science does not do that, it only sticks to scientific methodology and is limited to the physical universe.

And as i said before, the limits of science do not determine what is natural.

silkworm

Jun7-06, 05:30 AM

The definitions u gave were flawed and boiled down to circular reasoning.

And as i said before, the limits of science do not determine what is natural.

You're going to have to qualify these statements if you want me to respond. As of right now, there's nothing to say. This whole conversation seems to have degraded into, "I know you are, but what am I?"

There's no circular reasoning involved. Science is limited to the natural universe. I'm sorry if that's hard to take, but it's the only way it can work.

PIT2

Jun7-06, 05:31 AM

Science does not require that life not be designed, it only requires that if it is designed it has to be designed from a natural source and to be accepted as science, it must have support.

What is natural?
Can u think of a 'design' theory which is scientific?

Your arguments weak and apparently biased. Your analogy about the sculpture is comical in its irony. When something is falsified it is because it was falsified, not because a supernatural part of the theory was discovered. Take Haeckel for example. He lost his support for biogenetic law by better observation of an organism's development in the embryo, not because it existed outside of the limits of nature.

My analogy hit the nail right on its head :smile:
Again u talk of natural and supernatural, without explaining what the two are. The explanation u gave turned us all into supernatural (conscious)beings btw.

These statements come forth from a religious belief which many seem to have about what nature is, while the truth is that we do not know what nature is. This belief is, sadly, based on a method called science, which is used as a tool to investigate reality.

Similarly, a painter uses a tool to paint his paintings. If he decided up front that what his brushes can paint is natural, and that which they cannot paint is supernatural, then sculptures are supernatural.

Its a simple analogy but effective in the that way it shows how ridiculous it is to claim that one knows what is natural and what is supernatural.

I can't tell you how abiogenesis can be falsified, because it does have support. It is not a theory. It simply the generation of life from nonliving things, and does not appear to comment on whether or not it IS the source of life on this planet, just that it is possible.

Are u saying there is no scientific theory for the origin of life?

PIT2

Jun7-06, 05:34 AM

There's no circular reasoning involved. Science is limited to the natural universe. I'm sorry if that's hard to take, but it's the only way it can work.

U may find this little quote interesting:

Let us look more closely at the definition for methodological naturalism from Wikipedia:

[Methodological naturalism] underlies the application of the scientific method in science, which makes the methodological assumption that observable events in nature are explained only by natural causes, without assuming the existence or non-existence of the supernatural, and hence does not accept supernatural explanations for such events.

Ok, fair enough. So far so good. Let's dig a bit further, to Wikipedia's definition of the supernatural:

The supernatural as distinct from nature

In this, the most common view, the term supernatural is contrasted with the term natural, which presumes that some events occur according to natural laws, and others do not, because they are caused by forces external to nature. Some believe in forces beyond what is commonly considered natural while others believe all forces can be described as natural.

So there we have it. Methodological naturalism is described as science investigating nature, pragmatically, ignoring supernatural explanations. And the supernatural is defined as forces outside of nature. Circular definitions, each defining itself in terms of the other. What a load of rubbish!

rcgldr

Jun7-06, 06:22 AM

Females are not born with all of their eggs. They actually continually produce them until menopause. I can understand why you'd think that, as most of the public thinks that females are born with all of their eggs.Only because I've read and heard this a lot from so called biologists. How did this line of thinking get started?

I'm not sure what you mean by subspecies and I'm not entirely sure by what you mean improvements. I assume by improvements you mean mutations that will make an organism more fit for its environment. The answer is no. There are constantly harmful (debilitating birth defects) or relatively moot mutations that does not "improve" the organism.I thought that most birth defects aren't due to mutations, but due to bad timing in the chemical signals that cause cells to specialize. There are some gene related defects, like getting extra chromosones, such as Down's syndrome, but I'm not sure where the extra chromosone originates from, the mother, the father, or during embryo developement.

Maybe it would be better asked "has there been a equal trend towards simpler life forms due to mutations as well as more sophisticated ones". Could humans "evolve" back into amoebas?

other questions:

Is there an accepted idea for just how often true mutations that result in a new species occur (how many years per mutation on average)?

Is there an explantion for the transition from single celled plant / animals to multi-celled plant / animals? This seems like the first critical step in evolution. The next step would seem to be the development of a nervous system and brain for animals.

A bit off topic here, but how do amoeba's "sense" food and capture it, with no apparent nervous system?

silkworm

Jun7-06, 06:47 AM

What is natural?
Can u think of a 'design' theory which is scientific?

My analogy hit the nail right on its head :smile:
Again u talk of natural and supernatural, without explaining what the two are. The explanation u gave turned us all into supernatural (conscious)beings btw.

These statements come forth from a religious belief which many seem to have about what nature is, while the truth is that we do not know what nature is. This belief is, sadly, based on a method called science, which is used as a tool to investigate reality.

Similarly, a painter uses a tool to paint his paintings. If he decided up front that what his brushes can paint is natural, and that which they cannot paint is supernatural, then sculptures are supernatural.

Its a simple analogy but effective in the that way it shows how ridiculous it is to claim that one knows what is natural and what is supernatural.

Are u saying there is no scientific theory for the origin of life?

Nature is the natural universe. The supernatural exists outside of nature and cannot be controlled by natural means. It also can not be tested. For example, Santa Claus can not be tested. Unicorn evolution will not be present in the fossil record. We can't study the devil to see how he can take the heat, nor can we measure the temperature of Hell.

A good example of this was given to my by my friend recently. If you pick something up and let go of it, you know it's going to fall because of the theory of gravity. It's been tested, in our universe, over and over again. You can't as a scientist say that God is simply pushing the objects down because you can't prove it, and you also can't control God to see what would happen if he weren't pushing them down. You can't measure God's contribution to falling objects, and you can't control for the effect of any supernatural force on the object because it can not be controlled.

As I said in previous posts, a 'design' argument could made scientifically as being done by an extraterrestrial, not supernatural, being or beings. These aliens would exist in our universe. HOWEVER, for such an argument to have validity, scientifically, it would have to be supported scientifically. Also, I feel I must note, that this design argument would have to explain everything that the theory of evolution explains, and does not solve the problem of their origin.

Conciousness is part of the natural universe. It is generally studied in the realm of psychology and neurology. It is governed by our physical universe, and so can be, and is, tested by science.

Your analogy is still a weak one. But let's stick to the assumption he can only paints what he can see. Sculptures would not be supernatural because your painter's experiences are based in the 3 dimensional objects that he does experience. Because of that, a sculpture would exist in nature, a nature he cannot escape, and if he paints what he can see, he is painting 3D objects, which is what a sculpture is, even if he paints it in 2D. Similarly, if he gives what he paints the appearance of depth he is painting in 3D as a sculpture exists. As he is painting what is real, he cannot paint the supernatural, because he can not experience the supernatural, as in he can't paint a portrait of God because he can not see God.

Abiogenesis is just a term for the spontaneous generation of life from nonliving things, and I mean spontaneous in the scientific sense. There is not currently a THEORY of how this occured on this planet, but different possibilities have support. They are also based in natural explainations.

silkworm

Jun7-06, 07:04 AM

U may find this little quote interesting:

No, the quote isn't interesting. It's weak.

We can only eat other organisms for food. What is a rock? A rock is a naturally occuring mineral. Can we eat it? No, it is not an organism. Why? Because it is not alive.

silkworm

Jun7-06, 07:26 AM

Only because I've read and heard this a lot from so called biologists. How did this line of thinking get started?

I thought that most birth defects aren't due to mutations, but due to bad timing in the chemical signals that cause cells to specialize. There are some gene related defects, like getting extra chromosones, such as Down's syndrome, but I'm not sure where the extra chromosone originates from, the mother, the father, or during embryo developement.

Maybe it would be better asked "has there been a equal trend towards simpler life forms due to mutations as well as more sophisticated ones". Could humans "evolve" back into amoebas?

other questions:

Is there an accepted idea for just how often true mutations that result in a new species occur (how many years per mutation on average)?

Is there an explantion for the transition from single celled plant / animals to multi-celled plant / animals? This seems like the first critical step in evolution. The next step would seem to be the development of a nervous system and brain for animals.

A bit off topic here, but how do amoeba's "sense" food and capture it, with no apparent nervous system?

I think the thing about the eggs still being produced throughout the life of a female mammal is relatively new. The oldest source I found on it was from 2004 and it occured in mice. I know that this is also supported by human females, but I can't find a source on it.

That's a good question about humans evolving back into a single celled organism. In principle, I don't see why it could not happen, but I could see how it would definitely take some doing. If I find some time I'll look around for something I can find on that, because anything I say here of why it would or wouldn't would simply be equivocation on my part.

As for mutation rate, I couldn't remember the number (I was thinking 1/700,000, but I wasn't sure) so I pulled this off of wikkipedia's article on mutation rates:

The human mutation rate is higher in the male germ line (sperm) than the female (egg cells), but is generally on the order of 10-8 (1 in 100 million) per nucleotide per generation[1]. Specifically, mutation rate in eukaryotes is in general 10-4 to 10-6, and for bacteria and phages the rate is 10-5 to 10-7 per gene per generation[2].

I don't think you can calculate how many mutations it takes for a speciation to occur because there are so many factors to consider, including what the mutation effects. I do know from the work of Phil Gingerich that the evolution (though not necessarily a speciation) can occur at a rate of 0.1 of a standard deviation per generation. For more information on that, I'd recommend you consulting Dr. Gingerich's work yourself because it's too involved for me to get into here.

I don't know what the evolutionary step from multicelled organism, from there to plant, from there to animal occured. But I believe the current thinking about single celled to multicellular organism is through colonies of single celled organisms. That is, single celled organisms living together like a large number of siamese twin. If you've never seen one in a microscope, I reccommend it. They're interesting.

An amoeba is a single celled organism, so it's message doesn't need to travel, it's already there.

PIT2

Jun7-06, 07:47 AM

We can only eat other organisms for food. What is a rock? A rock is a naturally occuring mineral. Can we eat it? No, it is not an organism. Why? Because it is not alive.

Actually, we can eat rocks :rofl:

silkworm

Jun7-06, 07:57 AM

Actually, we can eat rocks :rofl:

You can, but they're not a food source. If you don't believe me, go on an all rock diet and see how long you live. The point is the reason why a rock is not a food source is because it is not an organism (plant or animal).

Rach3

Jun7-06, 08:09 AM

You can, but they're not a food source. If you don't believe me, go on an all rock diet and see how long you live. The point is the reason why a rock is not a food source is because it is not an organism (plant or animal).

That's not a very useful classification. For example, bacteria at ocean vents subsist by oxidizing inorganic chemicals like H2S, see
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chemosynthesis.

PIT2

Jun7-06, 08:15 AM

Nature is the natural universe. The supernatural exists outside of nature and cannot be controlled by natural means. It also can not be tested.

Tested how? U mean by scientific methods?
Did u just say that the limits of science determine what is natural?

And does something being 'natural' proclude it from being 'designed' or being 'intelligent'?

As I said in previous posts, a 'design' argument could made scientifically as being done by an extraterrestrial, not supernatural, being or beings. These aliens would exist in our universe. HOWEVER, for such an argument to have validity, scientifically, it would have to be supported scientifically. Also, I feel I must note, that this design argument would have to explain everything that the theory of evolution explains, and does not solve the problem of their origin.
(just a note: if god doesnt come from earth, then he would be an alien.)
Remember all those scientists who kept saying that if there were life elsewhere, we may not even recognise it because it might not look like life on earth? Similarly, id say that we may not recognise intelligence(s) elsewhere, because it may not resemble the things we call intelligent.

If nature turned out to be intelligent, then is nature supernatural?
That would be a bit odd wouldnt it?

Conciousness is part of the natural universe. It is generally studied in the realm of psychology and neurology. It is governed by our physical universe, and so can be, and is, tested by science.

Then prove to me that u are conscious. Also prove that consciousness is governed by physical laws, because as of yet, not a single physical law describes or predicts anything even remotely like consciousness. Furthermore, the (supposed) origin of consciousness is incorperated in the theory of evolution (by enthusiastic proponents at least) as nothing more than a miracle (one which completely overshadows the 'jesus-walks-on-water' miracle).

But ok, lets suppose that consciousness is natural - with which i fully agree (though it wasnt according to ur definitions of natural and supernatural)- then what do u suppose a god is? Could god perhaps be some kind of consciousness that exists and creates things much like our own consciousness creates things? Why could god then not be natural aswell?

Your analogy is still a weak one. But let's stick to the assumption he can only paints what he can see. Sculptures would not be supernatural because your painter's experiences are based in the 3 dimensional objects that he does experience. Because of that, a sculpture would exist in nature, a nature he cannot escape, and if he paints what he can see, he is painting 3D objects, which is what a sculpture is, even if he paints it in 2D.

But wait a second. Nature was defined as being what the painter can paint with his brushes. Ur statement 'a sculpture would exist in nature' is thus false according to the analogy - it is supernatural and exists outside of nature.

Also, painting a 2D image is not the same as creating a sculpture.
I can make a drawing of god creating life, but that doesnt turn it into the origin of life on earth.

Abiogenesis is just a term for the spontaneous generation of life from nonliving things, and I mean spontaneous in the scientific sense. There is not currently a THEORY of how this occured on this planet, but different possibilities have support. They are also based in natural explainations.

I know a few billion people who also have an explanation for how life originated. They have lots of support also.

silkworm

Jun7-06, 06:07 PM

That's not a very useful classification. For example, bacteria at ocean vents subsist by oxidizing inorganic chemicals like H2S, see
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chemosynthesis.

Well, he's not a bacteria is he? I suppose I should have put methane and the sun as well, in case he had chloroplasts. I assumed he's a motile, multicellular organism, which only leads me to think he's a animal. Is that a poor assumption?

silkworm

Jun7-06, 07:30 PM

Tested how? U mean by scientific methods?
Did u just say that the limits of science determine what is natural?

The limits of science are what is testable. All that is testable is in our universe. Hello?

And does something being 'natural' proclude it from being 'designed' or being 'intelligent'?

No, it certainly doesn't. We're both in nature, as is water. You can get poetic and say that both are 'designed' by physical laws, which dictates all matter.

(just a note: if god doesnt come from earth, then he would be an alien.)

That's sort of true. If God can be detected in the natural universe, he would be an alien. But then what's to keep us from calling any alien God?

If nature turned out to be intelligent, then is nature supernatural?

Okay. This is the last time I'm going to respond to a statement like this, and if you do it again I'm leaving this conversation.

Intelligence does not make something supernatural. I never said that.

Then prove to me that u are conscious. Also prove that consciousness is governed by physical laws, because as of yet, not a single physical law describes or predicts anything even remotely like consciousness. Furthermore, the (supposed) origin of consciousness is incorperated in the theory of evolution (by enthusiastic proponents at least) as nothing more than a miracle (one which completely overshadows the 'jesus-walks-on-water' miracle).

We can prove that we are concious by exposing ourselves to random stimuli and reporting simular results of what we experience. And then further support it by repeating it with other people. consciousness is governed my physical laws because 1) touching certain parts of the brain causes certain responses (famously, the smell of coffee) 2) it can be further supported by the fact that the brain is made of material that we know follow the laws of the physical universe 3) We can measure the brain activity during thought.

I'd like to see your source on the evolution of consciousness. It was probably not a primary source as there are no "miracles" in science, only what is "not well understood." Of course, in science, "miracle" is poetic language for "not well understood".

But ok, lets suppose that consciousness is natural - with which i fully agree (though it wasnt according to ur definitions of natural and supernatural)

Test... Did you read this?

- then what do u suppose a god is? Could god perhaps be some kind of consciousness that exists and creates things much like our own consciousness creates things? Why could god then not be natural aswell?

What I suppose a God is is moot. I can not test for God or control for God so I can not consider God in a scientific investigation. If you can think of a way to either test or control for God, scientifically, please let me know.

But wait a second. Nature was defined as being what the painter can paint with his brushes. Ur statement 'a sculpture would exist in nature' is thus false according to the analogy - it is supernatural and exists outside of nature.

Then the painter would he himself be supernatural, as would a sculpture, and whatever he was paining on, and his brush, etc. If you want to switch "supernatural" and "natural" here (it's cute, I suppose), that is fine. But that painter, IN THIS SCENARIO, can conduct science ONLY in HIS nature, the "supernatural."

Also, painting a 2D image is not the same as creating a sculpture.
I can make a drawing of god creating life, but that doesnt turn it into the origin of life on earth.

Hey, knock yourself out and paint it in 3D. And you just agreed with me.

I know a few billion people who also have an explanation for how life originated. They have lots of support also.

Where is the SCIENTIFIC support for this?

Look, I've been proceeding in this conversation in good faith. I am however a busy person who on top of everything else just began summer classes. I can't continue in this conversation if you're just out to waste my time.

PIT2

Jun8-06, 04:11 AM

The limits of science are what is testable. All that is testable is in our universe. Hello?

Our consciousness is not in our universe? Hi.

No, it certainly doesn't. We're both in nature, as is water. You can get poetic and say that both are 'designed' by physical laws, which dictates all matter.

Good, so u admit that the universe and life may have been designed by a designer, and that they all may still be natural.

We can prove that we are concious by exposing ourselves to random stimuli and reporting simular results of what we experience. And then further support it by repeating it with other people.

Unfortunately, this does not prove anyone is conscious. It only proves that the person responds. He may well be a non-conscious zombie. The only reason u accept that the person is conscious, is because u know u urself are conscious. However, this is merely an assumption and not any form of scientific proof.

Just try to find out if bacteria are conscious.

I'd like to see your source on the evolution of consciousness. It was probably not a primary source as there are no "miracles" in science, only what is "not well understood." Of course, in science, "miracle" is poetic language for "not well understood".

People who believe evolution explains how life evolved and who believe that consciousness arose somewhere on the evolutionary timeline (which is what most evolutionists believe), believe in miracles. True, it is not well understood how this could happen (not understood at all in fact) yet that doesnt stop their faith.

consciousness is governed my physical laws because 1) touching certain parts of the brain causes certain responses (famously, the smell of coffee) 2) it can be further supported by the fact that the brain is made of material that we know follow the laws of the physical universe 3) We can measure the brain activity during thought.

It only shows that there is interaction between consciousness and the physical. It could just as well be that the physical is governed by consciousness.

What I suppose a God is is moot. I can not test for God or control for God so I can not consider God in a scientific investigation. If you can think of a way to either test or control for God, scientifically, please let me know.

U cannot test if ur neighbour is conscious. U can also not prove to him or anyone else that u love ur mother. Is ur neighbour moot? Are all experiences moot, and is science itself thus based on moot?

Then the painter would he himself be supernatural, as would a sculpture, and whatever he was paining on, and his brush, etc. If you want to switch "supernatural" and "natural" here (it's cute, I suppose), that is fine. But that painter, IN THIS SCENARIO, can conduct science ONLY in HIS nature, the "supernatural."

Exactly, the analogy fits perfectly :smile:

Where is the SCIENTIFIC support for this?

So in order for something to be 'supported' it may only be 'scientific support', which brings the circle to a close. Im sure by now u see the problem with this view, since it presupposes science as the absolute path to the truth.

Look, I've been proceeding in this conversation in good faith. I am however a busy person who on top of everything else just began summer classes. I can't continue in this conversation if you're just out to waste my time.

U can ignore most my questions since they are rhetorical, i only hope u understand what i was trying to say.