|
|
|
JerryB
Skeptic Friend
279 Posts |
 Posted - 10/28/2004 : 03:04:08 [Permalink]
|
*****But here, at this, murky little corner of the web, you must be ready to back them up because you will be asked*****
Let's hope so. :) |
 |
|
|
Starman
SFN Regular
Sweden
1613 Posts |
Posted - 10/28/2004 : 03:08:47 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by JerryB
******Well you already flunked!*******
LOL, We shall see. ;)
Lack of explanation noted.
Once again:
1 How is Darwinism in conflict with thermodynamics?
2 How does thermodynamics give ID support?
 |
"Any religion that makes a form of torture into an icon that they worship seems to me a pretty sick sort of religion quite honestly"
-- Terry Jones |
|
|
|
filthy
SFN Die Hard
USA
14408 Posts |
Posted - 10/28/2004 : 03:10:14 [Permalink]
|
quote:
A god of quantum mechanics does not violate science, does it?
Actually, it does. Science has no way to test the metaphysical, therefore does not deal with it.
Thanks for the reference. I'm off to check it put.
I have been called Filthy Phil for a long time. It is the road name given me by a well-known M/C. I was a charter member. I had to drop out after a time, but the name has stuck, lo, for this 1/2 century.
|
"What luck for rulers that men do not think." -- Adolf Hitler (1889 - 1945)
"If only we could impeach on the basis of criminal stupidity, 90% of the Rethuglicans and half of the Democrats would be thrown out of office." ~~ P.Z. Myres
"The default position of human nature is to punch the other guy in the face and take his stuff." ~~ Dude
Brother Boot Knife of Warm Humanitarianism,
and Crypto-Communist! 
|
|
|
|
filthy
SFN Die Hard
USA
14408 Posts |
Posted - 10/28/2004 : 03:31:12 [Permalink]
|
quote:
The double-slit experiment is hard enough to understand on its own, even if John Wheeler hadn't come up with the idea of moving the detector. He had the interesting idea of monitering the particle after it had already made its "chosen" move through the holes, but still before it hits the screen which records the move. According to "common sense" (if one can use common sense in a case like this), since the scientists don't monitor the particle at the exact moment it is "choosing" whether or not to go through both holes at once, the particle is supposed to go through both the holes at once and cause the interference.
But it doesn't--not according to the independent experiments carried out by the University of Maryland and the University of Munich. These experiments confirm that the particle actually goes through only a single hole--just as if it had known that it was going to be observed. It makes only a solitary dot on the screen. The little scoundrel anticipates that a detector will be watching him later, and refuses to perform his startling bi-location behavior!
Very interesting, if a bit hard on the eyes (I hate small fonts and off-color backgrounds!).
I think I read something about this a while back, but don't remember it well.
I do not pretend to understand anything about quantum physics. I think that there is a great deal, indeed a staggering amount yet to be learned. However, I have yet to see anything in support of ID in the referenced writing, or any other thus far.
Which does not rule out ID as a possibility, of course. However, at this point, my speculation of the Cosmic Hypnotoad has equal credence.
|
"What luck for rulers that men do not think." -- Adolf Hitler (1889 - 1945)
"If only we could impeach on the basis of criminal stupidity, 90% of the Rethuglicans and half of the Democrats would be thrown out of office." ~~ P.Z. Myres
"The default position of human nature is to punch the other guy in the face and take his stuff." ~~ Dude
Brother Boot Knife of Warm Humanitarianism,
and Crypto-Communist!
|
|
|
|
furshur
SFN Regular
USA
1536 Posts |
Posted - 10/28/2004 : 05:41:20 [Permalink]
|
Welcome JerryB.
I am curious about your statement that thermodynamics is in conflict with evolution. I assume that you are refering to entropy. If that is your argument, then you are demonstrating a lack of understanding of thermodynamics. I don't mean to "put words in your mouth", but you seem reluctant to elaborate.
quote:
“Chairman of the Mathematical Physics Department at Tulane, a world renowned cosmologist, a confessed 'atheist', named Frank Tipler joined the ID movement, Based on Quantum Theory
And your point is? One reason Einstein refused to accept Quantum Theory is because he thought it invalidated God. Two very smart men who made the mistake of mixing theology with science.
I think that a case for UD (unitelligent design) would be easier to make based on the number of extinct species. How many millions of years and millions of "failed attempts" must be made, untill Man (the final product) was 'perfected'. If there was a 'designer' with that track record I sure as hell wouldn't hire him.
Give me a break! ID is creationism in sheeps clothing.
Anyway welcome again - and I hope that you present some evidence for ID so the discussion can proceed to specifics.
|
If I knew then what I know now then I would know more now than I know. |
|
|
|
chaloobi
SFN Regular
1620 Posts |
Posted - 10/28/2004 : 06:02:40 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by furshur
<snip>I think that a case for UD (unitelligent design) would be easier to make based on the number of extinct species. How many millions of years and millions of "failed attempts" must be made, untill Man (the final product) was 'perfected'. If there was a 'designer' with that track record I sure as hell wouldn't hire him.
<snip>
That's an interesting idea. I'm no creationist or ID whatever, but I do disagree with your statement above. You make a lot of assumptions there that I don't think are entirely rational. Since we're fully in the realm of speculative fiction here, I'll add my own along with the ones I don't agree with:
1. That the 'designer' has made failed attempts to create humanity. Why can't God have been experimenting with something else in the past? Why do extinct species need to be failures? Perhaps they had a purpose that was served and the were then cast aside. Perhaps their purpose was to be cast aside. If we're going to make stuff up about a 'designer,' lets at least be imaginative about the process of design. Sheesh.
2. That humaity is the final product. I'm inclined to believe we are more of a half-way point between animal and something else - perhaps something free of instinct and fully rational. Some good sci-fi suggests that computer mind is the next step, that humanity's purpose is to usher in the Age of Mind. Once that's complete, we'll head off to that pile of extinct species.
3. That humanity is perfect. Man, if this is the best God can do, I'm not impressed. LOL. One of the key characteristics of being human is being flawed. Just look at the human society around us! Man o man, it's essence is imperfection.
Anyway, just thought I'd have a little fun with this.
BTW - ID is religion. 'Design' implies 'desinger' and 'designer' is just another word for 'creator.' The best you can do is claim Agnostic Deism, that is to first reject 'revealed' religion, and then look at the universe and acknowledge that it 'appears' to be designed, but that you can't know for sure. And since you can't know for sure, you can then drop the whole 'designer' thing altogether, since science is not concerned with anything you can't test. The only point at all of pursuing ID is to demonstrate the existance of a creator. Therefore it is religion. |
-Chaloobi
|
|
|
|
furshur
SFN Regular
USA
1536 Posts |
Posted - 10/28/2004 : 06:31:09 [Permalink]
|
JerryB, I have enjoyed reading up on the delayed choice experiment, very cool stuff.
There are flaws in your logic though. You imply that since the outcome of the experiment depends on observation (actually how we conduct the observation) that there must be an observer for the universe to exist. I believe this is a rough paraphrase of what you said.
One flaw is quantum mechanics cannot be extended to the macroscopic world. There are alot of exotic properties of subatomic particles (such as tunneling) that are not seen in the macroscopic world.
If there was a huge wall and only 2 gates to go through and you sent a vast herd of zebra through those gates - I can guarantee that each zebra will either go through one or the other gate, an individual zebra will never go through both gates at the same time regardless of the how they are observed.
There is no zebra/wave duality.
|
If I knew then what I know now then I would know more now than I know. |
| Edited by - furshur on 10/28/2004 07:48:43 |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26020 Posts |
Posted - 10/28/2004 : 07:27:16 [Permalink]
|
Another case of an IDist (even a "modern" one) claiming that ID is a science, yet failing to present any evidence, or even a testable hypothesis. These things are the hallmarks of science. ID has none, and so fails to be a science, and even the likes of fellow IDist Del Ratzsch understands this.
At this moment, it takes a dogmatic attitude and a willingness to ignore profoundly contrary evidence to claim that ID is in any way a science. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
filthy
SFN Die Hard
USA
14408 Posts |
Posted - 10/28/2004 : 07:27:59 [Permalink]
|
Mmm. ID.
Pertinent to the discussion, I think, is the origins and goals of the ID movement. It is little more than an attempt to get creationism taught in the schools in place of evolution, regardless of any evidence in it's support. Here then, is The Wedge:
quote:
FIVE YEAR STRATEGIC PLAN SUMMARY
The social consequences of materialism have been devastating. As symptoms, those consequences are certainly worth treating. However, we are convinced that in order to defeat materialism, we must cut it off at its source. That source is scientific materialism. This is precisely our strategy. If we view the predominant materialistic science as a giant tree, our strategy is intended to function as a "wedge" that, while relatively small, can split the trunk when applied at its weakest points. The very beginning of this strategy, the "thin edge of the wedge," was Phillip ]ohnson's critique of Darwinism begun in 1991 in Darwinism on Trial, and continued in Reason in the Balance and Defeatng Darwinism by Opening Minds. Michael Behe's highly successful Darwin's Black Box followed Johnson's work. We are building on this momentum, broadening the wedge with a positive scientific alternative to materialistic scientific theories, which has come to be called the theory of intelligent design (ID). Design theory promises to reverse the stifling dominance of the materialist worldview, and to replace it with a science consonant with Christian and theistic convictions.
The Wedge strategy can be divided into three distinct but interdependent phases, which are roughly but not strictly chronological. We believe that, with adequate support, we can accomplish many of the objectives of Phases I and II in the next five years (1999-2003), and begin Phase III (See "Goals/ Five Year Objectives/Activities").
http://www.antievolution.org/features/wedge.html
As can be readily seen, this is not any sort of a scientific theory nor even an hypothesis; rather, as boldly stated in the above quote, it is a strategy intended to weaken the teaching of the ToE.
Sadly, it is working, at least here and there. However, no amount of blather will change facts. They can be twisted, misrepresented, ignored, and lied about; but they cannot be changed.
I strongly recommend reading the whole thing.
I had this site in my stash, but when I tried to link it, I got a dating service and had to hunt it down again. I dunno if that's meaningful or not.
|
"What luck for rulers that men do not think." -- Adolf Hitler (1889 - 1945)
"If only we could impeach on the basis of criminal stupidity, 90% of the Rethuglicans and half of the Democrats would be thrown out of office." ~~ P.Z. Myres
"The default position of human nature is to punch the other guy in the face and take his stuff." ~~ Dude
Brother Boot Knife of Warm Humanitarianism,
and Crypto-Communist!
|
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26020 Posts |
|
|
Siberia
SFN Addict
Brazil
2322 Posts |
Posted - 10/28/2004 : 08:00:45 [Permalink]
|
Welcome, welcome, Jerry!
There's a debate between Peptide (fellow skeptic friend) and someone from another forum. I strongly recommend you to read his posts (it's in another thread). It's great stuff, in favour of evolutionism instead of creationism (though, I'll admit, it doesn't at all maul ID as I'm trying to understand it - even though I still think there's no need of design for stuff be as they are). |
"Why are you afraid of something you're not even sure exists?"
- The Kovenant, Via Negativa
"People who don't like their beliefs being laughed at shouldn't have such funny beliefs."
-- unknown
|
|
|
|
Dude
SFN Die Hard
USA
6891 Posts |
Posted - 10/28/2004 : 08:05:54 [Permalink]
|
1. The original article linked by astropin. That sickens me. Born again christians deciding to teach their iedology as science in public classrooms.
2. JerryB. Welcome to SFN. Always glad to have some people with different points of view here! However:
a. ID is not science. Real science is testable and verifiable. Until you can provide some examples of testable/verifiable evidence to support ID, then you can't call it science. Quoting people with degrees who have "converted" doesn't count.
b. ID fails logic. In order to "prove" design, you must assume a designer. Until you can provide evidence for a designer, other than what appears to you as design, you cannot make the claim that any designer exists and expect it to be accepted.
c. When you can bridge the gap between quantum mechanics and conventional physics, you will have earned your Nobel Prize. Clearly, however, you don't seem to have a firm grasp on either. As pointed out, actions that occur on a quantum level do not have parralels outside of the quantum scale. No zebra/wave duality. (great example btw, :) ).
d. ALL of the major proponents of ID (that I'm aware of) have a religious (usually fundamentalist evangelical) background. And are seeking to create a public controversy over ID vs Evolution. Somehow, in their teeny weeny brains, they percieve evolution as attempting to disprove some aspect of their religious beliefs. These people go so far as to make up fake schools, and give each other fake degrees from their fake schools. All in an attempt to decieve a generally ignorant public.
e. Degrees. I, and probably most here, can respect not having a degree. The reason we ask for credentials is simple. If you have credentials from an accredited school, then your credibility increases. If you have fake creds, from some unaccredited fundie make-believe school, then your credibility drops to less than zero. But yes, being knowledgable doesn't require a degree. That said, to speak with authority on a subject, your credibility is greatly enhanced by a real degree.
f. ID and degrees. There are no ID degrees from any accredited school, and never will be. Because ID is not science, it's theology, and shoddy theology at that.
So.... I will join the others here who have made the request. Please provide evidence to support your claims. Barring that, present some logical argument for your case. Then we can get down to discussion. |
Ignorance is preferable to error; and he is less remote from the truth who believes nothing, than he who believes what is wrong.
-- Thomas Jefferson
"god :: the last refuge of a man with no answers and no argument." - G. Carlin
Hope, n.
The handmaiden of desperation; the opiate of despair; the illegible signpost on the road to perdition. ~~ da filth |
|
|
|
|
Dr. Mabuse
Septic Fiend
Sweden
9687 Posts |
Posted - 10/28/2004 : 09:36:20 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by JerryB
Physics supports ID in that thermodynamics totally 'disses' Darwinism and fully supports ID.
The words 'thermodynamics' and 'evolution' in the same sentence always activates my BS-meter, and sets it on yellow alert. The word 'disproves' or 'negates' in the same sentence quickly sends it into red. Words having a similar meaning to the ones mentioned above also triggers the BS-meter.
Saying that "thermodynamics totally 'disses' Darwinism" needs a very, and I mean VERY good explanation, or I will conclude that you have very little understanding of either topic. |
Dr. Mabuse - "When the going gets tough, the tough get Duct-tape..."
Dr. Mabuse whisper.mp3
"Equivocation is not just a job, for a creationist it's a way of life..." Dr. Mabuse
Support American Troops in Iraq:
Send them unarmed civilians for target practice..
Collateralmurder. |
|
|
|
astropin
SFN Regular
USA
970 Posts |
Posted - 10/28/2004 : 10:38:47 [Permalink]
|
Damn! Jerry ran into a site were people know how to debate. He has probably run off to find easier prey. One significant factor in the article I linked to; this is the fist time that any school has specifically required the teaching of "ID" in a science class. I'm feeling nauseous.
Jerry? JERRY? Come back. Please explain your new scientific "ID". Just make sure your arguments are iron clad because we will attempt to verify all references. Oh and references are required or you will be dismissed.
|
I would rather face a cold reality than delude myself with comforting fantasies.
You are free to believe what you want to believe and I am free to ridicule you for it.
Atheism:
The result of an unbiased and rational search for the truth.
Infinitus est numerus stultorum |
|
|
|
furshur
SFN Regular
USA
1536 Posts |
Posted - 10/28/2004 : 10:51:17 [Permalink]
|
I think JerryB is a "joker, a smoker he's a midnight poster".
I hope that he comes back he seems like an intelligent guy. It should be fun to have a discussion with him. It will certainly beat the hell out of trying to communicate with Verlich!
|
If I knew then what I know now then I would know more now than I know. |
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Topic Locked
