1221 replies to this topic

[shadowhawk]

[shadowhawk]

Seems to me ID is not a scientific theory in that it is not 'falsifiable". It makes no assertions that can be tested to be true or false.

False.
FALSIFIABLE? Is Intelligent Design Testable?: Dembski, William A. The Intelligent Design Falsifiability Myth? Behe responds to Philosophical Objections to Intelligent Design CSC - Intelligent Design is Falsifiable Is ID Falsifiable? Of Course It Is. Its Falsification Is Darwinism - Evolution News & Views Wikipedia and the Myth of Falsifiability - Evolution News & Views Is Intelligent Design Theory Scientific? Michael Behe on Falsifying Intelligent Design - YouTube Falsifiability of evolution - Conservapedia

[shadowhawk]

It's clear from post #148 that the ID types can't tell speculation from evidence. They look to the very edges of science, where things aren't nailed down yet, and in that darkness they see the hand of god.

If they were correct, however, they could find the evidence they need in human evolution and in human DNA. Because it's right there in Genesis, that God created man fully formed and took a special interest in him. So be honest, go after the link between man and his ape ancestors or give up the Bible as a source of anything but superstition and stories. Because if Genesis isn't right, then the Bible is wrong from the first page on.

What a mindless joke. No matter how many times it is said this is not about God you can’t stop this kind of repeated misrepresentation. It’s nothing about the hand of god in ID. I am not going to say it again or argue against your endless bigotry

And you don’t have a clue of what you are talking about when you quote Genesis but that is entirely off topic and a perfect example of a logical fallacy. I wont bother to waste my time here either but we could start a new thread on Genesis. You assume so much that is not part of the discussion and is not said by anyone. Ho hummm .

[Turnbuckle]

No matter how many times it is said this is not about God you can’t stop this kind of repeated misrepresentation. It’s nothing about the hand of god in ID.

Not about God, eh? Then who is this intelligent designer? The Wizard of Oz?

[maxwatt]

Getting back to the watch in the desert, a. the universe, lie and all is not a watch, nor a mechanism.
b. even if it were, unless you can catch the "watchmaker" in the act, there is no proof there is one.

[shadowhawk]

No matter how many times it is said this is not about God you can’t stop this kind of repeated misrepresentation. It’s nothing about the hand of god in ID.

Not about God, eh? Then who is this intelligent designer? The Wizard of Oz?

Watch, “Expelled” above. Atheist Richard Dawkins thinks it may be aliens not God! Atheists of course more intelligent on these matters. Here is another Atheist (Dr. Bradley Monton) who thinks ID should not dogmatically be dismissed.

1.

2.



There are three more excellent youtubes in this series by the atheist. Very Interesting. Bigotry can blind people when considering such issues.

[shadowhawk]

Getting back to the watch in the desert, a. the universe, lie and all is not a watch, nor a mechanism.
b. even if it were, unless you can catch the "watchmaker" in the act, there is no proof there is one.

First there are all kinds of watches in the universe and many were obviously intelligently designed. Designed watches are in the universe. More difficult to explain is the designer of the watch which is a much more complex issue.

Second, the Second Law of Thermodynamics is a kind of watch itself. Useable energy is running down, becoming less available. The Cosmos, illustrated by the clock, is running down. How did it get wound up?

Third, not only that, like the watch, it is arguably fine tuned. Evidence for a watchmaker is in its design. Who is the ID? Are you claiming there is none? Proof.
.
Same, examples which maintain their numbering, see.:
http://www.reasons.o...in-the-universe

“For physical life to be possible in the universe, several characteristics must take on specific values, and these are listed below.1 In the case of several of these characteristics, and given the intricacy of their interrelationships, the indication of divine "fine tuning" seems incontrovertible.

Strong nuclear force constant
Weak nuclear force constant
Gravitational force constant
Electromagnetic force constant
Ratio of electromagnetic force constant to gravitational force constant
Ratio of proton to electron mass
Ratio of number of protons to number of electrons
Ratio of proton to electron charge
Expansion rate of the universe
Mass density of the universe
Baryon (proton and neutron) density of the universe
Space energy or dark energy density of the universe
Ratio of space energy density to mass density
Entropy level of the universe
Velocity of light
Age of the universe
Uniformity of radiation
Homogeneity of the universe
Average distance between galaxies
Average distance between galaxy clusters
Average distance between stars
Average size and distribution of galaxy clusters
Numbers, sizes, and locations of cosmic voids
Electromagnetic fine structure constant
Gravitational fine-structure constant
Decay rate of protons
Ground state energy level for helium-4
Carbon-12 to oxygen-16 nuclear energy level ratio
Decay rate for beryllium-8
Ratio of neutron mass to proton mass
Initial excess of nucleons over antinucleons
Polarity of the water molecule
Epoch for hypernova eruptions
Number and type of hypernova eruptions
Epoch for supernova eruptions
Number and types of supernova eruptions
Epoch for white dwarf binaries
Density of white dwarf binaries
Ratio of exotic matter to ordinary matter
Number of effective dimensions in the early universe
Number of effective dimensions in the present universe
Mass values for the active neutrinos
Number of different species of active neutrinos
Number of active neutrinos in the universe
Mass value for the sterile neutrino
Number of sterile neutrinos in the universe
Decay rates of exotic mass particles
Magnitude of the temperature ripples in cosmic background radiation
Size of the relativistic dilation factor
Magnitude of the Heisenberg uncertainty
Quantity of gas deposited into the deep intergalactic medium by the first supernovae
Positive nature of cosmic pressures
Positive nature of cosmic energy densities
Density of quasars
Decay rate of cold dark matter particles
Relative abundances of different exotic mass particles
Degree to which exotic matter self interacts
Epoch at which the first stars (metal-free pop III stars) begin to form
Epoch at which the first stars (metal-free pop III stars cease to form
Number density of metal-free pop III stars
Average mass of metal-free pop III stars
Epoch for the formation of the first galaxies
Epoch for the formation of the first quasars
Amount, rate, and epoch of decay of embedded defects
Ratio of warm exotic matter density to cold exotic matter density
Ratio of hot exotic matter density to cold exotic matter density
Level of quantization of the cosmic spacetime fabric
Flatness of universe's geometry
Average rate of increase in galaxy sizes
Change in average rate of increase in galaxy sizes throughout cosmic history
Constancy of dark energy factors
Epoch for star formation peak
Location of exotic matter relative to ordinary matter
Strength of primordial cosmic magnetic field
Level of primordial magnetohydrodynamic turbulence
Level of charge-parity violation
Number of galaxies in the observable universe
Polarization level of the cosmic background radiation
Date for completion of second reionization event of the universe
Date of subsidence of gamma-ray burst production
Relative density of intermediate mass stars in the early history of the universe
Water's temperature of maximum density
Water's heat of fusion
Water's heat of vaporization
Number density of clumpuscules (dense clouds of cold molecular hydrogen gas) in the universe
Average mass of clumpuscules in the universe
Location of clumpuscules in the universe
Dioxygen's kinetic oxidation rate of organic molecules
Level of paramagnetic behavior in dioxygen
Density of ultra-dwarf galaxies (or supermassive globular clusters) in the middle-aged universe
Degree of space-time warping and twisting by general relativistic factors
Percentage of the initial mass function of the universe made up of intermediate mass stars
Strength of the cosmic primordial magnetic field

1 Most of the source references may be found in The Creator and the Cosmos, 3rd edition by Hugh Ross (Colorado Springs, CO: NavPress, 2001), pp. 145-157, 245-248. Additional references are listed below:

John Leslie, editor, Physical Cosmology and Philosophy (New York: Macmillan, 1990), pp. 121-180.
Weihsueh A. Chiu, Nickolay Y. Gneden and Jeremiah P. Ostriker, "The Expected Mass Function for Low-Mass Galaxies in a Cold Dark Matter Cosmology: Is There a Problem?" Astrophysical Journal, 563 (2001), pp. 21-27.
Martin Elvis, Massimo Marengo, and Margarita Karovska, "Smoking Quasars: A New Source for Cosmic Dust," Astrophysical Journal Letters, 567 (2002), pp. L107-L110.
Martin White and C. S. Kochanek, "Constraints on the Long-Range Properties of Gravity from Weak Gravitational Lensing," Astrophysical Journal, 560 (2001), pp. 539-543.
P. P. Avelino and C. J. A. P. Martins, "A Supernova Brane Scan," Astrophysical Journal, 565 (2002), pp. 661-667.
P. deBernardis, et al, "Multiple Peaks in the Angular Power Spectrum of the Cosmic Microwave Background: Significance and Consequences for Cosmology," Astrophysical Journal, 564 (2002), pp. 559-566.
A. T. Lee, et al, "A High Spatial Resolution Analysis of the MAXIMA-1 Cosmic Microwave Background Anisotropy Data," Astrophysical Journal Letters, 561 (2001), pp. L1-L5.
R. Stompor, et al, "Cosmological Implications of MAXIMA-1 High-Resolution Cosmic Microwave Background Anisotropy Measurement," Astrophysical Journal Letters, 561 (2001), pp. L7-L10.
Andrew Watson, "Cosmic Ripples Confirm Universe Speeding Up," Science, 295 (2002), pp. 2341-2343.
Anthony Aguirre, Joop Schaye, and Eliot Quataert, "Problems for Modified Newtonian Dynamics in Clusters and the Ly Forest?" Astrophysical Journal, 561 (2001), pp. 550-558.
Chris Blake and Jasper Wall, "A Velocity Dipole in the Distribution of Radio Galaxies," Nature, 416 (2002), pp. 150-152.
G. Efstathiou, et al, "Evidence for a Non-Zero L and a Low Matter Density from a Combined Analysis of the 2dF Galaxy Redshift Survey and Cosmic Microwave Background Anisotropies," Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 330 (2002), pp. L29-L35.
Susana J. Landau and Hector Vucetich, "Testing Theories That Predict Time Variation of Fundamental Constants, " Astrophysical Journal, 570 (2002), pp. 463-469.
Renyue Cen, "Why Are There Dwarf Spheroidal Galaxies?" Astrophysical Journal Letters, 549 (2001), pp. L195-L198.
Brandon Carter, "Energy Dominance and the Hawking-Ellis Vacuum Conservation Theorem," a contribution to Stephen Hawkingís 60th birthday workshop on the Future of Theoretical Physics and Cosmology, Cambridge, UK, January, 2002, arXiv:gr-qc/0205010v1, May 2, 2002.
Joseph F. Hennawi and Jeremiah P. Ostriker, "Observational Constraints on the Self-Interacting Dark Matter Scenario and the Growth of Supermassive Black Holes," Astrophysical Journal, 572 (2002), pp. 41-54.
Robert Brandenberger, Brandon Carter, and Anne-Christine Davis, "Microwave Background Constraints on Decaying Defects," Physics Letters B, 534 (2002), pp. 1-7.
Lawrence M. Krauss, "The End of the Age Problem, and the Case for a Cosmological Constant Revisited," Astrophysical Journal, 501 (1998), pp. 461-466.
Q. R. Ahmad, et al, "Measurement of the Rate of e + d p + p + e- Interactions Produced by 8B Solar Neutrinos at the Sudbury Neutrino Observatory," Physical Review Letters, 87 (2001), id. 071301.
R. E. Davies and R. H. Koch, "All the Observed Universe Has Contributed to Life," Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society, 334B (1991), pp. 391-403.
George F. R. Ellis, "The Anthropic Principle: Laws and Environments," in The Anthropic Principle, edited by F. Bertola and U. Curi (New York: Cambridge University Press, 1993), p. 30.
H. R. Marston, S. H. Allen, and S. L. Swaby, "Iron Metabolism in Copper-Deficient Rats," British Journal of Nutrition, 25 (1971), pp. 15-30.
K. W. J. Wahle and N. T. Davies, "Effect of Dietary Copper Deficiency in the Rat on Fatty Acid Composition of Adipose Tissue and Desaturase Activity of Liver Microsomes," British Journal of Nutrition, 34 (1975), pp. 105-112;.
Walter Mertz, "The Newer Essential Trace Elements, Chromium, Tin, Vanadium, Nickel, and Silicon," Proceedings of the Nutrition Society, 33 (1974), pp. 307-313.
Bruno Leibundgut, "Cosmological Implications from Observations of Type Ia Supernovae," Annual Reviews of Astronomy and Astrophysics, 39 (2001), pp. 67-98.
C. L. Bennett, et al, "First Year Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy Probe (WMAP) Observations, Preliminary Maps, and Basic Results," Astrophysical Journal Supplement, 148 (2003), pp. 1-27.
G. Hinshaw, et al, ""First Year Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy Probe (WMAP) Observations: Angular Power Spectrum," Astrophysical Journal Supplement, 148 (2003), pp. 135-159.
A. Balbi, et al, "Probing Dark Energy with the Cosmic Microwave Background: Projected Constraints from the Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy Probe and Planck," Astrophysical Journal Letters, 588 (2003), pp. L5-L8.
A. Vikhlinin, et al, "Cosmological Constraints from the Evolution of the Cluster Baryon Mass Function at z = 0.5," Astrophysical Journal, 590 (2003), pp. 15-25.
Frank Thim, et al, "The Cepheid Distance to NGC 5236 (M83) with the ESO Very Large Telescope," Astrophysical Journal, 590 (2003), pp. 256-270.
Kazuhide Ichikawa and M. Kawasaki, "Constraining the Variation of the Coupling Constants with Big Bang Nucleosynthesis," Physical Review D, 65 (2002), id 123511.
Eubino-Martin José Alberto, et al, "First Results from the Very Small Array-IV. Cosmological Parameter Estimation," Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 341 (2003), pp. 1084-1092.
Takuji Tsujimoto and Toshikazu Shigeyama, "Star Formation History of Centauri Imprinted in Elemental Abundance Patterns," Astrophysical Journal, 590 (2003), pp. 803-808.
Santi Cassissi, Maurizio Salaris, and Alan W. Irwin, "The Initial Helium Content of Galactic Globular Cluster Stars from the R-Parameter: Comparison with the Cosmic Microwave Background Constraint," Astrophysical Journal, 588 (2003), pp. 862-870.
Naoki Yoshida, et al, "Early Structure Formation and Reionization in a Warm Dark Matter Cosmology," Astrophysical Journal Letters, 591 (2003), pp. L1-L4.
Robert R. Caldwell, et al, "Early Quintessence in Light of the Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy Probe," Astrophysical Journal Letters, 591 (2003), pp. L75-L78.
V. Luridiana, et al, "The Effect of Collisional Enhancement of Balmer Lines on the Determination of the Primordial Helium Abundance," Astrophysical Journal, 592 (20030, pp. 846-865.
Y. Jack Ng, W. A. Christiansen, and H. van Dam, "Probing Planck-Scale Physics with Extragalactic Sources?" Astrophysical Journal Letters, 591 (2003), pp. L87-L89.
J. L. Sievers, et al, "Cosmological Parameters from Cosmic Background Imager Observations and Comparisons with BOOMERANG, DASI, and MAXIMA," Astrophysical Journal, 591 (2003), pp. 599-622.
R. Scranton, et al, "Physical Evidence for Dark Energy," submitted July 20, 2003 to Physical Review Letters, http://xxx.lanl.gov/...tro-ph/0307335.
Pablo Fosalba, Enrique Gaztanaga, and Francisco Castander, "Detection of the Integrated Sachs-Wolfe and Sunyaev-Zeldovich Effects from the Cosmic Microwave Background-Galaxy Correlation." Astrophysical Journal Letters, 597 (2003), pp. L89-L92.
M. R. Nolta, et al, "First Year Wilkinson Anistropy Probe (WMAP) Observations: Dark Energy Induced Correlation with Radio Sources," submitted May 7, 2003 to Astrophysical Journal, http://xxx.lanl.gov/...tro-ph/0305097.
Stephen Boughn and Robert Crittenden, "A Correlation Between the Cosmic Microwave Background and Large-Scale Structure in the Universe," Nature, 427 (2004), pp. 45-47.
T. Jacobson, S. Liberati, and D. Mattingly, "A Strong Astrophysical Constraint on the Violation of Special Relativity by Quantum Gravity," Nature, 424 (2003), pp. 1019-1021.
Sean Carroll, "Quantum Gravity: An Astrophysical Constraint," Nature, 424 (2003), pp. 1007-1008.
D. J. Fixsen, "The Spectrum of the Cosmic Microwave Background Anisotropy from the Combined COBE FIRAS and WMAP Observations," Astrophysical Journal Letters, 594 (2003), pp. L67-L70.
John L. Tonry, et al, "Cosmological Results from High-z Supernovae," Astrophysical Journal, 594 (2003), pp. 1-24.
Jean-Pierre Luminet, et al, "Dodecahedral Space Topology as an Explanation for Weak-Angle Temperature Correlations in the Cosmic Microwave Background," Nature, 425 (2003), pp. 593-595.
George F. R. Ellis, "The Shape of the Universe," Nature, 425 (2003), pp. 566-567.
Charles Seife, "Polyhedral Model Gives the Universe an Unexpected Twist," Science, 302 (2003), p. 209.
Neil J. Cornish, et al, "Constraining the Topology of the Universe," astro-ph/0310233, submitted to Physical Review Letters, 2003.
David Kirkman, et al, "The Cosmological Baryon Density from the Deuterium-to-Hydrogen Ratio in QSO Absorption Systems: D/H Toward Q1243+3047," Astrophysical Journal Supplement, 149 (2003), pp. 1-28.
Jeremiah P. Ostriker, et al, "The Probability Distribution Function of Light in the Universe: Results from Hydrodynamic Simulations," Astrophysical Journal, 597 (2003), pp. 1-8.
M. Tegmark, et al, "Cosmological Parameters from SDSS and WMAP," preprint, 2003 posted at http://xxx.lanl.gov/...tro-ph/0310723.
Wolfram Freudling, Michael R. Corbin, and Kirk T. Korista, "Iron Emission in z ~ 6 QSOs," Astrophysical Journal Letters, 587 (2003), pp. L67-L70.
Lennox L. Cowie and Antoinette Songaila, "The inconstant constant?" Nature 428 (2004), pp. 132-133.
H. Chand, et al., "Probing the cosmological variation of the fine-structure constant: Results based on VLT-UVES sample," Astronomy and Astrophysics, 417 (2004), pp. 853-871.
Thibault Damous and Freeman Dyson, "The Oklo bound on the time variation of the fine-structure constant revisited," Nuclear Physics B, 480 (1996), pp. 37-54.
Anton M. Koekemoer, et al, "A Possible New Population of Sources with Extreme X-Ray/Optical Ratios," Astrophysical Journal Letters, 600 (2004), pp. L123-L126.
Henry C. Ferguson, et al, "The Size Evolution of High-Redshift Galaxies," Astrophysical Journal, 600 (2004), pp. L107-L110.
Charles Seife, "Light from Most-Distant Supernovae Shows Dark Energy Stays the Course," Science, 303 (2004), p. 1271.
Jonathan C. Tan and Christopher F. McKee, "The Formation of the First Stars. I. Mass Infall Rates, Accretion Disk Structure, and Protostellar Evolution," Astrophysical Journal, 603 (2004), pp. 383-400.
Charles Seife, "Galactic Stripling Gives a Glimpse of the Universe's Raw Youth," Science, 303 (2004), p. 1597.
Alan Heavens, et al, "The Star Formation History of the Universe from the Stellar Populations of Nearby Galaxies," Nature, 428 (2004), pp. 625-627.
Pavel D. Naselsky, et al, "Primordial Magnetic Field and Non-Gaussianity of the One-Year Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy Probe Data," Astrophysical Journal, 615 (2004), pp. 45-54.
Gang Chen, et al, "Looking for Cosmological Alfvén Waves in Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy Probe Data," Astrophysical Journal, 611 (2004), pp. 655-659.
Tommaso Treu and Léon V. E. Koopmans, "Massive Dark Matter Halos and Evolution of Early-Type Galaxies to z = 1," Astrophysical Journal, 611 (2004), pp. 739-760.
B. Aubert, et al (the BaBar Collaboration), "Observations of Direct CP Violation in B0® K+pi- Decays," preprint, August, 2004, high energy physics - experiment.
Mark Peplow, "The Bs Have It," Nature, 430 (2004), p. 739.
Peter Bond, "Hubble's Long View," Astronomy & Geophysics, volume 45, issue 3, June 2004, p. 328.
A. C. S. Readhead, et al, "Polarization Observations with the Cosmic Background Imager," Science, 306 (2004), pp. 836-844.
Nickolay Y. Gneidin, "Reionization, Sloan, and WMAP: Is the Picture Consistent?" Astrophysical Journal, 610 (2004), pp. 9-13.
Amr A. El-Zant, et al, "Flat-Cored Dark Matter in Cuspy Clusters of Galaxies," Astrophysical Journal Letters, 607 (2004), pp. L75-L78.
J. R. Lin, S. N. Zhang, and T. P. Li, "Gamma-Ray Bursts Are Produced Predominantly in the Early Universe," Astrophysical Journal, 605 (2004), pp. 819-822.
Timothy P. Ashenfelter and Grant J. Mathews, "The Fine-Structure Constant as a Probe of Chemical Evolution and Asymptotic Giant Branch Nucleosynthesis in Damped Lya Systems," Astrophysical Journal, 615 (2004), pp. 82-97.
Naoki Yoshida, Volker Bromm, and Lars Hernquist,, "The Era of Massive Population III Stars: Cosmological Implications and Self-Termination," The Astrophysical Journal, 605, (2004), pp. 579-590.
YesheFenner, Jason X. Prochaska and Brad K. Gibson, "Constraints on Early Nucleosynthesis from the Abundance Pattern of a Damped Lyα System at z = 2.626," The Astrophysical Journal, 606 (2004), pp. 116-125.
Andreas Heithausen,, "Molecular Hydrogen as Baryonic Dark Matter," The Astrophysical Journal Letters, 606 (2004), pp. L13-L15.
Douglas Clowe, Anthony Gonzalez, and Maxim Markevitch, "Weak-Lensing Mass Reconstruction of the Interacting Cluster IE 0657-558: Direct Evidence for the Existence of Dark Matter," Astrophysical Journal, 604 (2004), pp. 596-603.
Sean T. Prigge, et al, "Dioxygen Binds End-On to Mononuclear Copper in a Precatalytic Enzyme Complex," Science, 304 (2004), pp. 864-867.
H. Jakubowski, Biochemistry: Chapter 8: Oxidative-Phosphorylation, A: The Chemistry of Dioxygen, November 17, 2005, http://employees.csb...xygenchem.html. Accessed 02/06/06.
Robert H. Abeles, Perry A. Frey, and William P. Jencks, Biochemistry (Boston: Jones and Bartlett, 1992), pp. 655-673.
P. Caresia, S. Matarrese, and L. Moscardini, "Constraints on Extended Quintessence from High-Redshift Supernovae," Astrophysical Journal, 605 (2004), pp. 21-28.
AmrA. El-Zant, et al, "Flat-Cored Dark Matter in Cuspy Clusters of Galaxies," Astrophysical Journal Letters, 607 (2004), pp. L75-L78.
Kyu-Hyun Chae, et al, "Constraints on Scalar-Field Dark Energy from the Cosmic Lens All-Sky Survey Gravitational Lens Statistics," Astrophysical Journal Letters, 607 (2004), pp. L71-74.
Max Tegmark, et al, "The Three-Dimensional Power Spectrum of Galaxies From the Sloan Digital Sky Survey," Astrophysical Journal, 606 (2004), pp. 702-740.
Adrian C. Pope, et al, "Cosmological Parameters from Eigenmode Analysis of Sloan Digital Sky Survey Galaxy Redshifts," Astrophysical Journal, 607 (2004), pp. 655-660.
YunWang and Pia Mukherjee, "Model-Independent Constraints on Dark Energy Density from Flux-Averaging Analysis of Type Ia Supernova Data," Astrophysical Journal, 606 (2004), pp. 654-663.
Adam G. Riess, et al, "Type Ia Supernova Discoveries at z>1 from the Hubble Space Telescope: Evidence for Past Deceleration and Constraints on Dark Energy Evolution," Astrophysical Journal, 607 (2004), pp. 665-687.
A. Kashlinsky, et al, "Detecting Population III Stars Through Observations of Near-Infrared Cosmic Infrared Background Anisotropies," Astrophysical Journal, 608 (2004), pp. 1-9.
Nickolay Y. Gneidin, "Reionization, Sloan, and WMAP: Is the Picture Consistent?" Astrophysical Journal, 610 (2004), pp. 9-13.
Paul Martin and Luis C. Ho, "A Population of Massive Globular Clusters in NGC 5128," Astrophysical Journal, 610 (2004), pp. 233-246.
L. Pasquini, et al, "Beryllium in Turnoff Stars of NGC6397: Early Galaxy Spallation Cosmochronology and Cluster Formation," Astronomy and Astrophysics, in press, 2004.
Peter Bond, "Hubble's Long View," Astronomy & Geophysics, volume 45, issue 3, June 2004, p. 328.
T. Harko and K. S. Cheng, "Time Delay of Photons of Different Energies in Multidimensional Cosmological Models," Astrophysical Journal, 611 (2004), pp. 633-641.
I. H. Stairs, S. E. Thorsett, and Z. Arzoumanian, "Measurement of Gravitational Soin-Orbit Coupling in a Binary Pulsar System," Physical Review Letters, 93 (2004), id. 141101.
Daniel B. Zucker, et al, "Andromeda IX. A New Dwarf Speroidal Satellite of M31," Astrophysical Journal Letters, 612 (2004), pp. L121-L124.
J. Patrick Henry, "X-Ray Temperatures for the Extended Medium-Sensitivity Survey High-Redshift Cluster Sample: Constraints on Cosmology and the Dark Energy Equation of State," Astrophysical Journal, 609 (2004), pp. 603-616.
S. W. Allen, et al, "Constraints on Dark Energy from Chandra Observations of the Largest Relaxed Galaxy Clusters," Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 353 (2004), pp. 457-467.
Ruth A. Daly and S. G. Djorgovski, "Direct Determination of the Kinematics of the Universe and Properties of the Dark Energy as Functions of Redshift," Astrophysical Journal, 612 (2004), pp. 652-659.
Ruth A. Daly and S. G. Djorgovski, "A Model-Independent Determination of the Expansion and Acceleration Rates of the Universe as a Function of Redshift and Constraints on Dark Energy," Astrophysical Journal 597 (2003), pp. 9-20.
E. Peik, et al, "Limit on the Present Temporal Variation of the Fine Structure Constant," Physical Review Letters, 93 (2004), id # 170801.
I. Ciufolini and E. C. Pavils, "A Confirmation of the General Relativistic Prediction of the Lense-Thirring Effect," Nature, 431 (2004), pp. 958-960.
Timothy P. Ashenfelter and Grant J. Mathews, "The Fine-Structure Constant as a Probe of Chemical Evolution and Asymptotic Giant Branch Nucleosynthesis in Damped Lya Systems," Astrophysical Journal, 615 (2004), pp. 82-97.
Signe Riemer-Sorensen, Steen H. Hansen, and Kristian Pedersen, "Sterile Neutrinos in the Milky Way: Observational Constraints," Astrophysical Journal Letters, 644 (2006), pp. L33-L36.
D. G. Yamazaki, et al, "Constraints on the Evolution of the Pimordial Magnetic Field from the Small-Scale Cosmic Microwave Background Angular Anisotropy," Astrophysical Journal, 646 (2006), pp. 719-729.”

[maxwatt]

Just because an argument is not wrong, doesn't make it right.

[Lister]

Wow! Shadow and I had been going back and forth for a while and no one had gotten involved. I figured I'd leave it for awhile…. You guys really took off with it!

I’ve read most of it now… I still want to read all of Page 5 but I’m running out of time today and want to post.

I’ve come to a few conclusions from reading your replies that I’d like to run past you all.

• Just because something isn’t wrong doesn’t mean it’s Right. But if it isn’t wrong we should try and find out whether it's right or not. Unknowns are what science deals in.
• It seems that the only leg ID can stand upon is the “Unknown”
• As we don’t really know this leaves a space (though Shadow hates this space)
• While “God of the Gaps” isn’t Shadows best friend it does allow for a supportive argument for ID.
• It goes “If we cannot deny with any certainty the possibility of a creator then we should allow for that possibility to exist and consider it. We may even want to invest research into it.”
• But this does not mean that ID qualifies to be anywhere near Main Stream Science.
• Just as we don’t teach high school students String Theory or Quantum Mechanics it would be silly to attempt to teach them ID (as a process). It’s too complex. And still has too much to do with religion (Which is a system of beliefs. Not a process.)
• In my Humble Opinion ID should be allowed to exist as an option within Science. This being said it’s only one option among many. It would have to provide predictors to launch itself further. If it becomes a USEFUL process to scientific PROGRESSION then I could see at least parts of it find its way into a classroom, but chances of that happening I feel are low.
• As ID can still find enough reasonable space to exist as a possibility (more reasonable than a cow spontaneously flying over the moon at least) than I think it’s illogical for us to deny it room.
• I can only conclude that we are seeking to deny ID space because of our fears of the ulterior motives of some of its supporters (to wedge the church into places it doesn’t belong).
• To deny a theory the space it needs to find PROOF is what the church has done in the past to the scientific community (Flat earth indeed). Do we want to follow in their footsteps?

Let me know what you guys think.

Also on a few issues:

Analogy works; though it needs additional elements. That is – “X” has “A” and “B”, “Y” also has “A” and “B”… “Y” has “J” therefore “X” must also have “J” – let’s test! While it’s not a standalone argument it can be the starting point for a sound conclusion. Perhaps that’s not the same thing…

As Maxwatt said “Analogy is not proof, at best it may form a basis for further investigation.” This is ID to me.

With regards to the “The whole Universe is a Computer and we’re a Program” argument: Computers are built in this Universe. Just like one might say an online game is a digital life – things built within this Universe will often emulate it. That seems a logical conclusion does it not? Similarly you could invert the Earth Argument; Is it “The chances of the Earth forming to fit us exactly are impossible” or is it “The chances of us Evolving to fit this Earth are Low”?

Total existence could be an evolving fractal. That is an infinite framework of infinite detail. To even extend this farther we could say that the universe is constantly simulating itself over and over each time expanding upon the original. In that context ID could find an intelligent creator though the Universe would be that intelligent creator… it’s constantly creating and recreating itself.

We created computers – We can now simulate an extremely small part of the universe; This after only having computers for practically NO time. Thus at the rate computers are advancing we should be able to simulate the entire universe within a computer no bigger than your room. In fact I wouldn’t be surprised if we were able to simulate the entire universe significantly better than the current version. This is what I mean by the universe simulating the universe or creating it and recreating it over and over. Matrix within a Matrix within a Matrix though each creation is ever better than the last.

Keep it up guys! While you’re right that this will have no reasonable end it is a reasonable and progressive discussion. I’ve learnt a lot and enjoyed reading what you’ve all written.

Moar!

[Turnbuckle]

In my Humble Opinion ID should be allowed to exist as an option within Science.

Not that there's a Pope of Science to keep them out. But doesn't matter, the ID crowd won't be happy with that. They aren't interested in doing any actual science; they are just critics. The raison d'etre for ID is to get it (and thus religion) into the schools.

Not like they need it there. Half of this country are creationists already, and more than half the remainder are IDers.

[maxwatt]

Wow! Shadow and I had been going back and forth for a while and no one had gotten involved. I figured I'd leave it for awhile…. You guys really took off with it!

I’ve read most of it now… I still want to read all of Page 5 but I’m running out of time today and want to post.

I’ve come to a few conclusions from reading your replies that I’d like to run past you all.

• Just because something isn’t wrong doesn’t mean it’s Right. But if it isn’t wrong we should try and find out whether it's right or not. Unknowns are what science deals in.
• It seems that the only leg ID can stand upon is the “Unknown”
• As we don’t really know this leaves a space (though Shadow hates this space)
• While “God of the Gaps” isn’t Shadows best friend it does allow for a supportive argument for ID.
• It goes “If we cannot deny with any certainty the possibility of a creator then we should allow for that possibility to exist and consider it. We may even want to invest research into it.”
• But this does not mean that ID qualifies to be anywhere near Main Stream Science.
• Just as we don’t teach high school students String Theory or Quantum Mechanics it would be silly to attempt to teach them ID (as a process). It’s too complex. And still has too much to do with religion (Which is a system of beliefs. Not a process.)
• In my Humble Opinion ID should be allowed to exist as an option within Science. This being said it’s only one option among many. It would have to provide predictors to launch itself further. If it becomes a USEFUL process to scientific PROGRESSION then I could see at least parts of it find its way into a classroom, but chances of that happening I feel are low.
• As ID can still find enough reasonable space to exist as a possibility (more reasonable than a cow spontaneously flying over the moon at least) than I think it’s illogical for us to deny it room.
• I can only conclude that we are seeking to deny ID space because of our fears of the ulterior motives of some of its supporters (to wedge the church into places it doesn’t belong).
• To deny a theory the space it needs to find PROOF is what the church has done in the past to the scientific community (Flat earth indeed). Do we want to follow in their footsteps?

Let me know what you guys think.

A couple of problems here, let me see if i can elucidate:

Arguments that are not wrong, but also are not right: any system sophisticated enough to include the complex numbers, will also generate statements that, though they may be true, cannot be proven to be true in a finite number of steps. Hence they remain unknowable though they may be well-formed propositions. (The four-color theorem came pretty close, the proof requires >900,000 steps....) You cannot find if such statements are right or wrong with any amount of trying, though they are obviously either true or false.

ID cannot be included within science for another reason: there is nothing you can see, conclude or test within a biological or physical system using ID, that cannot also be seen, concluded or tested without ID. QED, don't need ID. I am unable to imagine a set of circumstances where this will not be true. Rather than being included within science, ID is properly part of theology or philosophy. ID may be comforting, give one a sense of purpose, or allow one to admire the aesthetic properties of the universe, but don't include it as part of science, nor try to teach it as a scientific alternative. If creationists want to teach it in schools, perhaps a course in philosophy would work, or better leave it for Sunday school.

Scientists may well stand with Einstein and sense a designer's hand in the universe, but he did not try to include it in his equations.

Also on a few issues:

Analogy works; though it needs additional elements. That is – “X” has “A” and “B”, “Y” also has “A” and “B”… “Y” has “J” therefore “X” must also have “J” – let’s test! While it’s not a standalone argument it can be the starting point for a sound conclusion. Perhaps that’s not the same thing…

As Maxwatt said “Analogy is not proof, at best it may form a basis for further investigation.” This is ID to me.

Not exactly what I meant. For an example of the weakness of argument by analogy, see the proof below.*

With regards to the “The whole Universe is a Computer and we’re a Program” argument: Computers are built in this Universe. Just like one might say an online game is a digital life – things built within this Universe will often emulate it. That seems a logical conclusion does it not? Similarly you could invert the Earth Argument; Is it “The chances of the Earth forming to fit us exactly are impossible” or is it “The chances of us Evolving to fit this Earth are Low”?

Total existence could be an evolving fractal. That is an infinite framework of infinite detail. To even extend this farther we could say that the universe is constantly simulating itself over and over each time expanding upon the original. In that context ID could find an intelligent creator though the Universe would be that intelligent creator… it’s constantly creating and recreating itself.

We created computers – We can now simulate an extremely small part of the universe; This after only having computers for practically NO time. Thus at the rate computers are advancing we should be able to simulate the entire universe within a computer no bigger than your room. In fact I wouldn’t be surprised if we were able to simulate the entire universe significantly better than the current version. This is what I mean by the universe simulating the universe or creating it and recreating it over and over. Matrix within a Matrix within a Matrix though each creation is ever better than the last.

Keep it up guys! While you’re right that this will have no reasonable end it is a reasonable and progressive discussion. I’ve learnt a lot and enjoyed reading what you’ve all written.

Moar!

*The Engineer's Proof that All Odd Numbers Are Prime

One is a special case.
3 is odd, and it is prime.
5 is an odd number, and it is prime.
7 is odd, and it is prime.
9 is odd,... we'll come back to 9.
11 is prime. and 13 is prime.
Obviously, all odd numbers are prime.
9 must have been experimental error.

Edited by maxwatt, 27 October 2012 - 11:59 PM.

[Lister]

In my Humble Opinion ID should be allowed to exist as an option within Science.

Not that there's a Pope of Science to keep them out. But doesn't matter, the ID crowd won't be happy with that. They aren't interested in doing any actual science; they are just critics. The raison d'etre for ID is to get it (and thus religion) into the schools.

Not like they need it there. Half of this country are creationists already, and more than half the remainder are IDers.

Ultimately it’s up to you whether you take the high road or the low road in life. I’d like to think that by separating myself from Religion I’ve managed to overcome my fear of living a life without certainty. That is I don’t know what’s going to happen to me when I die and I’m ok living my life without that knowledge. When I die (assuming there’s something, as if there’s nothing it doesn’t matter) I’m confident I’ll be able to face whatever will be without prior knowledge.

In that Turnbuckle I feel as though the enlightened, reasonable high road is one we who are not religious are privileged enough to walk. We can stand above the need for petty conflict and reason out what we see rather than assume a set translation of ancient words. True, one can walk the same path with religion but it’s certainly easier to do so without the social pressures of the indoctrinated.

The reason I say this is because I feel that it’s my responsibility as an “Enlightened Atheist” (as opposed to Bill Maher and Dawkins New Atheist) to look at this argument and others through reason, logic, and rationality alone. Therefore while you may be right that this will NOT be enough for the ID crowd I think it’s critical that we offer it. By “we” I mean those that would stand against the indoctrination of our youth and our nations (not just by religion but by hate, fear, greed and anger.)

We cannot continue our expectations of finding a reasonable society to live in if we do nothing to promote its continued existence. If you show those you feel to be irrational continued rationality through reasonable means they are then given the chance to become rational themselves. If, on the other hand you firm up your opinion of them then what reason do they have to change? Perhaps they had little reason to change in the first place; but are you helping them by prejudging? No.

[Lister]

A couple of problems here, let me see if i can elucidate:

Arguments that are not wrong, but also are not right: any system sophisticated enough to include the complex numbers, will also generate statements that, though they may be true, cannot be proven to be true in a finite number of steps. Hence they remain unknowable though they may be well-formed propositions. (The four-color theorem came pretty close, the proof requires >900,000 steps....) You cannot find if such statements are right or wrong with any amount of trying, though they are obviously either true or false.

ID cannot be included within science for another reason: there is nothing you can see, conclude or test within a biological or physical system using ID, that cannot also be seen, concluded or tested without ID. QED, don't need ID. I am unable to imagine a set of circumstances where this will not be true. Rather than being included within science, ID is properly part of theology or philosophy. ID may be comforting, give one a sense of purpose, or allow one to admire the aesthetic properties of the universe, but don't include it as part of science, nor try to teach it as a scientific alternative. If creationists want to teach it in schools, perhaps a course in philosophy would work, or better leave it for Sunday school.

Scientists may well stand with Einstein and sense a designer's hand in the universe, but he did not try to include it in his equations.

Mmm Yes… Well I’m no Scientist but I am a Philosopher; hence why I can see a possible slot for ID. Perhaps the issues of ID stem from the lack of Scientists involved in the debate.

On the DNA argument ID does really stop the ball rolling doesn’t it? “DNA is irreducibly complex thus we can conclude that it was intelligently designed. Now, where shall we eat for lunch?” While if you’d just kept researching for many more years you’d find valid proof of DNA’s creation through natural means.

Still, it would be neat give the ID supports room to make their case and see what they come up with. I still feel like we’re making assumptions about it and excluding it based on those assumptions.

It’s been asked several times throughout this thread for examples of Intelligent Design. The Eye was brought up and dismissed rather reasonably I thought. DNA has been brought up but seems to have a rather weak case (even including Junk DNA, you’re still forcing a few connections there without enough evidence).

So, Naturalism has many examples (Thousands?) Does ID only have 2? Surely it must have more for it to be seeking such important things as the high school classroom?

[Lister]

Ah I missed Shadows post above. So that's a lot of examples... does any of them pan out?

[Turnbuckle]

Ah I missed Shadows post above. So that's a lot of examples... does any of them pan out?

Take the first eight examples, for instance--

Strong nuclear force constant
Weak nuclear force constant
Gravitational force constant
Electromagnetic force constant
Ratio of electromagnetic force constant to gravitational force constant
Ratio of proton to electron mass
Ratio of number of protons to number of electrons
Ratio of proton to electron charge

Which is really just one example. The argument is that these fundamental constants are so delicately balanced that if you changed them just a little, life wouldn't exist, therefore god must have set them to create life. The argument is really that superficial. This is why the ID crowd is attracted to darkness because in the absence of knowledge they can see the hand of god. But when science throws light on a subject, the hand always disappears. If they were honest they would show the hand of god in science that is well understood. Such as the evolution of man. But of course they can't so they don't even try.

[Lister]

Ah I missed Shadows post above. So that's a lot of examples... does any of them pan out?

Take the first eight examples, for instance--

Strong nuclear force constant
Weak nuclear force constant
Gravitational force constant
Electromagnetic force constant
Ratio of electromagnetic force constant to gravitational force constant
Ratio of proton to electron mass
Ratio of number of protons to number of electrons
Ratio of proton to electron charge

Which is really just one example. The argument is that these fundamental constants are so delicately balanced that if you changed them just a little, life wouldn't exist, therefore god must have set them to create life. The argument is really that superficial. This is why the ID crowd is attracted to darkness because in the absence of knowledge they can see the hand of god. But when science throws light on a subject, the hand always disappears. If they were honest they would show the hand of god in science that is well understood. Such as the evolution of man. But of course they can't so they don't even try.

Is that true in this specific situation Shadow (or any ID supporter)? Can you inject content into this beyond "It's so unlikely that it must have been God," or is this all there is to it?

So far as I understand it we teach Evolution and Naturalism in high school class rooms because it's predictive and a productive theory. That is it allows us expand our knowledge due to its many layered approach. We can apply it to what we see and use it to move onto further steps of research. ID on the other hand seems to be a very flat approach.

It's not really about taking a position on whether God did it or not, it's about logically working through what we see. The likelihood of whether ID or Evolution is true or not isn’t really the point. It’s that you can take Evolution/Naturalism and DO something with it. ID just seems to find ways to end research and to end processes.

How is ID capable of logically working in/out and through things without ending or diminishing returns? Or do we need Religion to continue processes beyond a conclusion of intelligent design (assuming we’re sticking with a single issue)?

Breaking things down till you can’t anymore then shouting “Intelligence” is the same as doing so and shouting “I don’t know” is it not? Or would shouting “I don’t know” allow us to continue research until we find further processes allowing us to break it down further? Perhaps that’s what I’m getting at…

[Turnbuckle]

Breaking things down till you can’t anymore then shouting “Intelligence” is the same as doing so and shouting “I don’t know” is it not?

There's a psychological need to rationalize the world, so in the past the sun rising and setting was explained by inventing a god to carry it across in his chariot. Never mind that it was a crazy explanation, it humanized the issue. And it's the same now, I expect. There's a great need to humanize existence, and science doesn't do it. The ID crowd puts forward "evidence" for ID that's on the order of the sun moving across the sky for unknown reason. But they don't live or die by it. Once science explains every item on that list of evidence, they can just move to a new list of evidence because there will always be unknowns. But these will get more and more obscure and technical and unconvincing.

It's interesting that there is evidence that science brushes aside as impossible, but ID will never use it because it doesn't support the bible. In fact, this evidence suggests that spiritualists are right, not the Christians.

Edited by Turnbuckle, 29 October 2012 - 10:30 AM.

[maxwatt]

Perhaps the plains indians "Great Spirit" is better translated as "the Great Mystery".

[shadowhawk]

Just because an argument is not wrong, doesn't make it right.

I agree. I am not trying to prove ID right, just show it can be studied in science.

[shadowhawk]

Wow! Shadow and I had been going back and forth for a while and no one had gotten involved. I figured I'd leave it for awhile…. You guys really took off with it!

I’ve read most of it now… I still want to read all of Page 5 but I’m running out of time today and want to post.

I’ve come to a few conclusions from reading your replies that I’d like to run past you all.

• Just because something isn’t wrong doesn’t mean it’s Right. But if it isn’t wrong we should try and find out whether it's right or not. Unknowns are what science deals in.
• It seems that the only leg ID can stand upon is the “Unknown”
• As we don’t really know this leaves a space (though Shadow hates this space)
• While “God of the Gaps” isn’t Shadows best friend it does allow for a supportive argument for ID.
• It goes “If we cannot deny with any certainty the possibility of a creator then we should allow for that possibility to exist and consider it. We may even want to invest research into it.”
• But this does not mean that ID qualifies to be anywhere near Main Stream Science.
• Just as we don’t teach high school students String Theory or Quantum Mechanics it would be silly to attempt to teach them ID (as a process). It’s too complex. And still has too much to do with religion (Which is a system of beliefs. Not a process.)
• In my Humble Opinion ID should be allowed to exist as an option within Science. This being said it’s only one option among many. It would have to provide predictors to launch itself further. If it becomes a USEFUL process to scientific PROGRESSION then I could see at least parts of it find its way into a classroom, but chances of that happening I feel are low.
• As ID can still find enough reasonable space to exist as a possibility (more reasonable than a cow spontaneously flying over the moon at least) than I think it’s illogical for us to deny it room.
• I can only conclude that we are seeking to deny ID space because of our fears of the ulterior motives of some of its supporters (to wedge the church into places it doesn’t belong).
• To deny a theory the space it needs to find PROOF is what the church has done in the past to the scientific community (Flat earth indeed). Do we want to follow in their footsteps?

Let me know what you guys think.

Also on a few issues:

Analogy works; though it needs additional elements. That is – “X” has “A” and “B”, “Y” also has “A” and “B”… “Y” has “J” therefore “X” must also have “J” – let’s test! While it’s not a standalone argument it can be the starting point for a sound conclusion. Perhaps that’s not the same thing…

As Maxwatt said “Analogy is not proof, at best it may form a basis for further investigation.” This is ID to me.

With regards to the “The whole Universe is a Computer and we’re a Program” argument: Computers are built in this Universe. Just like one might say an online game is a digital life – things built within this Universe will often emulate it. That seems a logical conclusion does it not? Similarly you could invert the Earth Argument; Is it “The chances of the Earth forming to fit us exactly are impossible” or is it “The chances of us Evolving to fit this Earth are Low”?

Total existence could be an evolving fractal. That is an infinite framework of infinite detail. To even extend this farther we could say that the universe is constantly simulating itself over and over each time expanding upon the original. In that context ID could find an intelligent creator though the Universe would be that intelligent creator… it’s constantly creating and recreating itself.

We created computers – We can now simulate an extremely small part of the universe; This after only having computers for practically NO time. Thus at the rate computers are advancing we should be able to simulate the entire universe within a computer no bigger than your room. In fact I wouldn’t be surprised if we were able to simulate the entire universe significantly better than the current version. This is what I mean by the universe simulating the universe or creating it and recreating it over and over. Matrix within a Matrix within a Matrix though each creation is ever better than the last.

Keep it up guys! While you’re right that this will have no reasonable end it is a reasonable and progressive discussion. I’ve learnt a lot and enjoyed reading what you’ve all written.

Moar!

Hardly anything here represents anything I stated. So I won't respond to these many straw men.

[shadowhawk]

Ah I missed Shadows post above. So that's a lot of examples... does any of them pan out?

Take the first eight examples, for instance--

Strong nuclear force constant
Weak nuclear force constant
Gravitational force constant
Electromagnetic force constant
Ratio of electromagnetic force constant to gravitational force constant
Ratio of proton to electron mass
Ratio of number of protons to number of electrons
Ratio of proton to electron charge

Which is really just one example. The argument is that these fundamental constants are so delicately balanced that if you changed them just a little, life wouldn't exist, therefore god must have set them to create life. The argument is really that superficial. This is why the ID crowd is attracted to darkness because in the absence of knowledge they can see the hand of god. But when science throws light on a subject, the hand always disappears. If they were honest they would show the hand of god in science that is well understood. Such as the evolution of man. But of course they can't so they don't even try.

What is great about this response is its a complete logical fallacy. No rebuttal of why the cosmos appears to be so fine tuned. Here is the running down watch. There are many more. Just blindly calling something superficial, is superficial. And ID members are attracted to darkness. How profound.

[shadowhawk]

Ah I missed Shadows post above. So that's a lot of examples... does any of them pan out?

Take the first eight examples, for instance--

Strong nuclear force constant
Weak nuclear force constant
Gravitational force constant
Electromagnetic force constant
Ratio of electromagnetic force constant to gravitational force constant
Ratio of proton to electron mass
Ratio of number of protons to number of electrons
Ratio of proton to electron charge

Which is really just one example. The argument is that these fundamental constants are so delicately balanced that if you changed them just a little, life wouldn't exist, therefore god must have set them to create life. The argument is really that superficial. This is why the ID crowd is attracted to darkness because in the absence of knowledge they can see the hand of god. But when science throws light on a subject, the hand always disappears. If they were honest they would show the hand of god in science that is well understood. Such as the evolution of man. But of course they can't so they don't even try.

Is that true in this specific situation Shadow (or any ID supporter)? Can you inject content into this beyond "It's so unlikely that it must have been God," or is this all there is to it?

So far as I understand it we teach Evolution and Naturalism in high school class rooms because it's predictive and a productive theory. That is it allows us expand our knowledge due to its many layered approach. We can apply it to what we see and use it to move onto further steps of research. ID on the other hand seems to be a very flat approach.

It's not really about taking a position on whether God did it or not, it's about logically working through what we see. The likelihood of whether ID or Evolution is true or not isn’t really the point. It’s that you can take Evolution/Naturalism and DO something with it. ID just seems to find ways to end research and to end processes.

How is ID capable of logically working in/out and through things without ending or diminishing returns? Or do we need Religion to continue processes beyond a conclusion of intelligent design (assuming we’re sticking with a single issue)?

Breaking things down till you can’t anymore then shouting “Intelligence” is the same as doing so and shouting “I don’t know” is it not? Or would shouting “I don’t know” allow us to continue research until we find further processes allowing us to break it down further? Perhaps that’s what I’m getting at…

Lister, give me a brake. IDers are nothing like your straw man. You are having a great discussion with your straw men.

[shadowhawk]

Perhaps the plains indians "Great Spirit" is better translated as "the Great Mystery".

If something is a great mystery it is better to face it than think you have an answer when you still need more study.

[maxwatt]

Just because an argument is not wrong, doesn't make it right.

I agree. I am not trying to prove ID right, just show it can be studied in science.

But to attempt to do so would be, as Turnbuckle has attempted to explain, a complete misunderstanding of what science is.

[Lister]

So if I conclude that specific elements of the universe are too well balanced to be random I can then find intelligence. Beyond this we could then open up many lines of though regarding the specifics of this design. Where can we find it and where can’t we; on what levels is it located? How closely does it relate to intelligent life?

We can then find key elements of design which can serve as predictors for further research. Like finding screws at one end of a table in 3 spots you can predict there will be 3 screws at the other end; or simple conclude that screws are things that were designed to hold the table together.

OK. Is that more towards what ID is all about Shadow? I wish you’d write these things out yourself. You’re just being lazy.

[Turnbuckle]

OK. Is that more towards what ID is all about Shadow? I wish you’d write these things out yourself. You’re just being lazy.

Shadow is indeed lazy. He hasn't even addressed who the I is in this ID.

If science ever gets stuck and must resort to this, it certainly won't look to some Jehovah or Allah god for an answer. More likely it would turn to Hinduism. To Brahma, Vishnu and Shiva.

[Lister]

OK. Is that more towards what ID is all about Shadow? I wish you’d write these things out yourself. You’re just being lazy.

Shadow is indeed lazy. He hasn't even addressed who the I is in this ID.

If science ever gets stuck and must resort to this, it certainly won't look to some Jehovah or Allah god for an answer. More likely it would turn to Hinduism. To Brahma, Vishnu and Shiva.

Though Turnbuckle, Shadow is right to a degree. If you watch at least part of the video at the top of this page "Expelled" there seems to be a move on to squash ID without giving it a chance. Also it seems reasonable to believe this is happening. A move like this towards squashing ID seems to mirrors a Religious Response too closely for my comfort. It's as though the dogmatic religious person has turned Atheist and is now Worshiping at the altar of Evolution and Naturalism to the rejection of all other theories.

While I agree that ID is too often found in the pocket of creationists like Shadow (leading to insincere motives) I don’t agree that it should be squashed out. That reaction is no different in my eyes to the reaction of a bigoted religious person.

To a certain extent I am NOT religious because I don’t agree with bigoted ignorant ways of thinking. If there are Evolutionists out there that are thinking in bigoted, ignorant ways then I cannot agree with them either. Otherwise I am just being hypocritical.

At lease on the open ended part of ID where we haven’t decided what the “I” is in ID you cannot completely dismiss it. Just as an ID advocate cannot completely dismiss Evolution/Naturalism; at least they cannot do so reasonably. Once we start defining the “I” as God well that’s not Science anymore.

If Physics is an arm of Science that studies a measurable aspect of the universe then perhaps ID can ->BECOME<- an arm of science that studies measurable patterns in relation to known intelligence. But again that means it will have to take a back seat and work extremely hard to prove it has reason to take that position. I agree that we cannot completely explain many of these things but an Evolutionist can say “I don’t know” just as easily as an ID theorist. Evolution at least has certainty in terms of short term natural changes. ID still doesn’t have this.

This is why Evolution at least on the short run can be taught in class rooms. This is why it’s included in Science.

http://en.wikipedia....Laws_of_science

You’ve proven to me that there are extremely rare and extremely convenient patterns in the universe. But this is vague at best; things can look like patterns from a distance though they can change when you get closer.

You’ve proven to me that Cells are extremely complex and I admit we cannot completely explain how they came to be. But we have extremely limited knowledge on the whole thing.

“This is Amazing! I don’t know how this happened! It looks like someone made it!” is not proof nor is it science.

Stop demanding to have it in the high school class room. You’re asking for the keys to the Car before you’ve even learned to walk.

Edited by Lister, 30 October 2012 - 07:37 PM.

[shadowhawk]

Just because an argument is not wrong, doesn't make it right.

I agree. I am not trying to prove ID right, just show it can be studied in science.

But to attempt to do so would be, as Turnbuckle has attempted to explain, a complete misunderstanding of what science is.

As someone who has studied the philosophy of Science a great deal let me ask What is Science? Where does it say such things as design is never to be considered? Take Theists out of Science and it would be set back a great deal.

http://en.wikipedia....kers_in_science
http://en.wikipedia....ientist-clerics
http://en.wikipedia....nd_philosophers

I could also provide current lists of hundreds of Theistic Scientists. Define Science and why Theists should not be free to participate in Scientific endeavors. What is science?

Edited by shadowhawk, 30 October 2012 - 10:11 PM.

[shadowhawk]

OK. Is that more towards what ID is all about Shadow? I wish you’d write these things out yourself. You’re just being lazy.

Shadow is indeed lazy. He hasn't even addressed who the I is in this ID.

If science ever gets stuck and must resort to this, it certainly won't look to some Jehovah or Allah god for an answer. More likely it would turn to Hinduism. To Brahma, Vishnu and Shiva.

Though Turnbuckle, Shadow is right to a degree. If you watch at least part of the video at the top of this page "Expelled" there seems to be a move on to squash ID without giving it a chance. Also it seems reasonable to believe this is happening. A move like this towards squashing ID seems to mirrors a Religious Response too closely for my comfort. It's as though the dogmatic religious person has turned Atheist and is now Worshiping at the altar of Evolution and Naturalism to the rejection of all other theories.

While I agree that ID is too often found in the pocket of creationists like Shadow (leading to insincere motives) I don’t agree that it should be squashed out. That reaction is no different in my eyes to the reaction of a bigoted religious person.

To a certain extent I am NOT religious because I don’t agree with bigoted ignorant ways of thinking. If there are Evolutionists out there that are thinking in bigoted, ignorant ways then I cannot agree with them either. Otherwise I am just being hypocritical.

At lease on the open ended part of ID where we haven’t decided what the “I” is in ID you cannot completely dismiss it. Just as an ID advocate cannot completely dismiss Evolution/Naturalism; at least they cannot do so reasonably. Once we start defining the “I” as God well that’s not Science anymore.

If Physics is an arm of Science that studies a measurable aspect of the universe then perhaps ID can ->BECOME<- an arm of science that studies measurable patterns in relation to known intelligence. But again that means it will have to take a back seat and work extremely hard to prove it has reason to take that position. I agree that we cannot completely explain many of these things but an Evolutionist can say “I don’t know” just as easily as an ID theorist. Evolution at least has certainty in terms of short term natural changes. ID still doesn’t have this.

This is why Evolution at least on the short run can be taught in class rooms. This is why it’s included in Science.

http://en.wikipedia....Laws_of_science

You’ve proven to me that there are extremely rare and extremely convenient patterns in the universe. But this is vague at best; things can look like patterns from a distance though they can change when you get closer.

You’ve proven to me that Cells are extremely complex and I admit we cannot completely explain how they came to be. But we have extremely limited knowledge on the whole thing.

“This is Amazing! I don’t know how this happened! It looks like someone made it!” is not proof nor is it science.

Stop demanding to have it in the high school class room. You’re asking for the keys to the Car before you’ve even learned to walk.

Defending ID does not make one a creationist.
.

[Lister]

Defending ID does not make one a creationist.

Okay.