| Welcome to Campfire Soapbox. We hope you enjoy your visit. You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our community, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free. Join our community! If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features: |
| Dumbing Down Of America, 2 | |
|---|---|
| Tweet Topic Started: May 12 2006, 11:46 AM (5,658 Views) | |
| tomdrobin | May 24 2006, 09:38 PM Post #151 |
|
Member
|
OK, here is my 2 cents for what it's worth. Evolution is a theory base on evidence. Incomplete evidence, but still valid evidence. ID is a theory based on a possibility, with no direct evidence other than the idea that life is too complex to have just evolved with no outside influence. Actually I think there are bigger issues with education in this country. Number one being that our primary education system is unionized. Which puts union members interests ahead of the product they are responsible for, which is education of the students. Too little class time! And, what class time there is, is not intense enough to teach our children what they need to be competitive in this world. Our local school system is just wrapping up for the year. I seriously don't know how they justify finishing up before the end of June. The last 3 days are 1/2 days, a absolute joke (a bad one at that). The kids go to school, do very little and then go home after less than 3 hours there. Another setup addressing the interests of the teachers at the expense of education of the students. |
![]() |
|
| teryt | May 24 2006, 11:56 PM Post #152 |
![]()
Missing in Action Member
|
I thought we were doing just fine. Why do you think ID has any merit at all? Other than the obvious: because it's not evolution. Alas, this will have to wait. I'm heading out for a 4 day weekend with the camper and telescope where I will spend many happy hours observing objects by means of Optical Theory that are held together and moving according to the Theory of Universal Gravitation and shining brightly by the Theory of Relativity. Some of the more distant objects will be cosmologically red shifted due to the Big Bang Theory and we'll see evidence of the Impact Theory on the moon. We'll use some sophisticated hardware that works through applications of Quantum Theory and Circuit Theory and a few of the guys will play with stuff that uses Antenna Theory. Finally, we will heat our food and chill our drinks with Kinetic Theory. Only a theory.... sheesh. [/QUOTE] Yes, we can enjoy all of these things because of our "well ordered universe." We too are heading out for the weekend. Maybe when I get back I can do a better job; but expending time on here sparring is not exactly what I would call an HPA (high payoff activity) that strategically lines up with what I need to be doing with marketing my business! Interesting how I perceived a communication problem in a certain way, but you think we're "just fine." As an example of this miscommunication I submit:
(It's hard for me to not point such illogical fallacies out to you - a hang-up on my part perhaps?), but I'll try to refrain - next time!) You all have the most enjoyable & safe weekend with friends & loved ones!
FYI - SORRY, BUT THE QUOTE FUNCTION WENT GOOFY ON ME HERE! |
My Boast is Christ ![]() Soon to have MBA (I'll perhaps be smart then) Recovering Perfectionist Christian Hedonist | |
![]() |
|
| cmoehle | May 25 2006, 04:38 AM Post #153 |
|
Chris - San Antonio TX
|
Teryt, I'll comment again on how you seem to be determined to create controversy, not controversy between the ideas of evolution and ID, but logical ones, linguistic ones. Tom, your assessment of the difference between evolution and ID as theories is good. If I might even make a finer distinction, evolution, like any scientific theory, cannot be absolutely proved by evidence because of what's called the inductive problem, whereas ID, like any philosophical theory of the supernatural, cannot be absolutely proved because, by definition, evidence does not exist. Consider the Sorites Paradox about a heap of sand: A grain of sand is not a heap, two are not a heap, three, four...you'll never arrive at a point where the addition of a grain of sand makes a heap. --Still, evolutionary theory has, as the opening post of this thread showed, has practical benefit. Consider the designer in ID: It is outside nature, above it, or super-natural. So by definition it does not exist in any material, substantial sense. You just will never find evidence for the designer in nature, which is the realm of study we call science. --Still it is a fascinating idea. |
|
Politics is the art of achieving the maximum amount of freedom for individuals that is consistent with the maintenance of social order. --Barry Goldwater | |
![]() |
|
| abradf2519 | May 25 2006, 09:06 AM Post #154 |
|
Member
|
Cute. You list off a buch of invalid concepts and list ID among them and then say ID is a valid concept. Why can't you admit you think ID is invalid? |
|
Alan Milan, New York, USA | |
![]() |
|
| abradf2519 | May 25 2006, 09:45 AM Post #155 |
|
Member
|
The designer does not necessarily have to be "super natural". What if the designer was an alien from a technologically advanced planet where the process of creating life is well known? (Maybe I read too much science fiction...) If one of us were to go back in time with some of our stuff, would we not be like gods to the primitive people? This is not super natural. The world looks like it was designed. This has been the assuption of every society and religion on earth since the beginning. My main problem with evolution is that we see no gradual changes, only big jumps, if we see any change at all. Also, how does an organism "evolve" something it needs to survive over millions of years, when it needs the thing to survive? Evolution also, does not answer the question of the origion of life. ID just makes much more sense. |
|
Alan Milan, New York, USA | |
![]() |
|
| cmoehle | May 25 2006, 10:14 AM Post #156 |
|
Chris - San Antonio TX
|
Alan, Eric is RVing, so I'll ask, do you understand what "valid concept" means? About the only theory besides abiogenesis that is not supernatural is panspermia (extraterrestial source). Going back in time is not natural, therefore supernatural--don't read too much into the "super-", "extra-" would do equally well. "The world looks like it was designed. This has been the assuption of every society and religion on earth since the beginning." Every? Careful, Teryt will get you for that superlative. But what is the significance if that assertion were true? Other than people ascribe to super-natural concepts those things they do not understand. Doc, an agnostic, would say, why not simply settle for unknown. Perhaps that's all God is, the unknown. Is that what bothers you, that science constantly chips away at the unknown, revealing the mundane behind the curtain of the Wizard of OZ? "My main problem with evolution is that we see no gradual changes, only big jumps, if we see any change at all." Could you be more specific, or is that the God of Gaps argument? "Also, how does an organism "evolve" something it needs to survive over millions of years, when it needs the thing to survive?" Evolutionary theory explains this. Random mutation, natural selection, and so on. I'm sure you know all these aspects of evolutionary theory that you criticise. "Evolution also, does not answer the question of the origion of life." Because that's not what the theory of evolution is about, as you know. Should we argue that the theory of gravity does not answer origins so toss it out? Absurd. "ID just makes much more sense." What aspects of ID, specifically, and in what specific ways does it make sense? I'm sure there are mathematical, philosophic, even religious aspects of ID that make sense in those areas of study. Just not scientific areas. |
|
Politics is the art of achieving the maximum amount of freedom for individuals that is consistent with the maintenance of social order. --Barry Goldwater | |
![]() |
|
| teryt | May 25 2006, 10:37 AM Post #157 |
![]()
Missing in Action Member
|
Yes, as I stated above, this is a "weakness" of mine! I'll see if I can perhaps turn my filter down some so as not to antagonize EVERYbody! Talk to ya in a few days.
|
My Boast is Christ ![]() Soon to have MBA (I'll perhaps be smart then) Recovering Perfectionist Christian Hedonist | |
![]() |
|
| cmoehle | May 25 2006, 10:41 AM Post #158 |
|
Chris - San Antonio TX
|
We all do it to some extent. Enjoy the short vacation! |
|
Politics is the art of achieving the maximum amount of freedom for individuals that is consistent with the maintenance of social order. --Barry Goldwater | |
![]() |
|
| abradf2519 | May 25 2006, 11:28 AM Post #159 |
|
Member
|
Uh Oh....You woke up......DICTIONARY MAN! Valid - from dictionary.com
Concept - from dictionary.com
Yes I know what it means, but how is Eric defining it? Methinks he is using his own definition?
IMHO, panspermia is ID. Maybe I am over simplfying ID, but IMHO, ID is creation by designer, and the designer is not known (by science). Also, my back-in-time statement was just to clarify how the designer could be natural.
I think Teryt doesn't like them under certain curcumstances. I doubt if anyone could disagree with me.
What bothers me is that we are illogical and bigoted in the name of "Science". Science is about exploring and explaining the natural world, not about keeping things out of science because something may justify religion. ID could disprove GOD! I am much more comfortable with abiogenesis because it is so far fetched, it actually justifies religion! Don't get me wrong. I am a high tech guy. I like science. I read articles about science on the internet. I used to get Popular Science. I read Scientific American. I read science fiction every chance I get. Creationism just makes more sense to me. It is more logical. Because Creationism gets too close to religion, and I think science and religion should be separate, I promote ID. I have to look up the "God of Gaps argument" before I answer this. Yes...but if the evolved thing is necessary for survival, how did the evolution take place? Natural Selection does not answer this, but random mutation could, but we have that dirty word "Random". Too many random mutations would have to happen, much more than are realistic, and to have it make sence, we have to introduce ID! The two are tied together because of the implication of a natural process instead of an intelegent one. If you were a proponent of a desginer using evolution to create the earth, then you are really talking about ID, and evolution then becomes "tool marks".
It is logical. Put yourself into the shoes of a terraformer. How would you transport nutrients and filter out waste in your world? A water cycle is the logical and most efficient way to do it, provided you have a heat source. So what do we have? A heat source, and a water cycle. It goes on and on, how different organisms have just the tools they need to survive, like it was set up that way. It is also logical that if natural selection and random mutation were actually working, logically the world should look a lot different. We would see a lot of organisms barely surviving, and dying out, much more than our current endangered spieces list (arn't most of the spiecies on that list because of man's encroachment, and not because of niche survival issues?). Also, we would have a fossil record that would contain some examples of gradual progression, so we could see how evolution actually works. None exist. Also you would expect much more fossil evidence that we actually have. We also should have millions of years worth of dirt, which there is no evidence of. |
|
Alan Milan, New York, USA | |
![]() |
|
| TexasShadow | May 25 2006, 11:35 AM Post #160 |
![]()
Jane
|
even if it is ALL due to plain old adaptability......... doesn't that point to purpose (survival)? and doesn't purpose infer intellect? it does to me. |
|
| |
![]() |
|
| cmoehle | May 25 2006, 11:58 AM Post #161 |
|
Chris - San Antonio TX
|
Alan "Yes I know what it means, but how is Eric defining it? Methinks he is using his own definition?" I guess the dictionary has failed you again. Do you know the different between valid concept and sound concept? Here, try an approapriate disctionary: Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy. "IMHO, panspermia is ID. Maybe I am over simplfying ID, but IMHO, ID is creation by designer, and the designer is not known (by science)." You left Intelligent out. And parenthesis the big question here in the thread, science. Are saying you believe, contrary to the leading advocates of ID, Johnson, Dembski and Behe, that ID is not God but extraterrestials? WHo's the IDOID of them? "Yes...but if the evolved thing is necessary for survival, how did the evolution take place? Natural Selection does not answer this, but random mutation could, but we have that dirty word "Random". Too many random mutations would have to happen, much more than are realistic, and to have it make sence, we have to introduce ID!" Natural selection does answer the question. Why do you claim it does not? Do you have a specific reason? Do you have an example that conradicts? "The two are tied together because of the implication of a natural process instead of an intelegent one. If you were a proponent of a desginer using evolution to create the earth, then you are really talking about ID, and evolution then becomes "tool marks"." So your argument is against natural processes, not evolution? You prefer to believe in super- or extra-natural creation. In fact ID presupposes evolution, as you just said, right? As in "desginer using evolution". But "desginer using evolution to create the earth" is quite odd. Now you've gone from evolution of life to beginnings of life to the beginnings of non-life. Life, the Universe, and Everything Else. Sorry, but a theory that explains everything explains nothing. Tool marks? Those are things. Evolution is not a thing, not like ID, but a process. Earlier I'd asked if you were talking things or process, you've finally answered. Asked "What aspects of ID, specifically, and in what specific ways does it make sense?" You answer "It is logical." Let me rephrase, what logical aspect of ID make sense and in what ways? "Put yourself into the shoes of a terraformer. How would you transport nutrients and filter out waste in your world? A water cycle is the logical and most efficient way to do it, provided you have a heat source." Actually, it's very inefficient. Man has improved upon nature's ways a 1000 fold or more. Again, I thought we were discussing ID, not terraforming, that's geology. "So what do we have? A heat source, and a water cycle. It goes on and on, how different organisms have just the tools they need to survive, like it was set up that way." We have a thermodynamic system explained by science. Wasn't it Carnot who proved you couldn't build a perpetual motion machine? That according to the laws of thermodynamics enery, or in quantum mechanics, information, becomes useless. So it does not go on and on, and it is inefficient. "It is also logical that if natural selection and random mutation were actually working, logically the world should look a lot different." Why is that? "We would see a lot of organisms barely surviving, and dying out, much more than our current endangered spieces list (arn't most of the spiecies on that list because of man's encroachment, and not because of niche survival issues?)." What, like dinosaurs? "Also, we would have a fossil record that would contain some examples of gradual progression, so we could see how evolution actually works. None exist." None? Teryt will get you for such superlatives when he returns! And we do have such a fossil record. See, in your next sentence you admit it does exist: "Also you would expect much more fossil evidence that we actually have." How much would satisfy the God of Gaps? How many grains of sand make a heap? "We also should have millions of years worth of dirt, which there is no evidence of." "The generally accepted age for the Earth and the rest of the solar system is about 4.55 billion years (plus or minus about 1%)....The oldest rocks which have been found so far (on the Earth) date to about 3.8 to 3.9 billion years ago (by several radiometric dating methods). Some of these rocks are sedimentary, and include minerals which are themselves as old as 4.1 to 4.2 billion years. Rocks of this age are relatively rare, however rocks that are at least 3.5 billion years in age have been found on North America, Greenland, Australia, Africa, and Asia...."You can read more at How Old Is The Earth, And How Do We Know?. Alan, you've wandered far astray evolution and ID. Where you headed with this? |
|
Politics is the art of achieving the maximum amount of freedom for individuals that is consistent with the maintenance of social order. --Barry Goldwater | |
![]() |
|
| cmoehle | May 25 2006, 12:05 PM Post #162 |
|
Chris - San Antonio TX
|
Why? Do you find intelligent purpose in the ordered design below: ![]() It's simply the Mandelbrot set, the set of complex numbers z defined by the iteration z(0) = z, z(n+1) = z(n)*z(n) + z, n=0,1,2, ... |
|
Politics is the art of achieving the maximum amount of freedom for individuals that is consistent with the maintenance of social order. --Barry Goldwater | |
![]() |
|
| teryt | May 25 2006, 02:20 PM Post #163 |
![]()
Missing in Action Member
|
"None? Teryt will get you for such superlatives when he returns!" Bot am I getting a rep here or what! Just closing down the computer - see ya! |
My Boast is Christ ![]() Soon to have MBA (I'll perhaps be smart then) Recovering Perfectionist Christian Hedonist | |
![]() |
|
| TexasShadow | May 25 2006, 02:26 PM Post #164 |
![]()
Jane
|
haven't got the foggiest idea what this is, but if there's a pattern of some kind, it COULD be random or designed, either way. Patterns or cycles don't have to have any particular purpose. Take a single cell in the human body. Maybe all it does is add bulk. Hard to figure out why it's there if all it does is take up space... and it might be superfluous (fat). |
|
| |
![]() |
|
| cmoehle | May 25 2006, 03:03 PM Post #165 |
|
Chris - San Antonio TX
|
Nothing in nature is random, except, perhaps, mutations, and then even there the changes must comply with the laws of nature. Perhaps there is no purpose other than to live as an individual, a species, a planet. |
|
Politics is the art of achieving the maximum amount of freedom for individuals that is consistent with the maintenance of social order. --Barry Goldwater | |
![]() |
|
| Go to Next Page | |
| « Previous Topic · Soapbox · Next Topic » |









"The generally accepted age for the Earth and the rest of the solar system is about 4.55 billion years (plus or minus about 1%)....The oldest rocks which have been found so far (on the Earth) date to about 3.8 to 3.9 billion years ago (by several radiometric dating methods). Some of these rocks are sedimentary, and include minerals which are themselves as old as 4.1 to 4.2 billion years. Rocks of this age are relatively rare, however rocks that are at least 3.5 billion years in age have been found on North America, Greenland, Australia, Africa, and Asia...."
1:28 PM Jul 11