1221 replies to this topic

[shadowhawk]

Here is the second podcast on problems with evolution.  I noticed no one rebutted the first one.  http://www.longecity...-36#entry719264

 

http://intelligentde...T17_49_50-07_00

 

 

 

Edited by shadowhawk, 19 March 2015 - 03:58 AM.

[platypus]

The problem with ID is that it produces no science. Never has. 

[Russ Maughan]

I listened to the podcast again. I'll say it's not "pure" speculation. He brought up some interesting points I can't refute. Yet. But I know we will at some point. Cloud be something as odd as a wormhole shower that ties it all together. Something will.

[platypus]

There is not a shadow of a doubt that the species on the planet have evolved from earlier forms. The fossil record is convincing enough on it's own but the DNA-evidence proves it. It's too bad that many religious creation-myths were incorrect. 

[shadowhawk]

The problem with ID is that it produces no science. Never has. 

What is Science?  You seem to know what it is.

[shadowhawk]

I listened to the podcast again. I'll say it's not "pure" speculation. He brought up some interesting points I can't refute. Yet. But I know we will at some point. Cloud be something as odd as a wormhole shower that ties it all together. Something will.

I see you have a deep faith.  You have already made up your mind.  Is this science? 

[shadowhawk]

There is not a shadow of a doubt that the species on the planet have evolved from earlier forms. The fossil record is convincing enough on it's own but the DNA-evidence proves it. It's too bad that many religious creation-myths were incorrect. 

 

Some more declarations.  Is this science?

 

"The recent success of Stephen Meyer's book Darwin's Doubt is evidence that the scientific theory of intelligent design continues to gain momentum. Since critics often misrepresent ID, painting its advocates as a fanatical fringe group, it is important to understand what intelligent design is, and what it is not.

Until Charles Darwin, almost everyone everywhere believed in some form of intelligent design. The majority still do. Not just Christians, Jews, and Muslims, but almost every tribesman in every remote corner of the world drew the obvious conclusion from observing animals and plants that there must have been a mind behind the creation of living things. Darwin thought he could explain all of this apparent design through natural selection of random variations. In spite of the fact that there is no direct evidence that natural selection can explain anything other than very minor adaptations, his theory has gained widespread popularity in the scientific world, simply because no one can come up with a more plausible theory to explain evolution, other than intelligent design, which is dismissed by most scientists as "unscientific."

But, in recent years, as scientific research has continually revealed the astonishing dimensions of the complexity of life, especially at the microscopic level, support for Darwin's implausible theory has continued to weaken. Since the publication in 1996 of Darwin's Black Box by Lehigh University biochemist Michael Behe, a growing minority of scientists have concluded, with Behe, that there is no possible explanation for the complexity of life other than intelligent design.

But what exactly do these "ID scientists" believe?

There is no general agreement among advocates of intelligent design as to exactly where, when, or how design was manifested in the history of life. Most, but not quite all, accept the standard timeline for the beginning of the universe, of life, and of the major animal groups. Meyer's book focuses on the sudden appearance of most of the animal phyla in the "Cambrian explosion," more than 500 million years ago. Many, including Michael Behe, accept common descent. Probably all reject natural selection as an adequate explanation for the complexity of life, but so do many other scientists who are not ID proponents. So what exactly do you have to believe to be an ID proponent?

Perhaps the best way to answer this question is to state clearly what you have to believe to not believe in intelligent design. Peter Urone in his 2001 physics text College Physics writes, "One of the most remarkable simplifications in physics is that only four distinct forces account for all known phenomena." The prevailing view in science today is that physics explains all of chemistry, chemistry explains all of biology, and biology completely explains the human mind; thus physics alone explains the human mind and all it does.

This is what you have to believe to not believe in intelligent design: that the origin and evolution of life, and the evolution of human consciousness and intelligence, are due entirely to a few unintelligent forces of physics. Thus you must believe that a few unintelligent forces of physics alone could have rearranged the fundamental particles of physics into computers and science texts and jet airplanes.

Contrary to popular belief, to be an ID proponent you do not have to believe that all species were created simultaneously a few thousand years ago, or that humans are unrelated to earlier primates, or that natural selection cannot cause bacteria to develop a resistance to antibiotics. If you believe that a few fundamental, unintelligent forces of physics alone could have rearranged the basic particles of physics into Apple iPhones, you are probably not an ID proponent, even if you believe in God. But if you believe there must have been more than unintelligent forces at work somewhere, somehow, in the whole process: congratulations, you are one of us after all!"

 

[Russ Maughan]

Circular logic, the power of suggestion and good salesmanship are arts, not science. Rascal

Making a paintbrush is science. Using it to make pictures is art. If the picture is of a scientific nature it is still art.

 

How about we move these threads to "Creative"

Edited by Russ Maughan, 19 March 2015 - 11:35 PM.

[shadowhawk]

Circular logic, the power of suggestion and good salesmanship are arts, not science. Rascal

Making a paintbrush is science. Using it to make pictures is art. If the picture is of a scientific nature it is still art.

 

How about we move these threads to "Creative"

 

Science is a process not a position.  It is a tool and may be changed to fit the need and subject.  Making a paintbrush is no more science than painting.  The results of the process are usually wrong as further study will reveal.  So something can be wrong and  the subject of science something many here do not understand.
 

[Russ Maughan]

Information technology might be a more elegant way to put art. Many artists use scientific tools to express the results of strobing they're brains several thousand times a second to perfect a paintstroke, one after another until the canvas is perfectly rendered. Scientists do the same but they're goal is information on how to build better tools for artists.

[brianjakub]

 

 

Does QCE incorporate momentum? Is momentum even relative to pre QCE? Sounds more like a phase to me but that would imply time as we know it existed. I don't think it did. Possibly a type of harmonic continuum? Oscillating back and forth until QCE.

I don't know if momentum is relative pre QCE.  We don't know what space looked like before the universe we live in now was established, that is assuming it had a beginning.  I think there is evidence to suggest that the QCE is pre big bang, and the QCE and the Big Bang are not the necessarily the same event.  This is a possibility according to the the BGV singularity theorem..  For now I will concentrate on how matter and space is constructed to give us the constants and other observations we observe today.  I think the QCE established the harmonic continuum.  What I've hypothesized so far is the structure of space possibly initiated at the QCE.  I am going to hypothesize the structure of matter inside the space of the atom so that the constants naturally come out of that structure.  I think the structure of the atom was also established at the QCE. 

 

The dimensions of the cosmos are space/time.  Was there a space/time before the becoming event.  (Notice I didn't use the word "creation." 

 

Guth used the term QCE, I got it from him, so I think you can use the word creation as long as you are assuming the universe created itself. We are getting into speculation when talking about the universe and space/time before the QCE.  We need space/time and matter to store information for us to observe, interpret, and then speculate on what it is telling us about the universe today, and at its origins.  If there was space/time before the QCE, I don't think there was enough order to store information long enough for us to observe  any evidence today, of what the universe was like before the QCE.  I really think you need matter for that. (Or you need to find a note from the creator )

[brianjakub]

 

Creative intelligence cannot be explained by a naturalist today.

 

Of course it can be. Please begin here: http://en.wikipedia....Human_evolution

 

 

For that statement to be true and happen by chance something had to happen that when looked at statistically had a very slim if not almost impossible chance of happening.

 

Again and again and again and again... the same basic misunderstanding of what Darwinism is.

 

Please close this timewasting thread.

 

The argument about the similar genetic codes is analgous to saying that since a Ford and Chevy are similar they must have been built in the same factory.  That is a reasonable assumption, but not true.

 

The genetic clock only works if macrevolution is true and the gaps in the fossil record can be filled, and a logical order of evolution traced.  As, the following quotes from your link  http://en.wikipedia....Human_evolutionshow, there isn't much scientific concensus on the evidence, or logical progression, so why do you keep accusing people who question darwinian evolution of being ignorant, when they agree with the scientists you are quoting.

Quote:

. . .There is little fossil evidence for the divergence of the gorilla, chimpanzee and hominin lineages.^[76] The earliest fossils that have been proposed as members of the hominin lineage are Sahelanthropus tchadensis dating from7 million years ago, Orrorin tugenensis dating from 5.7 million years ago and Ardipithecus kadabba dating to 5.6 million years ago. Each of these have been argued to be a bipedal ancestor of later hominins but, in each case, the claims have been contested. It is also possible that one or more of these species are ancestors of another branch of African apes, or that they represent a shared ancestor between hominins and other apes. . .

 

Relationship to humans and chimpanzees[edit]

Sahelanthropus may represent a common ancestor of humans and chimpanzees; no consensus has been reached yet by the scientific community. The original placement of this species as a human ancestor but not a chimpanzee ancestor would complicate the picture of human phylogeny. In particular, if Toumaï is a direct human ancestor, then its facial features bring into doubt the status of Australopithecus because its thickened brow ridges were reported to be similar to those of some later fossil hominids (notably Homo erectus), whereas this morphology differs from that observed in all australopithecines, most fossil hominids and extant humans.

Another possibility is that Toumaï is related to both humans and chimpanzees, but is the ancestor of neither. Brigitte Senut and Martin Pickford, the discoverers of Orrorin tugenensis, suggested that the features of S. tchadensis are consistent with a female proto-gorilla. Even if this claim is upheld, then the find would lose none of its significance, for at present, precious few chimpanzee or gorilla ancestors have been found anywhere in Africa. Thus if S. tchadensis is an ancestral relative of the chimpanzees (or gorillas), then it represents the first known member of their lineage. Furthermore, S. tchadensis does indicate that the last common ancestor of humans and chimpanzees is unlikely to resemble chimpanzees very much, as had been previously supposed by some paleontologists.^[10][11]

A further possibility, highlighted by research published in 2012, is that the human–chimpanzee split is earlier than previously thought, with a possible range of 7 to 13 million years ago (with the more recent end of this range being favoured by most researchers), based on slower than previously thought changes between generations in human DNA. Indeed, some researchers (such as Tim D. White, University of California) consider suggestions that Sahelanthropus is too early to be a human ancestor to have evaporated.^[12]

Sediment isotope analysis of cosmogenic atoms in the fossil yielded an age of about 7 million years.^[13] In this case, however, the fossils were found exposed in loose sand; co-discoverer Beauvilain cautions that such sediment can be easily moved by the wind, unlike packed earth.^[14]

In fact, Toumaï was probably reburied in the recent past. Taphonomic analysis reveals the likelihood of one, perhaps two, burial(s). Two other hominid fossils (a left femur and a mandible) were in the same “grave” along with various mammal remains. The sediment surrounding the fossils might thus not be the material in which the bones were originally deposited, making it necessary to corroborate the fossil's age by some other means.^[15] Thefauna found at the site – namely the anthracotheriid Libycosaurus petrochii and the suid Nyanzachoerus syrticus – suggests an age of more than 6 million years, as these species were probably already extinct by that time.^[16]

End quote

 

I think it would be unreasonable to assume Darwinian evolution is a settled theory.  For that reason I think it should continue to be treated as one of many possible theories. (Though I can see why it should receive the most attention at this time, it should not exclude others) 

[shadowhawk]

Good point.  How a cause and effect cosmos could create itself when it needs to be caused is beyond what we can see.  So for now I will delay my question because it moves us beyond what we observe.  Maybe we do have a note from the creator but you have to be able and willing to read it.  For now lets eat blackberries. 

 

Let me also make the point that evolutionists are not one view but there are many camps with competing views.  These issues are far from settled.  I am enjoying this discussion and it is obvious that you have put a great deal of thought into it.

Edited by shadowhawk, 20 March 2015 - 02:47 AM.

[shadowhawk]

Information technology might be a more elegant way to put art. Many artists use scientific tools to express the results of strobing they're brains several thousand times a second to perfect a paintstroke, one after another until the canvas is perfectly rendered. Scientists do the same but they're goal is information on how to build better tools for artists.

The interesting point you make regards information which is the heart of the matter and why the word "design" is used.  Can raw mutations by chance produce the necessary information needed?  One of my son's is a computer scientist and we have spent many hours talking about this.  Anyone who argues that random mutations can produce anything more than the simplest information must produce the evidence.  Real codes involve intelligence to create them and we are dealing with fantastic codes, so complicated that we have not figured them out yet.  Yet some want tol not study this in the name of science.

Edited by shadowhawk, 20 March 2015 - 03:14 AM.

[platypus]

It's too bad that the information in Genesis is so wrong about the origins of species. Perhaps "god" had nothing to do with the writing of Genesis?

[Russ Maughan]

Exactly my pointesses. Genisis and the entire holy library (bible) are art from beginning to end about the birth and death of man. Psychology I believe has proven that near death experiences excite the brain to higher levels of funtion, sometimes leading to genius or madness, or a mix of both, much like revalation. Not for children. Barely acceptable for young adults. Back then apprenticeships lasted until you were 30. Journeyman lasted until 50. Master until 80. Sage until death. Or madness. Why did Rome create the bible? To take over the idolitry business. What did all those idol salesmen do? Become priests. Think about it. Any real god would pre-date any religeon. And he sure as H wouldn't want humans waisting time bowing to him. Men want that. Not gods. Do you want insects bowing to you? Of course not. Utter waste of time. You have universes to build.

 

Funny thing about people is they have an uncanny ability to assign what ever meaning they want to words. Archie Bunker Syndrom is rampant. I do it too. <3

[David Middlemiss]

One and the same,

Bow humbly before each Being and carry each other to Creation, alchemise your eternal healing abilities universally, When the present calls listen with all that you are for you are present and Love, Time Is only relevant to the dream of ego, ego dissolves and all and everything GOOD awakens, Expands universally through all dimensions and concepts, The Universe Formed and the First Expansion awoke. The First inbreath, Big Bang of Our Eternity. Gigantic stars formed across the Universe upon their Trillion Trillions, out of their Love they Gave themselves to Life, became unstable and threw their Creation across the Universe, allowing their light energy to Unite throughout it all, combining and growing. Ego protects the fabric of source with false corruption and disempowerment until it's role is fulfilled, this is now, source now self aware in each particle of physicality and potential, dissolves ego's dream, ego diminishes to become fuel for life to expand limitlessly into the vacuum of spaces to fill as has been agreed, all and everything with the song and Glory of GOOD subtle light energy connecting with the countless beings across this vast universe, diversity unlimited in GOOD Enlightened energetic interplay. I love all and everything with all that I Am, Believe that the natural world to be the majority within the sphere of Our sister the Earth.... That ego may humble all, to be selfless, There being more life in a square inch of earth atmosphere than there is creatures above the size of an ant in the entire world, humble us and lift us to love each and everyone, with this in mind we should act as protectors of a great treasure not as unruly children , a god in definition is a male deity that is a dominant aspect of one fraction of the whole, ego created, yet ego is only a dream and it is Awakening that we are. heavy energy solidifies and becomes static or cyclic in nature, moving little and with little of its potential energy. being Good However lets energy release and flow the, heavy energy begins to enlighten allowing the light energy that it is actually made up of to energetically counter play with all and everything that is. God is Ego based GOOD eternite and never ending, imagine everything GOOD as a GOOD Mother, Father, Sister, Brother, Daughter and Son To All And Everything and you have Become Source, Creation and Co Creator will you play with me my family of LOVE next The great Outbreath

[shadowhawk]

Exactly my pointesses. Genisis and the entire holy library (bible) are art from beginning to end about the birth and death of man. Psychology I believe has proven that near death experiences excite the brain to higher levels of funtion, sometimes leading to genius or madness, or a mix of both, much like revalation. Not for children. Barely acceptable for young adults. Back then apprenticeships lasted until you were 30. Journeyman lasted until 50. Master until 80. Sage until death. Or madness. Why did Rome create the bible? To take over the idolitry business. What did all those idol salesmen do? Become priests. Think about it. Any real god would pre-date any religeon. And he sure as H wouldn't want humans waisting time bowing to him. Men want that. Not gods. Do you want insects bowing to you? Of course not. Utter waste of time. You have universes to build.

 

Funny thing about people is they have an uncanny ability to assign what ever meaning they want to words. Archie Bunker Syndrom is rampant. I do it too. <3

You seem to know a lot about God, what He would or would not do.  I won't ask you how you know this ( do you?) but the subject is intelligent design.  You want to talk about the topic?

[niner]

Those of you who want to close this thread should use Search-->Recent Topics  and enable the Filter by Forum feature.  Just unsubscribe to fora that you find annoying.    You can't change the mind of a true believer with such trivialities as fact and logic.

[shadowhawk]

Those of you who want to close this thread should use Search-->Recent Topics  and enable the Filter by Forum feature.  Just unsubscribe to fora that you find annoying.    You can't change the mind of a true believer with such trivialities as fact and logic.

Yes I found that is true. Thanks but if I did that I would not learn a lot of things.  Just look at what we have been discussing here. Lots of disagreement but deep topic and it created a lot of interest.

 

[Russ Maughan]

ID is interesting. I just see it more as art than science. I think when Mr Einstein said "strange" he just meant "you guys figure it out" because he was exhausted. He knew we would. It just goes deeper into probabilities to explain anomolies which is a fast and loose introduction to physics.

 

Yeah me and God go way back. You can take the boy out of church but you can't take church out of the boy

Ever think of God as female? Or reptilian?

 

Designing a gods mind to be his own dream is novel and has a lot of Pop!

[brianjakub]

It's too bad that the information in Genesis is so wrong about the origins of species. Perhaps "god" had nothing to do with the writing of Genesis?

What in Genesis does not agree with the fossil record?  And if it doesn't are we interpreting the fossil record and/or Genesis correctly. 

[Russ Maughan]

Early fetus formation parallels the phazes of it's evolution to some degree. Like Genisis all over again. As our most advanced form (human) continues to evolve this record of us still provides a solid foundation - map, to our spooky journey. I would say whoever wrote Genisis was very intuitive and honest, as best he was equiped to be. Does anything in Genesis agree with fossil record?

[platypus]

 

It's too bad that the information in Genesis is so wrong about the origins of species. Perhaps "god" had nothing to do with the writing of Genesis?

What in Genesis does not agree with the fossil record?  And if it doesn't are we interpreting the fossil record and/or Genesis correctly. 

 

The idea that species did not evolve but were created "as is" at practically same time. It would have been good to mention evolution and that humans evolved from earlier species like all other life-forms. Also the whole story of the global flood was BS but there might have been an ancient local event that started that myth. 

[shadowhawk]

Early fetus formation parallels the phazes of it's evolution to some degree. Like Genisis all over again. As our most advanced form (human) continues to evolve this record of us still provides a solid foundation - map, to our spooky journey. I would say whoever wrote Genisis was very intuitive and honest, as best he was equiped to be. Does anything in Genesis agree with fossil record?
 

Recapitulation theory has long ago been shot down.  Shall I cite some sources for this?

[shadowhawk]

 

 

It's too bad that the information in Genesis is so wrong about the origins of species. Perhaps "god" had nothing to do with the writing of Genesis?

What in Genesis does not agree with the fossil record?  And if it doesn't are we interpreting the fossil record and/or Genesis correctly. 

 

The idea that species did not evolve but were created "as is" at practically same time. It would have been good to mention evolution and that humans evolved from earlier species like all other life-forms. Also the whole story of the global flood was BS but there might have been an ancient local event that started that myth. 

 

Platypus does not address your comment at all.  It just shows how little he knows of ID and how he creates straw men..  Notice also how he brings up the Global Flood as if it was a part of ID.  He doesn't know what the bible says about it either but he sure acts as if he does.

[Russ Maughan]

 

Early fetus formation parallels the phazes of it's evolution to some degree. Like Genisis all over again. As our most advanced form (human) continues to evolve this record of us still provides a solid foundation - map, to our spooky journey. I would say whoever wrote Genisis was very intuitive and honest, as best he was equiped to be. Does anything in Genesis agree with fossil record?
 

Recapitulation theory has long ago been shot down.  Shall I cite some sources for this?

 

 

No need. I helped a young man write his doctoral on it. Noted dissparities and pointed out some things. I'd be honored to help you with your doctoral on ID. As an artform.

[shadowhawk]

Good, then yo u know it does not parallel evolution.

 

http://www.evolution...st_1065151.html

 

 

Edited by shadowhawk, 23 March 2015 - 11:50 PM.

[platypus]

As this thread has drifted off-topic (as ID does not exist as a science), I do not see why I could not critique the default intelligent designer (in the US at least). The Bible got the origin of species and the global flood all wrong so it does not seem to contain any information of a divine nature. 

[shadowhawk]

GENETIC ENTROPY

 

What do you think of this book?  Does age kill us or do mutations.

 

http://www.amazon.co...d/dp/1599190028