OT: Dabods thread missing?

[rickortreat]

Q. for you Evolutionists. Since science is based on creating and testing the exact same environment/circumstances, which science cannot do as regards origin of uni, just what is your takes on how the universe started?

Take a blender apart with only 25 parts, set it in a box and shake it for 40 million years and it will never assemble itself into a blender. Yet the univerce, with far more intricate parts and numerous other factors, did?

Most of the "Ape-Men" alleged go betweens are largely the artists imagination. Ie they find only a jawbone and the artist draws in ALL the rest and claim we have found the missing link.

In the first place, you're annalogy is way off base,  the universe wasn't pieced together atom, by atom, or particle by particle. There was no assembly.

Matter = Energy, both of which are conserved, i.e. cannot be created or destroyed.  

Assuming this to be the case, a big-bang type theory, where a massive black hole imploded/exploded and started the birth of another cycle in the Universe appears likely.  All the astral bodies you see are matter that has been around since before this Universe was created, including you!

The assemblage into different forms is based on the laws of physics, some of which are known and understood, and some of which are beyond our current understanding.

By the way, it has recently been discovered that there is a black hole at the center of each galaxy, and there is a correlation between the velocity of the stars rotating around each galaxy and the mass of the black hole at its center.

As far as the missing link is concerned:  There is no evidence in the fossile record, but this is insignificant, as the circumstances required to preserve fossil evidence are  rare and it is possible these transitional creatures existed but no fossils remain.

Evolution is about as close to a fact as science can get.  The fact that your DNA contains the DNA of lower animals is about as definitive a form of evidence that you can get.  I'm still waiting for a bible thumper to come up with an explanation that contradicts evolution.

 

[WayOutWest]

Okay, and while we are getting technical -- would you please learn how to spell -- it's annoying and not worth responding to until you get it "straight."

Randy,

I'm not getting "technical".  Those terms are the POINT of the discussion.  A typo here or there is one thing but you are completely convoluting your point in the discussion by interchanging those terms.  

To me it seems you cannot distinguish the three very DIFFERENT terms and are making absolutely no sense.

It would be like me having a discussion about christianianity and getting heaven/eden/earth all mixed up.  They are three very different places, you cannot interchange them.

[Joe Vancil]

Sorry, Randy, but here's where I part company with "Intelligent Design Theory," because, in science, precision and accuracy matter.

(If only Dr. Vreddenburg could hear me now.)

Conservation of Matter/Energy is a LAW.

Little "e" evolution is a FACT.

Big "E" Evolution is a THEORY, supported, in part, by little "e" evolution.

Intelligent Design is a HYPOTHESIS.

For the abstract version, let's say we have a phenomenon.  It can be explained in one of two ways:  Alpha and Beta.  And - for the purpose of argument, let's say that if we had all knowledge, we'd know that Beta was correct.

Science teaches us to start with both Alpha and Beta as hypotheses.

Along the way, we discover some facts.  These facts support Alpha.  In fact, if we line up ALL THE KNOWN FACTS, plus some possible ideas/concepts/evidence that we hope to discover, we have now advanced Alpha into a THEORY.  Beta, which has no such facts in evidence, remains a hypothesis.

Let's say that we come up with an explanation of exactly how Beta could work.  Well, that's well and good, but it doesn't make Beta a THEORY yet.  Until experimental evidence proves the possibility, along with no contradictions by other facts, along with evidence have been uncovered, only then can we refer to Beta as a theory.

When all doubt is removed, with no evidence existing that can counter the possibility, along with the full chain of evidence in place - only then can either Alpha or Beta be elevated to "LAW."

In this case, even though Beta is the correct representation of "THE TRUTH," Beta is merely a hypothesis while Alpha is a THEORY.

Evolution is a theory because there is no evidence which says "It's not this way."  It doesn't have all the evidence necessary to make it into a LAW.  But it's more than just a "guess"; in everyday terms, it would be a "good guess" or an "educated guess."

For example:

I'm thinking of a number between 1 and 30.  Take a guess at it, Randy.  Afterward, Skander or Caleb can show the difference between a "guess" and a "good guess."
   

[Guest_Randy]

Actually, Joe, I would question whether your "e" is as much evolution as it is adaptation.  Life has the ability to adapt -- I don't believe that has to be on the same level as evolve (at least in the way evolutionist believe).

Big E is a theory -- intelligent design is a hypothesis.  However, Big E ISN'T fact -- and while adaptation is fact, one can certainly question whether that, in itself, gives evidence to creation or not.

However, one HAS to be careful.

Let me give you an example:
  Rick keeps saying that because there is a common strand of DNA in all life, it PROVES evolution -- that life came from the same single-celled organism.  However, that is presuming that the only way that the common strand of DNA can exist is through evolution.  This isn't fact then -- it's an ASSUMPTION.  Science isn't supposed to work on assumptions -- it's supposed to work on facts.  It's how people taught that the earth was flat -- it was an assumption -- a "good guess" if you will -- it wasn't fact and today we laugh at it.

I'm not saying that evolution is to be laughed at -- however, I am amazed about people who want to herald it into "fact" (look at Ricks statements -- look at the statements made by educators in Philly, even some of those who claimed they were "scientists").  If you can't PROVE evolution -- then I think you allow people the option of looking elsewhere for answers -- somebody tell me what's wrong with that!

[rickortreat]

There is nothing wrong with looking futher for answers, that is the very definition of science!

Also I didn't say that the commonality of DNA in humans and lower forms PROOVES evolution, I did say it was a definitive form of evidence in support of the theory of evolution.

I'm still waiting for you or anyone to come up with another reasonable explanation for this observed and observable scientific FACT.  What other expanation can you come up with for why an Elephants DNA is contained in Human DNA?   Somehow, I have the feeling I'll be waiting for a long, long time!  

Also, although Intelligent Design is a type of hypothesis, it is a very poor one.  In the first place it assumes that something exists (An Intelligent Designer) and that this is the prime mover behind life.  Futher it attempts to validate itself by suggesting that the complexity of life (a subjective human perspective) could only come about through the efforts of an intelligent designer.  It's more of a tautalogical argument, which does nothing to further our understanding!  It's not science and doesn't belong in a science classroom, reguardless of what George Bush or Randy thinks.  It does have a place in a class on the causes of the universe, however although I'm not sure there's a school that offers such a class!

Further did you see what happened in Dover?  This is the school district where the board members tried to get a book supportive of intelligent design into the curriculum,and spawned the court case.  THEY VOTED THE IDEALOGUES OUT OF OFFICE!
Which is what they should have done in the first place.

One wonders why a simillar activity isn't taking place in Kansas.  Ignorance is not bliss.  Willful ignorance is asking for it big time!
 





 

[Guest_Randy]

Hmm, where did I say that ID should be taught in school?  I simply said that evolution should not be taught as an end in itself.  Evolution is a THEORY, Rick -- why should a theory be taught exclusively?  It's a theory because it isn't fact -- if it isn't fact SHOULDN'T you be considering other ideas?  However, as I read on the web from one of the science teachers who initiated the suit -- she indicated that the lawsuit stemmed from a statement that the school board was asking to be read before the students studies evolution.  I don't know why a teacher would be unwilling to state this -- since this is what a theory means -- that it's not fact and that students ought to consider other concepts.

I'm still waiting for you or anyone to come up with another reasonable explanation for this observed and observable scientific FACT. What other expanation can you come up with for why an Elephants DNA is contained in Human DNA? Somehow, I have the feeling I'll be waiting for a long, long time!

Oh, I think there's an answer -- but it's not one that you would accept.  However, why is the onus of this fact put on me to disprove your assumption?  Shouldn't science PROVE this hypothesis?  
  Common strand:  elephant DNA also occurs in human DNA -- okay, sure, I can accept that
  However, you assume that since A is true -- then B (evolution) is also true.  Isn't it's sciences job to PROVE that since A is true then B is also true?  You seem to want to jump from hypothesis to fact without any rational scientic process.  And last time I was in science -- the scientific process isn't trying to rationalize or theorize -- it's proving the hypothesis rather than just assuming it's facts because nobody gives you a different answer that you like.

And why is it that most people in the US don't believe in evolution?  Is it because the gap of facts just haven't convined them yet?  Obviously, there are many who will place faith as their reason -- but the numbers are far greater than faith alone will support, IMO.

[rickortreat]

Oh, I think there's an answer -- but it's not one that you would accept. However, why is the onus of this fact put on me to disprove your assumption? Shouldn't science PROVE this hypothesis?

Common strand: elephant DNA also occurs in human DNA -- okay, sure, I can accept that
However, you assume that since A is true -- then B (evolution) is also true. Isn't it's sciences job to PROVE that since A is true then B is also true? You seem to want to jump from hypothesis to fact without any rational scientic process. And last time I was in science -- the scientific process isn't trying to rationalize or theorize -- it's proving the hypothesis rather than just assuming it's facts because nobody gives you a different answer that you like.

It's not an assumption. it is evidence which apparently supports the theory of evoloution, direct evidence of a common heritage between human beings and all other life forms.  It's not just elephant DNA, there's even reptile and bird DNA in human DNA!  

Now my use of this fact is a hypothetical one.  I could be completly wrong in my assumption that this evidence is "proof".  It does appear, however, to be logically consistant and reasonable. Therefore it is a working theory, subject to any and all challenges to this hypotheis.

And why is it that most people in the US don't believe in evolution? Is it because the gap of facts just haven't convined them yet? Obviously, there are many who will place faith as their reason -- but the numbers are far greater than faith alone will support, IMO.

I think that majority opinion has no relationship to the truth whatsoever.  In spite of all the great strides in evolution, the capacity for logical thought is not apparent in all humans.  The average person is actually pretty stupid, and unable to balance his checkbook, much less comprehend the factual evidence in support of evolution.  Religion is for the masses, and doesn't exclude anyone no matter how dumb they are.  The dumber they are, the more likely they are to be swayed by some authoritative source, rather than develop their own understanding.

We have ancestors who believed the earth was flat, in spite of some pretty clear visual evidence that we were on a round object.  We haven't advanced much since then as a species, even though our technological advances have been accelerating.  

There is a subgroup of humans that do most of the heavy intellectual lifting.  Most of the rest of us get by on the innovations of the smart ones.  It could even be argued that we are damageing the gene pool by making it possible for otherwise non-viable persons to survive!  

 
     

[WayOutWest]

And why is it that most people in the US don't believe in evolution?  Is it because the gap of facts just haven't convined them yet?  Obviously, there are many who will place faith as their reason -- but the numbers are far greater than faith alone will support, IMO.

The reason is ignorance.  For some reason people cannot distinguish between the FACT of evolution and the THEORY of Man evolving from a lower form of primate.

Those are two very different things Randy.

[WayOutWest]

It could even be argued that we are damageing the gene pool by making it possible for otherwise non-viable persons to survive!

There is no argument rick.  As a species we have developed far enough to carry the dead weight.  Imagine if zebras were smart enough to carry guns, you think they would have an easier time against the lions?

Here is one problem I worry about rick.  We are advanced enough to determine if a life is worth creating from a "health" standpoint.  Just days after conception the every day Joe will one day determine if that cell should become an embryo.  Right now some people are making those decision in very special circumstances, but when it become as common as deciding what car or house to purchase, then I fear we're in big trouble.

[Joe Vancil]

WayOut,

...agreed, which is why I believe that studying science itself is insufficient if a certain moral perspective is not applied.   While that moral perspective should not overrule scientific evidence, it should serve as a guidepost for what is and isn't a valid field of study.

Rick,
   
     In terms of common DNA being "evidence":  it is not evidence IN SUPPORT of *E*volution, because it could be that such DNA components are necessary parts of life itself.  In other words, it's not only evidence for Evolution, but also evidence for Intelligent Design.  Further study is needed into *WHY* such components are common - and if those same components exist in carbon-based life on another planet, for example.

     Common DNA, however, does not damage the credibility of Evolution/Intelligent Design as theory/hypothesis.  And that's a good sign of where we should start looking to flesh out both ideas.

     Also:

Also, although Intelligent Design is a type of hypothesis, it is a very poor one. In the first place it assumes that something exists (An Intelligent Designer) and that this is the prime mover behind life.

Incorrect.  While it assumes that something exists, this is the nature of a hypothesis - assumption.  However, NOWHERE does Intelligent Design - the scientific hypothesis - assume that the designer "is the prime mover behind life."  That would be strict Creationism.  Intelligent Design leaves open the possibility for both interference and non-interference.

Futher it attempts to validate itself by suggesting that the complexity of life (a subjective human perspective) could only come about through the efforts of an intelligent designer.

That's part of the hypothesis - not the proof.  Which means that this should be investigated in order to prove the consistency/inconsistency of Intelligent Design.  This could very well be the straw that breaks the camel's back and invalidates Intelligent Design - assuming you follow the scientific method.  You're using it as a means to dismiss it - which is scientifically invalid.  A well-formed hypothesis *MUST* be consistent, yet you're using the fact that it is well-formed as a reason to dismiss it?  Come on!  You know better than that!

It's more of a tautalogical argument, which does nothing to further our understanding!

I couldn't disagree more.  Intelligent Design, well developed, would lead us to the point of engineering life.  Practical applications of this include the production of "artificial" blood and organs, correcting genetic defects, engineering immunity to various diseases/virii, replacing lost body parts, eliminating things such as cancer, or even altering the human genome...the possibilities are STAGGERING.  Evolution leads us to *NONE* of this, as we are unable to "control" the process.

Intelligent Design isn't as "all about religion" as you think it is.  How many of those ideas I just listed do you think would go over well with the average Bible-thumper?

Intelligent Design is more than just Creationism re-packaged!

Personally, I think it's going to take the discovery of reasonably complex life on other planets to get us to the next level in proving/disproving the validity of either Evolution or Intelligent Design.  Either that, or some sort of historical record - a way of viewing past time or the logs of alien scientists who watched the process.  (Yes, very "out there" concepts, but such things should be kept around as ideas, if we're truly going to approach things with an open mind.)


I guess the real question is if you're a Vorlon (Intelligent Design) or a Shadow (Evolution).  (If you haven't watched Babylon 5, do so.  It's awesome.)

 

[Skandery]

I couldn't disagree more. Intelligent Design, well developed, would lead us to the point of engineering life. Practical applications of this include the production of "artificial" blood and organs, correcting genetic defects, engineering immunity to various diseases/virii, replacing lost body parts, eliminating things such as cancer, or even altering the human genome...the possibilities are STAGGERING.

Yet the scientists who developed stem cell research, cloning somatic cells, microbiological and genetic researchers of our time have dismissed Intelligent Design as sensationalistic.  Too pre-occupied with the question of WHO (the theological field) instead of the question of HOW (the scientific field) and WHY (the philosophical field)!  And I'll bet the percentage of those guys willing to treat the "hypothesis" of ID with the same kind of gravitas as the Theory of Evolution is pretty darn small.

Children in schools should be taught that we should wait around until the Flying Spaghetti Monster is kind enough to reveal itself and tell us HOW to cure cancer!?  Worst; they should be taught to devote there "scientific" lives in search of Someone or Something; that may or may not exist; who may or may not have left clues as to HOW to cure cancer!?  That's preposterous and YOU should know better than that.

That's part of the hypothesis - not the proof.

You can flower up Intelligent Design "hypothesis" with all the scientific jargon in the dictionary and it won't add any substance or validity to the idea as it pertains to Science.  So I grant you, they were very careful to dot their i's and cross their t's in hopes of sneaking into the scientific discussion.  I, for one, ain't buyin' it.    

 

Personally, I think it's going to take the discovery of reasonably complex life on other planets to get us to the next level in proving/disproving the validity of either Evolution or Intelligent Design. Either that, or some sort of historical record - a way of viewing past time or the logs of alien scientists who watched the process. (Yes, very "out there" concepts, but such things should be kept around as ideas, if we're truly going to approach things with an open mind.)

Yeah, well until E.T. decides to pay us a visit and give us the book The History of the Universe OR until we find a way to travel through the dimension of time.  As a SCIENTIST, I'll pre-occupy myself with the actual work of observable empirical data to further my understanding of the nature of the Universe, thank you very much.        

[WayOutWest]

I couldn't disagree more.  Intelligent Design, well developed, would lead us to the point of engineering life.  Practical applications of this include the production of "artificial" blood and organs, correcting genetic defects, engineering immunity to various diseases/virii, replacing lost body parts, eliminating things such as cancer, or even altering the human genome...the possibilities are STAGGERING.  Evolution leads us to *NONE* of this, as we are unable to "control" the process.

You're way off on this one Joe.  We cannot "control" the natural process of evolution but we can inject ourselves into the process ala a meteorite whipping out the dinosaurs (sic?).

Intelligent Design is more than just Creationism re-packaged!

Hate to break it to you Joe but that's exactly what it is in it's current form.  The current form that's trying to get inserted into some school systems.  Come on Joe, you know that's the truth.  Don't take the "perfect world" viewpoint on this one, it's clear that creationalism has been repackaged as ID to get it into school.  Maybe someday a sincere form of ID will challange evolution, but that's CLEARLY not what we have now.

I guess the real question is if you're a Vorlon (Intelligent Design) or a Shadow (Evolution).  (If you haven't watched Babylon 5, do so.  It's awesome.)

Please warn people to avoid a couple of seasons of that show cause Baylon 5 turned inot Babble On for 5 shows strait.  The shadow wars seasons were great.  Much like the Klingon and Dominion season were for DS9.  The rest was kinda BLAH.

[WayOutWest]

Joe and Skandery,

I'm sick and tired of you guys pulling out the Spagetti monster and ET without properly including IPU into the mix.

Stop it or you're gonna get yours!

[Skandery]

I'm sick and tired of you guys pulling out the Spagetti monster and ET without properly including IPU into the mix.

IPU?  The reference is lost on me, Miguel, sorry. :unsure:  

[WayOutWest]

I'm sick and tired of you guys pulling out the Spagetti monster and ET without properly including IPU into the mix.

IPU?  The reference is lost on me, Miguel, sorry. :unsure:

Invisible Pink Unicorn.

Google it, the 2nd top hit is a friends website.