My Case for Intelligent design behind existence

@Zetherin,

Zetherin wrote:

Perhaps my wording wasn't the most precise, but I hope you don't overlook the point here: Intelligent Design is beyond the realm of scientific method.

"Yes" or No" will not do, as the understanding and viewpoint each of us have will not be articulated well with a single word. These mystical notions cannot be observed or experimented, and therefore should not be considered science. This does not mean they are meaningless, or even that the claims are TRUE or UNTRUE, but rather that they are out of the scope of what humans generally refer to as science.

As for the studies of the brain, I believe this is a very sensitive issue. I'm a believer that intelligence is very relative to the individual. Perhaps someone is not an Einstein with mathematics, but can socialize, articulate thought in an impressive manner. In other words, I don't tend to presumptuously dismiss others because of the intelligence I don't perceive. To apply a word that I feel is already highly relative amongst human beings, to an objective world, just doesn't sit well with me. Are we to judge *how* intelligent or *how* stupid an objective world is? Or are we trying to judge *how* intelligent or *how* stupid the creator is?

I'm curious as to your stance. As of yet, I haven't really understood.

Your comments on intelligence are reasonable ones, but I still think they skirt the issue. Yes, intelligence is a very complex issue. Testing for it is not simple. But that does not mean it is of no value.

You keep insisting there is something mystical about what I've said, and I have taken great pains to say questions of intelligence can be posed without any reference to the mystical. If you think, despite the way I have posed this, that a mystical element still remains, then I think click's point applies. If you're going to insist my posit is mystical, I will have to insist that singularities in the universe are mystical. [edit] It seems to me that you want to discredit my position without saying anthropological work is invalid. I think that will be a tough position to maintain.

I would prefer to say my posit has some metaphysical elements (and the same is true of singularities), but hopefully you see my point. It is something that definitely can be tested - difficult though that may be.

So, you want to know my stance. I assume you mean my stance on ID. If you can't tell, I don't like that label because of the baggage it bears. As I said in my first post, I believe God created the universe, but we will never prove it using human tools (and I consider science a human tool).

But, ID has revealed biases regarding some issues. I actually liked the book Of Pandas and People. The irony is that at one time I was rigidly creationist. The book states that this is a biased view, and it convinced me I had been biased. I had refused to take an honest look at the data collected by evolutionary biologists. Since that bias died, it has been interesting to watch the rhetoric flying back and forth between both sides. In many cases neither side debates honestly.

Now, some information in the book is out of date, and so it's time to move on, but it was helpful to me.

My point is this. I've found some of what evolution claims to be reasonable, but some extrapolate those small nuggets of truth too far. And, on the flip side, I've found that ID raises some valid challenges to evolution, but to think those challenges can be fleshed out into a complete scientific discipline is probably naive.

@Alan McDougall,

Resha wrote:

You keep insisting there is something mystical about what I've said, and I have taken great pains to say questions of intelligence can be posed without any reference to the mystical. If you think, despite the way I have posed this, that a mystical element still remains, then I think click's point applies. If you're going to insist my posit is mystical, I will have to insist that singularities in the universe are mystical.

You've told me you aren't referencing anything mystical, and yet when I blatantly tell you intelligent design implies creation of the world -- something only a higher being could do, no? -- you say I'm veering off track. Just how does intelligent design deviate from anything mystical? Please be specific.

Resha wrote:

So, you want to know my stance. I assume you mean my stance on ID. If you can't tell, I don't like that label because of the baggage it bears. As I said in my first post, I believe God created the universe, but we will never prove it using human tools (and I consider science a human tool).

Of course that cannot be proven scientifically with human tools, as the notion is abstract and has no bearing on the scientific method. As Aedes stated (and this was what I was trying to articulate, Aedes did more eloquently)

Aedes wrote:

Its problem is that the conclusion is reached first and the evidence is twisted to conform to that conclusion. It's anti-science because ID proponents are not looking to find a better theory -- they're looking to supplant the theories that naturally suggest themselves. Scientists may love their theories, but press them hard enough and they will all admit that they are willing to be proven wrong.

Next,

Resha wrote:

My point is this. I've found some of what evolution claims to be reasonable, but some extrapolate those small nuggets of truth too far. And, on the flip side, I've found that ID raises some valid challenges to evolution, but to think those challenges can be fleshed out into a complete scientific discipline is probably naive.

It raises no challenges to evolution in a scientific context. AT ALL. One can be interpreted through science, one cannot. Stop mixing oranges with apples; these are two very different methods of reasoning that have their place in society. Would you equate 2+2=4 to be flying in the face of ID also? Probably not (you'd even use this to advocate ID!), it's only when a particular scientific/mathematical understanding/theory (evolution) questions your faith do you have any qualms.

Quote:

Your comments on intelligence are reasonable ones, but I still think they skirt the issue. Yes, intelligence is a very complex issue. Testing for it is not simple. But that does not mean it is of no value.

Provide me with some methods with which you would test the intelligence of our objective world. Please be specific.

Quote:

I believe God created the universe

I'm starting to see a clearer picture.

@Zetherin,

Zetherin wrote:

I'm starting to see a clearer picture.

No, you've simply found an excuse to dismiss me.

The challenges to "evolution" depend on how you define it. We went through this in an earlier thread:

Resha Caner wrote:

Whether we would agree on evolution itself depends on your definition.

Professional biologists do not agree. Some would include biogenesis. Some would include species survival. Some (like Aedes, I believe), make the definition synonomous with genetic mutation and nothing more. So, as I've said, if all you mean by "evolution" is mutation, then we can agree. But, let's be honest with our labels and use the proper word. Evolution too often implies improper deductions that try to build on mutation.

My example has always been "progressive evolution". In Darwin's time, it was thought that species "improve". Most have backed off to saying it means species "survive", but even that can't be defended. Maybe it means we survive. Maybe mutation means we are headed for destruction. Maybe mutation means we're going in a pointless circle. Nothing in the data definitively points in one direction or the other. It is, by definition, random.

As far as your challenge to produce my method for testing intelligence, I've already addressed that. I'll invite you to go back and read previous posts.

@Resha Caner,

Resha wrote:

No, you've simply found an excuse to dismiss me.

Really, dismiss you? I've stood in front of you the entire time, and you didn't even bother to respond to the questions I've posed. I'm the one dismissing you? I don't play the ad hominem fallacy game, if that's what you think. I'm willing to debate with you on what you're typing and not have a presumptuous judgment influence me. I just meant I'm understanding your stance clearer now, given you're a believer of God. I don't believe you can *prove* your God notion through science, though!

No, you didn't produce a method for testing intelligence of an objective world, you spouted off methods for testing the intelligence of a conscious human! How in the world are you content with this extrapolation?! Start with this.

Next, you completely sidestepped this:

Zetherin wrote:

You've told me you aren't referencing anything mystical, and yet when I blatantly tell you intelligent design implies creation of the world -- something only a higher being could do, no? -- you say I'm veering off track. Just how does intelligent design deviate from anything mystical? Please be specific.

Again, please be specific.

Resha wrote:

Professional biologists do not agree. Some would include biogenesis. Some would include species survival. Some (like Aedes, I believe), make the definition synonomous with genetic mutation and nothing more. So, as I've said, if all you mean by "evolution" is mutation, then we can agree. But, let's be honest with our labels and use the proper word. Evolution too often implies improper deductions that try to build on mutation.

Fair enough, let us stray from the term "evolution" as it really isn't the key here. The key is the differentiation between an abstract notion like intelligent design and a notion that can be scientifically evaluated. Do you still not see the difference?

@Zetherin,

Zetherin wrote:

No, you didn't produce a method for testing intelligence of an objective world

No, I didn't. I never claimed I did. In fact, I said I don't have a method. But to this I added a question (and you have ignored many of my questions as well). Must a hypothesis have a proven experimental method to be valid? If so, how is particle physics valid science? In fact, how is any method "proven" before the hypothesis is tested?

Zetherin wrote:

you spouted off methods for testing the intelligence of a conscious human! How in the world are you content with this extrapolation?!

Spouted? And you're not playing any emotional games? Hmm. Did I say I was content with this? No. In fact, in another post I stated several intelligence tests that I thought would not apply. My error is in always hoping I can develop an argument in an Internet forum. It is too often a pointless excercise. My intent was to start with what you might agree is a valid intelligence test, define the limitations on that test, and discuss what technologies have the promise to take that test forward.

Zetherin wrote:

Next, you completely sidestepped this: [your insistence that intelligence implies a god]

No, I did not sidestep that question. I said intelligence does not imply a god. Don't say I'm sidestepping just because you disagree with me. I also said the implications of a hypothesis should not stand in its way. Many hypotheses have had unresolved implications, and I could invent implications for any hypothesis that are irrelevant. Let the hypothesis stand on its own for what it claims.

Zetherin wrote:

Fair enough, let us stray from the term "evolution" as it really isn't the key here. The key is the differentiation between an abstract notion like intelligent design and a notion that can be scientifically evaluated. Do you still not see the difference?

Yes, I see the difference. Do you need a list of other untested hypotheses that are abstract yet accepted as science? I think I've listed a few over the course of this event. If they are untested, what else are they but abstract?

@Alan McDougall,

Quote:

Must a hypothesis have a proven experimental method to be valid?

If we're speaking of a scientific hypothesis, yes! I can sit here and articulate a million unfounded hypotheses, and no I would not call them valid if they cannot be logically proven through a method.

Quote:

In fact, how is any method "proven" before the hypothesis is tested?

How has logic, mathematics, and other science-related objective methods of understanding come to be "proven"? I'm sure they all have different dates with which they were developed (some arguably discovered)... are you asking me for specific dates when humanity began using the most popular methods?

Quote:

I said intelligence does not imply a god. Don't say I'm sidestepping just because you disagree with me.

Again, How does innate intelligence not imply a god?

Quote:

Yes, I see the difference.

Good, that was the point of all of this. As long as you understand intelligent design is outside the scope of science, we've come to an understanding.

Quote:

No, I didn't. I never claimed I did. In fact, I said I don't have a method.

Very well, then I still don't see how you can test the intelligence of an objective world. Wasn't this a point you were trying to make? That it is still of value to attempt to test? HOW can we test?

@Zetherin,

I think we're a long way from agreement.

Zetherin wrote:

How has logic, mathematics, and other science-related objective methods of understanding come to be "proven"?

Logic and math are very different. I'm no platonist who believes in "forms". Logic and math are systems created by people. As such, the definitions & axioms can be clearly stated and the system developed from there. Even then, according to Godel, we can't create a complete & consistent system.

You're not suggesting something neo-platonic are you? Where we can reason our way to an answer without any experience of the real world? I thought Hume did significant damage to that idea.

Further, I don't think any theory is ever "proven". We use the best theory we have until we find a better one - and I think that is an unending process.

So, let me clarify both what I asked and what I didn't ask. Then you can rethink your answer. I did not ask if a hypothesis needed a "plausible" method. I asked if it needed a "proven" method. If you want to stand by that, then explain to me your version of words like "objective" and "proven".

Zetherin wrote:

If we're speaking of a scientific hypothesis, yes! I can sit here and articulate a million unfounded hypotheses, and no I would not call them valid if they cannot be logically proven through a method.

So, you are right. You can come up with millions of unproven hypotheses. That's part of the scientific process - to speculate. Conceiving them does not prove them. I never said ID was proven - or even that the subset I have been arguing (intelligence) is proven. I've said it's valid to speculate.

Many factors play into which speculations are tested. Money is a factor. Politics is a factor. Peer pressure and peer review is a factor. Then, amongst those that are tested, some are found unproven by the data. That does not mean they are false, just unproven. So another round of speculation begins. At some point, some hypotheses are dropped. That's the process.

Zetherin wrote:

Again, How does innate intelligence not imply a god?

It would be disingenuous of me to say this is not one of the possibilities. But I do not understand why you think it is the only possibility.

To say it is the only possibility is to say only God can create the universe. Now, if you're willing to concede that, I'll be tickled pink. But I doubt you will. No, we have a spectrum of possibilities that range from non-directed randomness to the all powerful God.

Are you going to say that you understand non-directed randomness and creation (albeit that you don't believe creation), but you don't understand how anything could lie between these extremes? If not, and you really want me to start making a list, I guess I can do that. But be warned. It's speculative.

@Alan McDougall,

You know guys

As far as I am concerned it takes equal faith to dismiss the creator or accept there is a creator, both ways there is simply no way to prove either belief.

I am , however still waiting for someone to come up with a counter argument to this thread topic title Thus "My case against intelligent design",

But our differences are what makes dialogue so interesting

@Alan McDougall,

The case against intelligent design would consist of the absence of a logical case for intelligent design. I.D. amounts to "No way, this has gotta be the work of God...I mean, LOOK at it!"

@BrightNoon,

BrightNoon

Quote:

The case against intelligent design would consist of the absence of a logical case for intelligent design. I.D. amounts to "No way, this has gotta be the work of God...I mean, LOOK at it!"

I do I do I am an astronomer and look out at the unimaginably beauty and order of the cosmos.

Go onto a mountain and you will see beauty all around you, YOU HAVE TO LOOK CAREFULLY TO FIND THE UGLY IN NATURE

If there were no creator the whole universe would be absolutely chaotic and disordered.

The greatest puzzle is just why the universe is asymmetrical instead of the disasterous symmetrical universe it should have been

In the early universe there were equal quantity's of antimatter and matter and these two equal and opposite energies should have annialated themselves leaving the universe a barren soup of pure energy or gamma rays. But no antimatter went elsewhere allowing the universe to exist and become what it is now.

The best minds have no idea what should have happened did not happen .

I started a thread in a science forum some time ago with the title "why is the universe asymmetrical instead of symmetrical ,it went on for months without any consensus

@Resha Caner,

Resha Caner wrote:

Logic and math are very different. I'm no platonist who believes in "forms". Logic and math are systems created by people. As such, the definitions & axioms can be clearly stated and the system developed from there. Even then, according to Godel, we can't create a complete & consistent system.

Of course we cant create a COMPLETE set because it would lead to infinite regression which is why axioms are the foundation of everything because we cant reference them to anything else. It has to stop somewhere and thats why it will never be complete. But thats beside the point because axioms are as close to truths as you can get.

Alan McDougall wrote:

You know guys

As far as I am concerned it takes equal faith to dismiss the creator or accept there is a creator, both ways there is simply no way to prove either belief.

Im sorry but this is a massive failure on your part. Please think a little harder before you post stuff like this.

@Kielicious,

Kielicious

Quote:

Im sorry but this is a massive failure on your part. Please think a little harder before you post stuff like this.

Mssive failure?? how man? explain this huge comment???

Oh!! sorry I did not know we had such an advanced intellect as yours on the forum. You should leave us lesser mortals and go elsewhere and find true meaning amongst the demigods

You can not make a huge statement that I HAVE POSTED A MASSIVE FAILURE AND JUST LEAVE THE WHOLE THING HANGING IN THE AIR, For the sake of the god you don't believe in

God can infinitely regress, no problem to him , but to our tiny little minds an enormous problem of infinite proportions

You are not in the forum to show each other how clever you are and how stupid the others are in relation to your mighty mind, but to debate in a n adult friendly meaningful way.

I assure you if you hang around you will to you surprise that you are more than amongst your equals

I am a thinker and a thinker maybe even deeper and profounder than you are.? But my greatest quality is I listen/read carefully to what others say and do not simply dismiss what Ii find hard to accept at the time as nonsense

Then I take it further I dismiss any false thinking on my part and absorb wisdom received from others. You can learn from this an maybe then you will stop and think before you make silly dismissive negative meaningless like posts like the one in the quote above, of which I had to be the unfortunate grief to have to yes reject outright because it jut hangs there in the void

Unlike you I am fallible and limited but I try my best to remain dynamic and flexible in my thinking and never ever go and bury myself in a little closed box of my own ideas

Lastly I know all about the dilemma of infinite regression , turtles all the way down. maybe if you followed the trend of this thread you will observe I started it not you

@Alan McDougall,

darwinillusion.com

Guys go to this link, not on topic but here is a good a place as any

@Kielicious,

Kielicious wrote:

Im sorry but this is a massive failure on your part. Please think a little harder before you post stuff like this.

Hey Kielicious,

Wasn't it Freud who said that All theists have to force their faith, while all atheists must force their non-faith?
I think he did, not sure though.

Anyways, Your response to Alan just seemed like you wanted more from his statement. I think its interesting from a psychological view that whenever I talk to atheist friends, generally they are as passionate as my theist friends (Epic conversations). This is of course a perception and not a generalization, but interesting none the less. I think I remember what Sig Freud was talking about. Something along the lines that Theists spend their lives trying to prove god and Atheists spend it trying to disprove him. Smile

@Alan McDougall,

Alan McDougall wrote:

As far as I am concerned it takes equal faith to dismiss the creator or accept there is a creator, both ways there is simply no way to prove either belief.

You have to be a believer to believe this argument. I think this is one of the things theists have a hard time understanding. Since they believe the creator exists, that he is real in their ontology, then to deny it seems a matter of belief, a kind of faith in itself. From the atheist viewpoint God has no ontological reality, and so to believe is a matter of faith, therefore in the absence of faith, there is no belief, thus not believing is not in itself a faith - it is the absence thereof.

Alan McDougall wrote:

I am , however still waiting for someone to come up with a counter argument to this thread topic title Thus "My case against intelligent design",

The negation of your case for ID (sorry Aedes) is not itself a case against it - your argument is not contradictory, more that your 'evidence' lacks any necessity for an intelligent designer. I've given my case against it two or three times, but this case does not arise from the rejection of yours, and is more political in nature.

The actual counter-argument to your case has been put to you by many people many times in many different ways. In the face of these arguments you have consistently retreated to your starting point. This does not constitute evidence (in the laws of nature and our existence) that suggests ID but does seem to constitute a refusal to accept the possibility of accidental existence on personal grounds, and a refusal to accept the anti-theistic rationality of the argument that we cannot evolve to exploit any more than is already present in the environment of our evolution on theistic ones.

I wouldn't put a scientific or philosophical case 'Against ID' because it has no scientific or philosophical worth. Nor would I put one against the theology contained within since I am as happy others believe it as I am in personally not believing it.

Come to think of it, there are an awful lot of threads on this forum by theists trying to convince atheists they are wrong. What is it about theists that they can't be content with their own beliefs, that they have to try to convince others they're right? Methinks they doth protest too much.

Alan McDougall wrote:

If there were no creator the whole universe would be absolutely chaotic and disordered.

It is, on the whole. We only see a very small part of it. The universe is so huge and lives so long that extraordinary things have a high statistical probability of occuring.

Alan McDougall wrote:

The greatest puzzle is just why the universe is asymmetrical instead of the disasterous symmetrical universe it should have been.

Should have been? There are infinitely more asymmetrical configurations than symmetrical ones.

Alan McDougall wrote:

In the early universe there were equal quantity's of antimatter and matter and these two equal and opposite energies should have annialated themselves leaving the universe a barren soup of pure energy or gamma rays. But no antimatter went elsewhere allowing the universe to exist and become what it is now.

Let me explain a thing or two about anti-matter. The case for its existence arises purely from theoretical speculation: the solutions of relativistic wave equations for massive particles waves are 4 in number, arising from the 4 configurations of spin sign (up or down) and energy sign (positive or negative). This led us to the understanding that for any known fundamental particle, there must be an anti-particle. But which is which? We can't measure the sign of a particle's energy, only its magnitude, so who says an electron is a particle and the positron its antiparticle? Is it not equally the case that the positron is a particle and the electron its antiparticle? Yes. So when you say the entire universe is comprised almost entirely of matter rather than antimatter, you are defining all of the abundant particles to be matter rather than antimatter. I know this is how the issue is presented to the public: I'm not having a go at you personally (this is the fault of physicists who, in the wake of Hawking, realised a lot of money could be made by giving lay people rough ideas of physics without explaining how to understand it).

When charged particle-antiparticle pairs are created, we might prefer to treat, say, the positive charge as the particle and the negative charge as the antiparticle. This is just as, if not more, reasonable as saying all of the abundant particles are particles and their opposites in their pairs are antiparticles. Well, the net charge of the universe, so far as we can tell, is 0. In this semantic schema, there is equal matter and antimatter. The question is then why is all matter of one group of particles (mostly quarks) while antimatter is a mixture (quarks and leptons)? But already the matter-antimatter balance is evened out simply by redefinition of arbitrarally-defined terms. As for why, well there are some asymmetries between the decays of the heavier matter and antimatter particles that existed in the early universe and formed much of the matter and antimatter in the universe now. Usually such symmetry-breaking in processes in the past have suggested the existence of a symmetry not yet considering.

@Joe,

Hey Joe,

Quote:

Anyways, Your response to Alan just seemed like you wanted more from his statement. I think its interesting from a psychological view that whenever I talk to atheist friends, generally they are as passionate as my theist friends (Epic conversations). This is of course a perception and not a generalization, but interesting none the less. I think I remember what Sig Freud was talking about. Something along the lines that Theists spend their lives trying to prove god and Atheists spend it trying to disprove him

Yes I did, not just a statement hanging in the air with no substance to back it.

At the moment I think my position s that of a rational theist, but with sufficient logic evidence I am prepared to move my position to that of a "rational atheist "Not to a silly hothead". After all, whatever, I believe or do not believe will make absolutely no difference to my eternal destiny

I insist that it is just as impossible to disprove the existence of god, as it prove god exists

I am still waiting for someone to come up with me some real concrete evidence, scientific or not that there is no ID/god.

I see the whole universe as just a tiny fragment of existence it is "not the totality of all existence" it had a beginning and it will have an ending

Cause and effect,the relentless one directional flow of energy due to unavoidable increasing entropy , these scientific realities make it absolutely clear that the universe is finite not infinite and it has cooled down almost from its original almost infinitely hot high temperature state at it creation moment, to what it now just average temperature of a tad above "absolute zero".

Check this out if you do not believe me :perplexed:

Right now it has very little relative energy to use. These are statements of scientific fact not religious nonsense

(I am not directing all this at you Joe it is just a general statements to further my position in this interesting debate :bigsmile: )

@Alan McDougall,

First of all, Scientific "fact" should be taken with a grain of salt. Any true scientist will tell you that we do not know these things to be fact but merely that they have the highest probability of being repeated.

Second of all, Intelligent Design is not nerely as probable as particle wave conversions, expanding and contracting particle influences such as gravity and photonic relays, high energy particle collisions and so forth. If we are to use Scientific "fact" as evidence then it must be accepted that the most probable of events is the correct one. An intelligent being which exists outside of the realm of physical reality but has the potential to influence physical reality is as obsurd as saying that the US government has trapped a 4 dimensional monster in a basement somewhere. If you know anything about dimensional physics and relative particle influences then you would understand.

Third, give me an origin. I want to know where "it" came from. All things have a beginning and an end. Tell me where it came from.

Finally- to an earlier post- Proving that I exist is easy.. Proving to myself that you exist is the hard part.

@Icon,

Icon, thanks for your comments on "fact". I know it's a digression from the OP, but the argument does seem to center around "testability" and "evidence".

As such, I have a question. First impressions may be that I'm baiting, but that is not my intent. Let me start with an example from my own discipline that I found very convicting. It relates to the ambiguities in the concept of "force". Newton's first law states that a body at rest or in motion will continue unchanged until acted on by a force.

Suppose we witness an unexpected change in the state of some body. Will we question Newton's law or will we assume the change occurred due to a force we have not yet defined? We assume the latter, and, therefore, the law is not challenged, even if it is false. What then, could ever cause us to challenge the law?

It's an interesting tool for determining if one accepts a scientific precept because of faith or because of evidence.

I once used that tool to ask a group of physicists a question about whether electrons are real or if they are a mathematical/logical construct. I mentioned how I find it curious that no two members of a natural kind are ever identical. No two sheep are identical. No samples of limestone are identical. You can go all the way to the simplest atom - that of hydrogen - and find different manifestations of hydrogen. Yet we assume every electron is identical (in a rest state). We assume this to the point that a serious physicist once proposed that only one electron exists in the entire universe.

I then asked if any experiment has ever proven this, and the answer was no. I asked what experiment could prove/disprove it. They came up with the idea of rarefying hydrogen to a specific state where everything should theoretically be identical. This could then be sent through a dividing process (either by special cooling or by electrical separation of charged hydrogen). If the electrons are different, they would divide into two distinct groups. If not, they would divide into two identical groups. These groups could then be sent through a spectrometer in an attempt to determine if they are identical or distinct.

Granted, such a test would be fraught with difficulty, but it was an interesting thought experiment.

So, are we willing to do the same here? What evidence or test would be necessary to cast doubt on any of the various aspects of biology that are sometimes loosely grouped under the "evolution" heading?

I find the footprint controversy an interesting case. When the claim was first made that dinosaur and human tracks were found together, what was the charge? The charge was that it was a fraud. (I apologize for forgetting the details, because I believe there are cases of fraud, but also cases where the evidence is genuine).

Next, an "expert" examined the evidence. Since we know it couldn't be human, it must be austrailiopithicus.

Oops. Wait. Those two aren't supposed to coexist either. Bring in a new expert. Since we know it isn't austrailiopithicus, the conclusion is that it is another dinosaur of unidentified species (didn't they say cephalopod or something like that?).

Then, for a reason I forget, that was shown false as well. OK. Next expert. The final conclusion is that the impressions were not animal at all, but were a geological phenomena.

At what point does this get absurd? I don't know what those indentations in the rock were, because I'm definitely not an expert, and I've never been able to examine them first hand. But what evidence would be necessary to change some of the current claims?

I can think of some possible answers, but I'm curious to hear what others would say.

@Resha Caner,

Resha Caner wrote:

Suppose we witness an unexpected change in the state of some body. Will we question Newton's law or will we assume the change occurred due to a force we have not yet defined? We assume the latter, and, therefore, the law is not challenged, even if it is false. What then, could ever cause us to challenge the law?

Well your options are: 1) nothing caused the change; 2) something caused the change. If (2), we call that cause a force. Physical laws are laws only so far as they have historically held universally. The moment they don't they have to be refined or abandoned. Newton's laws of mechanics were 'challenged' successfully in the early 1900s.

Resha Caner wrote:

I once used that tool to ask a group of physicists a question about whether electrons are real or if they are a mathematical/logical construct. I mentioned how I find it curious that no two members of a natural kind are ever identical. No two sheep are identical. No samples of limestone are identical. You can go all the way to the simplest atom - that of hydrogen - and find different manifestations of hydrogen. Yet we assume every electron is identical (in a rest state). We assume this to the point that a serious physicist once proposed that only one electron exists in the entire universe.

Hydrogen is more fundamental than sheep, and less manifestly varient. An electron is more fundamental still. What you seem to dislike here is the phenomenon of emergence.

Resha Caner wrote:

I then asked if any experiment has ever proven this, and the answer was no. I asked what experiment could prove/disprove it. They came up with the idea of rarefying hydrogen to a specific state where everything should theoretically be identical. This could then be sent through a dividing process (either by special cooling or by electrical separation of charged hydrogen). If the electrons are different, they would divide into two distinct groups. If not, they would divide into two identical groups. These groups could then be sent through a spectrometer in an attempt to determine if they are identical or distinct.

Why bother? Experiments have been performed to measure the constant properties of electrons (mass, charge, spin, electron number) many times over. The charge, for instance, has been measured to within an error that is very small compared with that charge, which is itself a very small number. This variation, or lack thereof, has not only been measured by a sample of electrons, but by many samples of electrons in repeat experiments. This gives us three possibilities:

(1) all electrons have the same charge and the error is purely experimental;
(2) electrons vary statistically in charge in a way indistinguishable from experimental error;
(3) electrons vary more widely than has been measured, but the millions of electrons measured have, by some amazing coincidence, all been the same or lay within a range much smaller than the possible range.

If (2), why experiment again? You'll have exactly the same indistinguishability between actual variation and error. If (3), why experiment again since clearly no amount of constancy in measured values will make you accept that constancy.

Same goes for the other fixed properties of electrons.

Resha Caner wrote:

At what point does this get absurd? I don't know what those indentations in the rock were, because I'm definitely not an expert, and I've never been able to examine them first hand. But what evidence would be necessary to change some of the current claims?

How about just one unbiased expert among the many to conclude the footprint was possibly human? That would make people pause for thought. I don't see anything absurd about a group of experts independently concluding a footprint isn't human. Human footprints must be the easiest to identify. Nor do I find it absurd that a group of experts fail to agree on what the footprint is, if whatever it is is hard to identify. Nor do I find it absurd that the question of what it was evolved as more people thought about it, found they had to reject earlier hypotheses, reinvestigated, sought help or expertise, thought some more, concluded, rejected, investigated, etc, etc. Jesus, people can be demanding. Instant results or 0/10!

And before you mention it, no I didn't read any of your posts, I just guessed what you'd said.

@Resha Caner,

Icon

[quote]First of all, Scientific "fact" should be taken with a grain of salt. Any true scientist will tell you that we do not know these things to be fact but merely that they have the highest probability of being repeated[/quote].

Any true scientist? are you one what are your credentials if you can make statements like that about them

They really like to think they are dealing with facts and if you speculate too much they will kick you out of their forum

[quote]Second of all, Intelligent Design is not "nerely" as probable as particle wave conversions, expanding and contracting particle influences such as gravity and "photonic relays", high energy particle collisions and so forth. If we are to use Scientific "fact" as evidence then it must be accepted that the most probable of events is the correct one. An intelligent being which exists outside of the realm of physical reality but has the potential to influence physical reality is as "obsurd" as saying that the US government has trapped a 4 dimensional monster in a basement somewhere. If you know anything about dimensional physics and relative particle influences then you would understand.[/quote]

You cannot even spell yet you make as if you know something about "dimensional physics", pray where did you get all this information?

Are you a true scientist this statement is wrong these guys get very angry indeed if you challenge their theories or challenge what they call classical science/physics. They like dealing with facts

And how do you know that a a being outside of outside "our very very very limited physical human perception" cannot effect our material realm. Don't just make statements please explain yourself! :perplexed:

Do you know we only observe a tiny fraction of this material realm yet you speak for an infinite intellect as if you were one :perplexed:

This to me is a pick up peace of metaphysics and not science just speculation

How do I know that scientist like hard facts? because I am a member of a scientific community Example Fred Hoyle and George Gamow are two examples, one atheist eternal universe the other atheist big bang universe, but they hated each other

[quote]Third, give me an origin. I want to know where "it" came from. All things have a beginning and an end. Tell me where it came from.[/QUOTE[/COLOR]]

How about Almighty God!! Think about that!! Origin of the universe Big Bang end of the universe jury still out but all agree it will and must end due to entropy

General comments by Alan

Think of this , there are just three basic bricks (leave out quantum physics and super string theory)

Electrons , neutrons and protons and three types of glue to hold then together in as many different combination as you like.

Strong nuclear force, electromagnetic force and the force of gravity.

From just these three components everything in the universe , you me the earth the galaxies and indeed the whole universe was constructed

Like the result of some unimaginably complex Lego effort to simplify what I to convey.

But I must believe that all these building blocks just fell together and formed a construct of almost infinite complexity and that by blind chance.

Now we must take this further, this random mix resulted in Life what is Life?

If you measure all the physical bodily facts and factors of a dying

A person five minute prior to death and measure the corpse immediately after death in exactly the same way the results would be identical, except for one very important factor this person is dead and something has left his body and this something is of a infinite complexity totally beyond human comprehension. What is life.

The atoms swirling around in your body are billions of years old, someone took the stuff of stars used it as the building blocks of life and made you out of the dust.

We are so teeny so minute so infinitesimal limited in intellect and yet I read bold statement even arrogant statements that yes we know there is no ID.

Ask any surgeon and they will tell you they cannot even make tear duct,, all they can do if help the body heal itself.

Inside your body is another universe of unimaginable complexity, we will never create life, we will only use life to make more life

Resha Caner

[quote]It's an interesting tool for determining if one accepts a scientific precept because of faith or because of evidence[/quote]

I said in my opening post that the universe is sustained by meticulous fundamental constant also called universal laws, laws without a law maker, how is that?

[quote]I then asked if any experiment has ever proven this, and the answer was no. I asked what experiment could prove/disprove it. They came up with the idea of rarefying hydrogen to a specific state where everything should theoretically be identical. This could then be sent through a dividing process (either by special cooling or by electrical separation of charged hydrogen). If the electrons are different, they would divide into two distinct groups. If not, they would divide into two identical groups. These groups could then be sent through a spectrometer in an attempt to determine if they are identical or distinct[/quote]

The great physicist Richard Feynman said no one understand quantum physics and he was correct

When we try to understand the quantum realms we must abandon logic and embrace probability

Quantum particles seem to exist two places at the same time and one particle can know what another particle is doing at the same moment even if separated by a billion light years.

Philosophy Forum

My Case for Intelligent design behind existence

Quick Links

My Account

able2know