How to teach evolution & Evidence for Creationism II

[brownjenkins]

Originally Posted by RÃ*an

No, no, no! They both look for intelligence of a TYPE that is the same as ours, by analyzing things that are available to us.

all the intelligent beings we know of create something from something... not something from nothing... we look for aliens doing things we might do or things we might be able to do in the future

if we observed an electronic transmission that seemed to be flashing in a pattern that was regular and not something we normally see naturally, we could theorize alien intelligence behind it because we know humans can make these kind of signals... even if they were stronger than signals we could produce with current technology

if we saw a star suddenly pop into existance, we would not theorize an alien cause (or no good scientist would without actually seeing the aliens)... because, as far as we know, this is not possible scientifically... even for an extremely advanced race... this does not mean it is ultimately impossible, just that it jumps so far ahead of our understanding of the universe we live in as to make scientific theorizing about it impossible

it is why science theorizes about the big bang and after, but can't theorize about before it... there is nothing to base it on

this is the problem with ID... we have never observed an intelligent being with the ability to create the universe out of a void... so the speculation is outside science

Originally Posted by RÃ*an

ID is like that now - we're at the very beginning of learning to identify/model/simulate/research characteristics of intelligent design. It needs to be studied and analyzed and experimented on. We could learn a lot from these things, and I honestly think the main reason that the ballistic-type people are fighting it is fear and ignorance and their own personal belief system and not being open-minded.

it has nothing to do with open-minded... it has everything to do with not making assumptions and working within the realm of observable reality... you can not base a theory on something you have absolutely no evidence for... life exists on earth, so we can assume it exists elsewhere... creatures that can make matter and energy out of nothing do not exist, so we can not base a theory upon them

[Spock]

Originally Posted by brownjenkins

all the intelligent beings we know of create something from something... not something from nothing...

life exists on earth, so we can assume it exists elsewhere...

don't forget, when you assume you make an ass of u and me ass/u/me

Originally Posted by brownjenkins

creatures that can make matter and energy out of nothing do not exist, so we can not base a theory upon them

hmm, how do you know they don't exist? this has been a sci-fi topic for decades..and we know many of those ideas are now fact.

[Jonathan]

Originally Posted by Spock

hmm, how do you know they don't exist? this has been a sci-fi topic for decades..and we know many of those ideas are now fact.

How do you know the Flying Spaghetti Monster doesn't exist? You don't
And just because some sci-fi has become reality doesn't mean everything you read in your sci-fi novels is possible

[Spock]

Originally Posted by Jonathan

How do you know the Flying Spaghetti Monster doesn't exist? You don't
And just because some sci-fi has become reality doesn't mean everything you read in your sci-fi novels is possible

hmm, correct but once again YOU DIDN'T READ WITH COMPREHENSION what I posted specifically addressed brownjenkins remarks (below).

Originally Posted by brownjenkins
creatures that can make matter and energy out of nothing do not exist, so we can not base a theory upon them

[Jonathan]

Actually I did read BJ's post and I think creatures making energy out of nothing is as likely as a flying spaghetti monster

[Spock]

Originally Posted by Jonathan

Actually I did read BJ's post and I think creatures making energy out of nothing is as likely as a flying spaghetti monster

...SIGH....................

COMPREHENSION means understanding the meaning of words.

Saying something cannot exist or something is not likely, must be based upon fact..as there is no fact nor counter fact in existence, such statements are without meaning or merit.

Our grasp of physics and laws are ethnocentric at best. That doesn't mean that other laws and rules do not exist nor what that implication implies as possible.

-----------------------------------------
If the giving of information is to be the cure of your inquisitiveness, I shall spend all the rest of my days in answering you."......and like Gandalf, I do not choose to.

[Jonathan]

Ok ok, sorry I said anything. I like physics but let's get back on topic, shall we

[brownjenkins]

Originally Posted by Spock

hmm, how do you know they don't exist? this has been a sci-fi topic for decades..and we know many of those ideas are now fact.

we don't know they can or can not exist, which is why they are not within the realm of scientific study... if we observe something "intelligent" creating something out of nothing, even on a small scale, then we may be able to expand scientific theory to contain it... until then it is pure speculation, not science

if, for instance, we developed to the point that we could create a mini "universe" in a testube (think "horton hears a who" ), we could certainly imply that our own very existance is a result of a similar experiment... this would not solve the ultimate question, but it would give a viable scientific answer to at least a part of the question

but we are not even close to that

[Rían]

Originally Posted by Jonathan

Occam's razor - Given two equally predictive theories, the simpler tends to be the right one. It is the basic scientific principle, RÃ*an.

Yes, I'm familiar with that, but if the data is a better fit to the more complex theory, then that's what should be chosen.

Hmm, actually the idea of God creating everything is a VERY simple idea compared to evolution, hey?

[Rían]

Originally Posted by brownjenkins

all the intelligent beings we know of create something from something... not something from nothing...

Actually I did read BJ's post and I think creatures making energy out of nothing is as likely as a flying spaghetti monster

Why are you guys even making the ASSUMPTION that the designer made something out of NOTHING? That is a philosophical assumption outside the bounds of science.

[Nurvingiel]

Originally Posted by RÃ*an

No, no, no! They both look for intelligence of a TYPE that is the same as ours, by analyzing things that are available to us.

I disagree - I think science looks for the explanation that best fits the available data.

ID is an exercise of the human mind and senses and observation. IMO, you guys need to get over this "supernatural being" thing. If SETI deciphered a signal from outer space showing a being creating something, would they instantly drop it and send it over to the philosophy/religion class? No!!!! They would seek to find out MORE.

I was thinking about this the other day. If we could observe God or other supernatural beings, would they enter the realm of science? Would they still be supernatural?

Originally Posted by RÃ*an

SCIENCE is about seeking knowledge; its very NAME means "knowledge".

I think ID is an interesting new field of SCIENCE, altho it is definitely in its infancy.

<snip>

I'm not saying people who study ID don't have a scientific approach, my point was theory itself can't be scientific because a supernatural being is part of the theory.

Why do we need to "get over the supernatural being" thing? This is the keystone of the theory. I admit that I don't understand the fine points of ID, but if you don't have an intelligent designer, then you don't have Intelligent Design.

You do make compelling arguments though RÃ*an.

Jonathan, while I think Occam's Razor is often true, I don't think it's always true. Occam's Razor also says "make no more assumptions than needed". Well that's just good advice.

[Jonathan]

Originally Posted by RÃ*an

Yes, I'm familiar with that, but if the data is a better fit to the more complex theory, then that's what should be chosen.

Yes, and if you have data that fits two theories equally well, you should in most cases pick the simpler of the two.

Originally Posted by RÃ*an

Hmm, actually the idea of God creating everything is a VERY simple idea compared to evolution, hey?

Nah, I'm of the opposite opinion
As Jodie Foster said in the movie "Contact":
What's more likely, that an all-powerful mysterious god created the universe and then decided not to give any proof of its existence, or that it simply doesn't exist at all, and that we created him so that we wouldn't have to feel so small and alone?

Of course, as an IDist, you might argue that God did in fact leave traces of his existance in his intelligent designs

[rohirrim TR]

what do ya'll evolutionist say to this critter?

[Spock]

Indeed.

[Nurvingiel]

I say there's no part of Evolution that says an egg-laying mammal with a bill can't have come about through natural means.

I guess IDists would say God's having a bit of a laugh eh? (Just kidding! )

[rohirrim TR]

nurv- would you care to give the mathematical odds of a platypus coming about through evolution? come one folks think critically here.

[Nurvingiel]

I have no idea Rohirrim TR. I mean, I'm happy to think critically, but
a) I don't know enough about math or probability
b) I don't know enough about evolution
c) I don't think you can even do that with evolution. At least, no human I've heard of is that good at math.

But really, why is it so impossible that a duck-billed platypus has come about through evolution? Just because it's unique doesn't necessarily mean it can't have evolved.

[Jonathan]

Ooh, cute platypus!

The bill of the platypus is analogous to the bill of bird. That is to say, on a genetic level there are no similarities between the genes that are involved in the making of the bill of a bird and those involved in making a platypus bill.
Now had the genes been homologous, it would have been really weird. Then the platypus shouldn't even exist

So genetically, the platypus is still as far away from birds as other mammals are. If God created the platypus, why did he not put bird genes in it? Why did he invent new genes to make a biological structure that already existed in birds? (birds were created before mammals according to Genesis IIRC)
If I were God, I wouldn't have re-used the bird bill genes

[Rían]

Originally Posted by Nurvingiel

I guess IDists would say God's having a bit of a laugh eh? (Just kidding! )

I can say from personal experience that God has a great sense of humor

[Nurvingiel]

Originally Posted by RÃ*an

I can say from personal experience that God has a great sense of humor

I was totally thinking that when I made that joke.


What do you think about my other comments RÃ*? (The ones in response to your interesting post - #378 on the previous page.) Not that I'm grasping for attention or anything.

Jonathan made some interesting comments too.