IDers, are you serious?

[davidc]

I think it is safe to assume that most proponents of the Intelligent Design hypothesis are Christian. Although they take great pains to insist otherwise, the underlying assumption from professed Christians such as Dembski must hold that the "Intelligent Designer" is none other than YHVH. This can be evidenced by the The Discovery Institute's Wedge document (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wedge_document) that found its way into cyberspace.

It may be time for ID adherents to be honest with themselves. If some of the tenets of ID could be shown to be accurate, wouldn't Claude Rael's Greys make a whole heck of a lot more sense?

If you are going to start with the presupposition of an eternal, supernatural, single entity that exists outside of time and space, you might be hard-pressed to ever define the mechanism this erstwhile designer would employ to design. After all, "Spoken into existence" doesn't lend itself to empirical observation.

Since we're going to presuppose anything, why not a race of hyper-intelligent extraterrestrials? Let's go ahead and presuppose that in order to traverse galaxies, their life-spans would necessarily be on the order of millions of years. The entirety of written Human history, a mere good night's sleep for them. Their technology advanced enough to allow interstellar travel means biological experimentation on a suitable planet should be well within the realm of their ability. The methods they might use to engineer DNA at the molecular level would be observable and repeatable, provided we obtain access to their technologies.

Not that I find any of this plausible. Rael is simply another in a line of spiritual charlatans exploiting apophenia and pareidolia. The Discovery Institute, IMO, falls in to the very same category.

[ninewands]

I agree completely. If it could ever be shown, empirically, (somehow) that life on earth was "designed," that fact would be much more credible as evidence of the existence of a hyper-intelligent alien race than of a supernatural "creator" god.

ETA: but then, I'm likely to argue, seriously, that there is more credible, physical evidence for the existence of the Easter Bunny than there is for the Xian god. At least humans have SEEN rabbits ...

[Gamera]

ID is not a serious "theory." Or if it is so intended, it can be rebutted in about 5 minutes.

What it really is is an effort to attack evolutionary theory through a hotchpotch of undigested ideas and misinterpretations of data, that attempts to appear respectible by calling itself a scientific theory.

Since IDers have not (and cannot) come up with a testible thesis of HOW the purported intelligent designer influenced evolution (i.e., by what process), the theory is simply gibberish.

In 5 years I predict nobody will rememeber what ID is.

[lee_merrill]

Since IDers have not (and cannot) come up with a testible thesis of HOW the purported intelligent designer influenced evolution (i.e., by what process) ...
:confused: Why is this important, though? If the proposed alien race caused this ("Directed Panspermia"?) then do those proposing this have to provide a testable thesis as to the process? If the SETI researchers find a probably intelligent signal, do they need to also provide schematics for the transmitter before we believe them?

Well, no.

In 5 years I predict nobody will rememeber what ID is.
Strange, they were predicting this 2,000 years ago. Ancient Greeks thought nature was eternal, that there was no creation.

[Febble]

If the SETI researchers find a probably intelligent signal, do they need to also provide schematics for the transmitter before we believe them?

But IDers have NOT found a "probably intelligent signal" in biology. Biologists have found a perfectly good algorithm that accounts for the "signals" they observe without invoking extra-terrestrial forces. If IDers want to hypothesise some ID process on top of that, they'd have to come up with a coherent theory that would generate testable predictions that are different to those predicted by the ToE. They haven't.

[Sven]

:confused: Why is this important, though? If the proposed alien race caused this ("Directed Panspermia"?) then do those proposing this have to provide a testable thesis as to the process? If the SETI researchers find a probably intelligent signal, do they need to also provide schematics for the transmitter before we believe them?

Well, no.
Well, yes.
If someone proposes that an alien race tinkered with our genes, a mechanism certainly would be necessary to give the idea credence. And in the case of SETI, the "schematics of the transmitter" is already built in what they are searching for. If SETI finds signals of intelligent life, this would be only because they've specified in advance how these signals would look like (in which an idea how the signals are transmitted is included).

I see another train wreck approaching ...

[Oolon Colluphid]

Ancient Greeks thought nature was eternal, that there was no creation.
Well it's been rather too many years for me, so maybe I've forgotten this, but I call 'bollocks'. Hesiod was just muckin' about, presumably. Please cite refs.

[Lixma]

In 5 years I predict nobody will remember what ID is.

Don't worry, we will remember. Even when it returns in a new suit and calling itself the "Critical Thought in Class" movement.

Or maybe they'll just add an exclamation mark like the musical, Oklahoma.....ID!

[Llyricist]

Don't worry, we will remember. Even when it returns in a new suit and calling itself the "Critical Thought in Class" movement.

Or maybe they'll just add an exclamation mark like the musical, Oklahoma.....ID!

Or ID++ or ID# ? :)

[RAFH]

:confused: Why is this important, though? If the proposed alien race caused this ("Directed Panspermia"?) then do those proposing this have to provide a testable thesis as to the process? If the SETI researchers find a probably intelligent signal, do they need to also provide schematics for the transmitter before we believe them?

Well, no.

Well, yes. Not necessarily a schematic of a radio transmitter, we have those, but until we have a lot more than a 'probably intelligent signal', we'd want to understand the characteristics of the transmitter, where does it get its power, how does it work, what makes it work, what is used as a modulator, what does the broadcast antennae look like. After all, we are dealing with a 'probably intelligent signal', not a definitely intelligent signal. The only point at which it would become a definitely intelligent signal is when we either learned enough about it to conclude it was produced by an intelligence or it replied intelligently to our signal. That evidence could be a schematic of the transmitter, that would certainly be a very strong bit of evidence, so would coherent logics diagrams or pictures of their planet or even themselves or perhaps the periodic table. Stuff like we put in our interstellar probes.

Your supposition is shallow and weak. Your analogy is weaker.

Strange, they were predicting this 2,000 years ago. Ancient Greeks thought nature was eternal, that there was no creation.

And the ancient greeks notions have been pretty much abandoned. At least the parts that had no validity. Like Platonian Geocentricity.

[Ubercat]

Or ID++ or ID# ? :)

Think of the bugs such a garbage language would generate! :eek: :eek:

-Ubercat

[Evoken]

But IDers have NOT found a "probably intelligent signal" in biology.

What would you consider a "probably intelligent signal" in biology?


Evo

[Febble]

What would you consider a "probably intelligent signal" in biology?


Evo

Well, I haven't a clue. But the IDers don't seem to have a clue either. If they did, we could look for one.

[blues runner]

There are many "designs". They're cute and impressive in the sense that they make the most sense based on best they continue their existence as a species.

Interstellar travel? Sounds cool. The thing is...granted a species other than our own has the technology to encompass it...what would it look like? How long would it take, to simply get from door to door (milky way to andromeda)?

The possibililites are fucking STAGGERING! I can't wrap my mind around them.

As far as "intelligent design"...it's a fucking shortcut to critical thinking. Bottom line.

Oh...look how pretty the sea manta rays look! Look at the beautiful flowers! Look at God's handywork.....

Small thoughts for small minds dude. Life happens. Shit happens. Romance happens. "X" happens. Then we die. That's it.

And that's fine with me.

[reddish]

What would you consider a "probably intelligent signal" in biology?

The absence of things that are manifestly sub-optimal would be indicative of a cogent and able designer - it would count as a "probably intelligent signal".

More precisely, the manifestly sub-optimal way in which many biological systems work is a falsification of the "intelligent designer" idea. The fact that many people refuse to acknowledge this as a fact is rather depressing.

Intellectual self-mutilation, pure and simple.

[GenesisNemesis]

Strange, they were predicting this 2,000 years ago. Ancient Greeks thought nature was eternal, that there was no creation.

It is. We call it the Conservation of mass-energy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conservation_of_mass-energy).

[Evoken]

The absence of things that are manifestly sub-optimal would be indicative of a cogent and able designer - it would count as a "probably intelligent signal".

More precisely, the manifestly sub-optimal way in which many biological systems work is a falsification of the "intelligent designer" idea. The fact that many people refuse to acknowledge this as a fact is rather depressing.

I would say that "sub-optimal" is a very subjective term. Also, something being sub-optimal does not necessarily rules out an intelligent designer(i.e. human designs can be sub-optimal and yet be the product of an intelligent being).


Evo

[lee_merrill]

Biologists have found a perfectly good algorithm that accounts for the "signals" they observe without invoking extra-terrestrial forces.
That is why the scenarios for evolution of flagella are so chock-full of numbers and specific estimates? Hey ho, they're not. But then in the next breath I will be told there is no way to estimate so as to get any real numbers.

Yet I am told to believe these theories even when they don't back them up, all the while being told that is what is done by real science. Back up theories with specifics, I mean.

If IDers want to hypothesise some ID process on top of that, they'd have to come up with a coherent theory that would generate testable predictions that are different to those predicted by the ToE. They haven't.
I call "Someone hears prayer" a testable prediction!

Psalm 116:2 Because he turned his ear to me, I will call on him as long as I live.

But if you mean physical measurements, if you only believe what you read with a thermometer, you will not believe very much.

The only point at which it would become a definitely intelligent signal is when we either learned enough about it to conclude it was produced by an intelligence or it replied intelligently to our signal. That evidence could be a schematic of the transmitter, that would certainly be a very strong bit of evidence...
But not a required piece of evidence, is the point.

And the ancient greeks notions have been pretty much abandoned.
Sure, but the ID view has had challengers (http://www.iep.utm.edu/g/greekphi.htm) long before now. I would say we might expect the latest notion that nature is independent to also be abandoned.

"The first explicitly materialistic system was formed by Leucippus (fifth century BCE) and his pupil Democritus of Abdera (born about 460 BCE). This was the doctrine of atoms -- literally 'uncuttables' -- small primary bodies infinite in number, indivisible and imperishable, qualitatively similar, but distinguished by their shapes. Moving eternally through the infinite void, they collide and unite, thus generating objects which differ in accordance with the varieties, in number, size, shape, and arrangement, of the atoms which compose them."

This by Leucippus was nonetheless a pretty perceptive idea, though, may it be said.

[RAFH]

I would say that "sub-optimal" is a very subjective term. Also, something being sub-optimal does not necessarily rules out an intelligent designer(i.e. human designs can be sub-optimal and yet be the product of an intelligent being).


Evo

True, but the designer proposed, when such is broached, is one that is perfect and with absolute omniscience. Which would mean it would automatically know what its designs flaws were as it was designing them. Therefore no boo-boos. Ever. In anything. It would all elegant and swell. Not a bunch of half worked out, sub-optimal sort of gets by rube goldberg affairs.

[lee_merrill]

It would all elegant and swell. Not a bunch of half worked out, sub-optimal sort of gets by rube goldberg affairs.
You should of course, then be able to design say, a leaf! I mean, if it's as bad as all that. I would say there may well be purposes other than just a spotless machine, but that's another subject...

[GenesisNemesis]

It is. We call it the Conservation of mass-energy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conservation_of_mass-energy).

Lee_merrill, I'd be interested in your response to this law of nature. "Energy can neither be created nor destroyed."

[lee_merrill]

Lee_merrill, I'd be interested in your response to this law of nature. "Energy can neither be created nor destroyed."
'Tis a problem, isn't it? The big bang and all. So then a creating power outside of nature would need to be involved, or else this law is simply false.

Regards,
Lee

[GenesisNemesis]

'Tis a problem, isn't it? The big bang and all. So then a creating power outside of nature would need to be involved, or else this law is simply false.

Regards,
Lee

Why must it be outside of nature? Or Jesus Christ, God, whoever? Anywho, the Big Bang doesn't say everything exploded out of nothing. It says the Universe inflated. I like to think of it as the "Inflation Event", rather than the Big Bang, because space itself expanded.

[spamandham]

It may be time for ID adherents to be honest with themselves. If some of the tenets of ID could be shown to be accurate, wouldn't Claude Rael's Greys make a whole heck of a lot more sense?

Yes, particularly since the design has plenty of flaws - something you would expect from advanced but imperfect aliens, but something which makes no sense if the creator was all knowing. Christian creationists tend to introduce 'the fall' to try to duct tape over this glaring hole, as if "sin" somehow causes an appendix to develop.

Of course, the Rael guy is either a nut, a charlatan, or both, but that doesn't diminish the argument that if there is ID, aliens make more sense than gods.

[spamandham]

It says the Universe inflated. I like to think of it as the "Inflation Event", rather than the Big Bang.

True. The big bang does not cover anything prior to Planck time.

But..., if the sum of the energy in the universe is 0, it really could have come from nothing without violating conservation of energy.

[Berthold]

Ancient Greeks thought nature was eternal, that there was no creation.

Well it's been rather too many years for me, so maybe I've forgotten this, but I call 'bollocks'. Hesiod was just muckin' about, presumably. Please cite refs.
Aristotle (http://www.wisdomworld.org/additional/ancientlandmarks/PlatoAndAristotle.html)
Aristotle argued that the world was eternal, and that it will always be the same; that one generation of men has always produced another, without ever having had a beginning that could be determined by our intellect.

[lee_merrill]

True. The big bang does not cover anything prior to Planck time.
Which would imply there is no natural explanation, I would say.

But..., if the sum of the energy in the universe is 0, it really could have come from nothing without violating conservation of energy.
Do you mean matter and antimatter? But that is not positive and negative energy, and the dilemma remains unresolved...

[GenesisNemesis]

Which would imply there is no natural explanation, I would say.

And therefore the answer must be a supernatural explanation? Why must you fill a gap with God? I'm sorry, but if I see God create anything out of nothing, then I'll believe He can violate the Conservation of mass-energy (which He created.) Since doesn't happen, then, natural laws prevail.

[spamandham]

Which would imply there is no natural explanation, I would say.

I suppose that depends on what you mean by 'explanation'. Does the big bang model anything prior to Planck time? No, which includes both the natural and the supernatural.

Does the failure of the big bang model to address this period imply that no natural explanation is possible? No. It only implies a limitation of the current model. There are several possible natural explanations that have been proposed, but they are not proven.

To say 'there is no natural explanation' tends to imply 'there is no possible natural explanation'. Is that what you meant?

[spamandham]

Do you mean matter and antimatter? But that is not positive and negative energy, and the dilemma remains unresolved...

No, I'm referring to negative energy, not antimatter. Antimatter is composed of positive energy.

[Sven]

Strange, they were predicting this 2,000 years ago. Ancient Greeks thought nature was eternal, that there was no creation.
Ancient greeks thought pretty much everything (as if they've gotten nothing better to do, such as doing experiments...). It's no wonder they've gotten many things wrong and some things right.

[reddish]

I would say that "sub-optimal" is a very subjective term.

And I would say that is a vague statement that may help you to hold on to your stone-age worldview, but it doesn't fly in serious discourse.

Explain to me how the vagus nerve in the giraffe (that runs down and then back up its neck for no other reason than evolutionary constraints) is anything other than a sub-optimal design.

If that isn't sub-optimal, nothing is -- the term loses its meaning.

Also, something being sub-optimal does not necessarily rules out an intelligent designer(i.e. human designs can be sub-optimal and yet be the product of an intelligent being).

You asked for a possible signal of intelligence in design (with the implicit statement that such a signal cannot be formulated, I suppose). I provide you with such a signal (that happens to be in flagrant contradiction to what we see in nature).

Now you state, basically, that intelligence and sub-optimal (or, let's be frank: BAD) deisgn can go hand-in-hand. What, then, is left of your assertion that the designer is intelligent?

I could live with the assertion that we see "design" in nature, with prime examples of good and bad design answers to what are, essentially, engineering problems. However, "design" does not imply a conscious "designer". Rather, design implies a "design process"; a conscious design process is one way, but nothing precludes an unconscious design process - and that's what evolution is.

Daniel Danett defends this notion in his book "Darwin's Dangerous Idea", and I think that it is the proper way to think about the terminology (but it is, of course, much too subtle for most people).

Following this, I would agree that we see "design" in nature (some good, some bad); the interesting question becomes whether we see INTELLIGENT design.

Now we see zero things so far that we cannot account for with an unintelligent design process like evolution, but many things that are incompatible with an intelligent design process (the giraffe's vagus nerve being a particularly striking example, but there are many more).

Given this, if you could bring yourself to consider the option of non-intelligent design, the conclusion is necessarily simple.

But of course, you cannot. You are committing an act of intellectual self-mutilation. You are closing yourself of to the evidence that is staring you in the face.

(By the way, please pray to your imaginary friend for my actual flesh-and-blood friend who was diagnosed with lymphatic cancer yesterday. Yet another example of wonderful design in nature, that.)

[Oolon Colluphid]

Thanks reddish. Saved me time. :)

[Jet Black]

Which would imply there is no natural explanation, I would say.


Bollocks: it tells you that the theory is wrong, just like the inadequacy of Newtonian mechanics to explain the procession of mercury showed that Newtonian mechanics was wrong, and did not imply that angels gave mercury a nudge every now and again in order to be annoying.

[Jet Black]

Lee_merrill, I'd be interested in your response to this law of nature. "Energy can neither be created nor destroyed."

people put too much stock in energy - it's just a conserved quantity as a result of time symmetry and has no real existance, just like angular momentum is the result of rotational symmetry.

[Jet Black]

True. The big bang does not cover anything prior to Planck time.


not exactly, no.

The big bang is a bit of a mishmash of theories that do not actually agree with one another. On one hand we have general relativity (GR) and the observed expansion of space, the CMB and so on, which indicates that in the past, the universe was very small and hot. If we extrapolate back far enough we get a singularity. GR is extremely well tested and verified as far as we can.

The problem is that GR does not work with Quantum mechanics (QM), another theory which is also extremely well tested and verified as far as we can - all we can deduce from the GR is the universe was small and hot.

The other forces are all describable in terms of Quantum Mechanics, but gravity is not - when we attempt to merge them together we get infinities popping up all over the place - an indication that the models break down. Tha planck length is a limit, specifically the limit at which QM is correct, below this limit we cannot say anything much, least of all if GR is right. In many respects GR breaks down long before this as the universe becomes more and more quantum in nature. All the various theories regarding the formation of matter are (to my knowledge) based on principles of temperature and energy, and how the various subatomic particles behave at different energies. Issues of spacetime as brought up by GR are not considered in these scenarios, and gravitational effects in the very early universe are completely ignored.

Lee's suggestion that this implies something other than natural causes is complete codswallop, just as the inadequacy of EM theory to explain the photoelectric effect did not suggest supernatural charge angels flying up from the surfaces of metals and the inability of the plum pudding model to explain the fact that most charged particles can pass straight through thin sheets of gold did not suggest that little angels were opening and shutting doors in the atoms and the bending of light around the sun did not suggest angelic mirrors in orbit.

[markfiend]

The thing is, if we're not allowed to call something a sub-optimal design, because there might be some unknown reason that God The Designer put the vagus nerve all the way along a giraffe's neck twice, how come the ID crowd get to call their flagships good design?

I mean, for all they know, God The Designer might have intended the bacterial flagellum to be a secretion system, but it's somehow gone wrong in such a way that it now pushes a bacterium around. :devil1:

[lee_merrill]

And therefore the answer must be a supernatural explanation?
Well, say external-to-natural (extranatural?) if you wish.

Why must you fill a gap with God?
Because there is positive evidence for him in on other grounds?

I'm sorry, but if I see God create anything out of nothing, then I'll believe He can violate the Conservation of mass-energy ...
A biggie bang will do, then.

No, I'm referring to negative energy, not antimatter.
You will then need to explain to me what negative energy is.

Following this, I would agree that we see "design" in nature (some good, some bad); the interesting question becomes whether we see INTELLIGENT design.
This question however only becomes interesting when we can consider a viable proposal of a means of unintelligent design, not to mention a source of all matter and energy.

it tells you that the theory is wrong, just like the inadequacy of Newtonian mechanics
:confused: The Big Bang is wrong? But the lack of an explanation before the Plank time is not an inconsistency in the theory like the precession of Mercury, and if string theory is correct, there is indeed no possible way to examine any quantity any smaller than the Plank time, and thus it must remain outside the realm of natural science.

people put too much stock in energy - it's just a conserved quantity as a result of time symmetry and has no real existance
:confused: Energy has no real existence? I suggest you plunk your finger in the nearest electrical outlet then to verify your claim. But no, actually, I don't suggest that.

how come the ID crowd get to call their flagships good design?
I'm not familiar with the GID acronym! yet the Biblical view is that there was a Fall.

[Jet Black]

:confused: The Big Bang is wrong?

fundamentally, yes. remember the Big Bang theory is derived from observation and application of General Relativity/Quantum mechanics. two theories which conflict on various scales.
But the lack of an explanation before the Plank time is not an inconsistency in the theory like the precession of Mercury,

Yes it is basically; it's an inability for the theory to describe certain cases. NM could not describe the case of orbits in the vicinity of massive bodies, and GR cannot describe the nature of space time on quantum levels (or QM cannot describe the nature of matter and energy in the presence of highly curved spacetime, if you like) QM cannot describe the quantum nature of spacetime. It's an inconsistency because when you try to make predictions on certain scales with GR, they're wrong. just like I explained before.

The problem with using the planck time argument is particularly apparent, because the planck time is derived from the planck length, which in turn uses the gravitational constant leaving us with

t = sqrt(hG/2*pi*c^5)

see look, the gravitational constant there. big problems because we can't unify Gravity properly.

I've already pointed out to you, and in a longer post that there is a fundamental conflict between the theories, and until that conflict is resolved you cannot use the extrema of the theories (the points where they conflict) to insert God like you're basically doing. Of course you can if you like, but then your god will just get squashed out like he always does when people are foolish enough to try stuffing god into science.

and if string theory is correct, there is indeed no possible way to examine any quantity any smaller than the Plank time, and thus it must remain outside the realm of natural science.

Oh only because quantities smaller than the planck time are identical to quantities larger than the planck time under certain rotations. In any case, you're only picking a single possibility here, and string theory (or M-Theory if you prefer) is such an immature theory that to be honest, you're basing your argument on conjecture based on a conjectural model.

[Flint]

Well, say external-to-natural (extranatural?) if you wish.No. No explanation means no explanation. None. It is not honest to say that if explanation A is lacking, "explanation" B is the default. Neither A nor B applies when there is no explanation at all.

Because there is positive evidence for him in on other grounds?If this were true, it would be somewhat more compelling. But the "other grounds" mysteriously faded away with the advent of the Age Of Verification, and with the application of scientific methodology. "Other grounds" did work just fine when Making Stuff Up was the only way to generate explanations.

This question however only becomes interesting when we can consider a viable proposal of a means of unintelligent designEvolution precisely fulfills this requirement. Deal with it.

not to mention a source of all matter and energy.Nope. This is like saying chemistry is invalid because chemists can't explain the source of atoms.

But the lack of an explanation before the Plank time is not an inconsistency in the theory like the precession of MercuryAs I understand it, this is correct. It's not a conflict with the theory, but rather lies outside the scope of the theory.

if string theory is correct, there is indeed no possible way to examine any quantity any smaller than the Plank time, and thus it must remain outside the realm of natural science.Again, I agree. It remains possible that no testable theory can ever exist to examine such small quantities. In which case, we must choose between Making Stuff Up and saying "Not yet explained; unknown."

Energy has no real existence? I suggest you plunk your fingerSounds to me like Jet Black is trying to say something meaningful, and it's being deliberately misinterpreted. It might be better to ask what he means?

I'm not familiar with the GID acronym! yet the Biblical view is that there was a Fall.Always confusing. How is one of a zillion ancient folk tales relevant to anything at all? But as we've all seen all too much by now, the attempt to shoehorn reality to FIT misinterpretations of ancient folk talks causes no end of mischief. In the face of such attempts, we're obliged to pick between the honesty and the sanity of the shoehorner.

[Jet Black]

:confused: Energy has no real existence?

Absolutely. Energy does not really exist, as I said, it is a quantity that is conserved in interactions. A mathematical convenience.

I suggest you plunk your finger in the nearest electrical outlet then to verify your claim. But no, actually, I don't suggest that.

That's potential difference and current, and doesn't change my point. If you read what I posted before, it is a conserved quantity which is a result of time symmetry (which is why it is a pain in the arse to describe energy conservation in GR) just like angular momentum is a conserved quantity because of rotational symmetry.

[Oolon Colluphid]

Oh only because quantities smaller than the planck time are identical to quantities larger than the planck time under certain rotations.
All the words are English, but their combination results in... Swahili, for all I know.

Showoff. :Cheeky:

[JonF]

Do you mean matter and antimatter? But that is not positive and negative energy, and the dilemma remains unresolved...
Don't pontificate on what you don't understand. Whoops, if you followed that advice you'd never post at all!

No, he doesn't mean matter and antimatter. He means matter and gravity. The matter is unresolved, but there are several viable hypotheses.

[JonF]

You will then need to explain to me what negative energy is.
As usual, Lee doesn't have any knowledge of the subject and refuses to look up anything on his own. Lee requires spoon-feeding.

Do your own research and STFU about the subject until you have.

[Oolon Colluphid]

You will then need to explain to me what negative energy is.

Negative energy.

Mind you, following Hawking (which I just about can), if imaginary time is time measured using imaginary numbers, negative energy could be energy measured with negative numbers. Since time is bound up with space in spacetime, and since E = mc2 which involves c (the speed of light -- speed is obviously contingent on time), it follows that time is related to energy. Measure time with imaginary numbers and you get energy measured with negative ones. Then take away the number you first thought of.

[Febble]

Well, say external-to-natural (extranatural?) if you wish.


Because there is positive evidence for him in on other grounds?

Lee, for a change, here is a theological objection to your argument. If God is responsible for some things but not others, God cannot be said to be the cause of everything. But if God is the cause of everything, there can be no way of establishing, scientifically, that he is, because you have no control condition. The only properties we can infer from the universe about God are the properties of the universe.

I believe, as you know, that God is the cause of everything. In fact, I simply define God as the answer to the question "why is there anything at all?" But that means there can be "no positive evidence for him on other grounds". The only "evidence" is that we are here at all. To which atheists can simply say - but why should there be a reason that we are here at all?

This question however only becomes interesting when we can consider a viable proposal of a means of unintelligent design, not to mention a source of all matter and energy.

We actually have a viable proposal of a means of fairly intelligent design - i.e. the mechanisms proposed in the ToE, which predict precisely what we see - good, but sub-optimal design, and not what we'd predict from a Perfect Designer - perfect design first time.

As for the "source" of existence itself, see above.

[Sven]

You will then need to explain to me what negative energy is.
Potential energy. Don't they teach this in high school or college? :confused:


:confused: Energy has no real existence? This is a philosophical question, it depends on what you mean by "real existence". See, the problem is this: energy itself can not be measured, only other thingies from which we can calculate something which does not change when we add all our calculated quantities up. So energy and energy conservation can be viewed as just a simple way to describe what happens and what doesn't. IOW, energy is a model for reality. I hope you learned that models of reality and reality are not (necessarily) the same.

I suggest you plunk your finger in the nearest electrical outlet then to verify your claim. One can describe what happens then entirely without the need to refer to energy.

yet the Biblical view is that there was a Fall. For which all evidence is mysteriously missing.

[Sven]

Lee, for a change, here is a theological objection to your argument. If God is responsible for some things but not others, God cannot be said to be the cause of everything. But if God is the cause of everything, there can be no way of establishing, scientifically, that he is, because you have no control condition.
Hey, great argument!

The only "evidence" is that we are here at all. To which atheists can simply say - but why should there be a reason that we are here at all?
Indeed. :D

[Flint]

But if God is the cause of everything, there can be no way of establishing, scientifically, that he is, because you have no control condition.True enough, but what you CAN do is start with the presumption that your flavor of god is responsible for whatever you decide it's responsible for, and "establish this scientifically" by proposing invalid means of finding reality too preposterous to have occurred "naturally". You then defend this proposal by demanding that scientists demonstrate with solid numbers how "probable" reality is! They can't do it? Goddidit after all, QED! Scientific as hell (literally).

[lee_merrill]

Yes it is basically; it's an inability for the theory to describe certain cases.
But I wasn't talking about QM versus GR, the point is that a lack of knowledge before a certain point in time is not an inconsistency.

... until that conflict is resolved you cannot use the extrema of the theories (the points where they conflict) to insert God like you're basically doing.
Unless you really can't measure distances shorter than the planck length (which is the reason it is an inherent limitation if string theory has it correct on that point).

Energy does not really exist, as I said, it is a quantity that is conserved in interactions.
Then matter doesn't exist either? Since one can change into the other.

If this were true, it would be somewhat more compelling. But the "other grounds" mysteriously faded away with the advent of the Age Of Verification...
So try and rebuild Babylon! Scripture says this can't be done, and won't be done, and yet it is well within the realm of human ability to do this, along the lines of Jerusalem being rebuilt (see the book of Nehemiah etc.). Speaking of this age of verification--note though Saddam's latest attempt to rebuild this city, and what ensued.

Evolution precisely fulfills this requirement. Deal with it.
Which theory assumes the natural origin of DNA, would be my reply. Abiogenesis is a compelling argument for a designer, and evolution starts with the assumption of a complex, working system, so no, it does not fill the bill of unintelligent design.

He means matter and gravity.
Neither gravity nor matter are negative energy, nor are any of the concepts on the Wikipedia page, nor is potential energy (how much of this was produced in the Big Bang to counterbalance the radiation?) in the sense of a quantity that would balance energy such as radiation and so on, as far as I can tell.

... if God is the cause of everything, there can be no way of establishing, scientifically, that he is, because you have no control condition.
Unless God intervenes supernaturally in the world. As in me praying for healing, and being healed, I recommend this type of procedure, though not every such prayer I have said has been answered, the ones that have been have been convincing.

Especially when the healing happens to you...

For which all evidence is mysteriously missing.
Wait, the design is bad because nature is imperfect, and the evidence for a fall is missing because, what, nature is perfect?

[Flint]

Which theory assumes the natural origin of DNA, would be my reply.But the theory of evolution is a feedback process that makes design decisions. Surely you understand this. I still can't understand why you reject a theory on the grounds that it does not answer questions it does not address. Do you think nobody notices this?

Abiogenesis is a compelling argument for a designerWhy? Because the exact mechanism is still not understood, leaving a gap? But soon enough that gap will be filled, and you will have to start misrepresenting abiogenesis like you just misrepresented evolution.

and evolution starts with the assumption of a complex, working system, so no, it does not fill the bill of unintelligent design.This is simply STUPID, I'm afraid. This is like saying an artist didn't design his painting because painting starts with the assumption of paint! Evolution is a process of natural design USING AVAILABLE RAW MATERIALS. Why deny the design on the grounds that the raw materials are already available?

Unless God intervenes supernaturally in the world. As in me praying for healing, and being healed, I recommend this type of procedure, though not every such prayer I have said has been answered, the ones that have been have been convincing.Belly laugh! You *already believed*. You prayed right and left. Most of your prayers were ignored, one was "answered", you cherry-picked the one you liked because it fit your foregone concluson, discarded the rest as irrelevant, and found that your prior convictions remained convincing.

You bring this same approach to "honesty" to all of our discussions, so it's at least consistent that you do it to yourself as well.

[Blui]

Unless God intervenes supernaturally in the world. As in me praying for healing, and being healed, I recommend this type of procedure, though not every such prayer I have said has been answered, the ones that have been have been convincing.

Especially when the healing happens to you...

Even if God did intervene, you cannot reliably measure it nor deduce it, for 'supernatural' implies that he has broken natural laws, thus your measurements which require adherence to natural physical laws, would not be accurate.


Wait, the design is bad because nature is imperfect, and the evidence for a fall is missing because, what, nature is perfect?
I wish i could make flawed excuses and actually believe in them.

[Flint]

Lee really ought to visit a casino. He will find himself surrounded by people praying their asses off, and every prayer is fully sincere. Sure enough, some of those prayers are answered. More of them are not. The house doesn't need to pray, of course. And if he should interview most of the customers, he'd find that the winners *therefore* had "proof" of their god, convincing to them. The losers would concede that their prayers were unanswered and find some rationalization why their god didn't smile on them this time (but wait until next time). The usual rationalization is that their prayers WERE answered, but that their god is wiser than they are, and provided a "better answer". Their faith remains unshaken. This is the "lee method" of drawing foregone conclusions - ignore everything else!

Now, if the house's take is off by a couple percent at the end of the day, they do NOT hope their god listens to their prayers tomorrow. They know something isn't right, and they track it down.

[Blui]

Lee really ought to visit a casino. He will find himself surrounded by people praying their asses off, and every prayer is fully sincere. Sure enough, some of those prayers are answered. More of them are not. The house doesn't need to pray, of course. And if he should interview most of the customers, he'd find that the winners *therefore* had "proof" of their god, convincing to them. The losers would concede that their prayers were unanswered and find some rationalization why their god didn't smile on them this time (but wait until next time). The usual rationalization is that their prayers WERE answered, but that their god is wiser than they are, and provided a "better ansswer". Their faith remains unshaken. This is the "lee method" of drawing foregone conclusions - ignore everything else!

Now, if the house's take is off by a couple percent at the end of the day, they do NOT hope their god listens to their prayers tomorrow. They know something isn't right, and they track it down.
I always wonder why these 'answered prayers' are so low key and lame, i mean why don't i see some really great answered prayers, like 9/11 never happened, some dead loved ones come back to life, world peace?

[Sven]

Then matter doesn't exist either? Since one can change into the other.
Wrong. This is a very common misconception. Mass does not change into energy (or back), it's rather that we can assign an energy to every mass (and vice versa). The same way we can assign energy to moving masses or to charges in an electric field. But that we can describe something using some terms does not mean that the terms themselves are something real.

So try and rebuild Babylon! Scripture says this can't be done Did I mention a train wreck? :banghead:

Which theory assumes the natural origin of DNA, would be my reply. Abiogenesis is a compelling argument for a designer, and evolution starts with the assumption of a complex, working system, so no, it does not fill the bill of unintelligent design. EVOLUTION DOES NOT CARE A SHIT IF GOD OR NATURE WERE RESPONSIBLE FOR THE FIRST LIVE.

Sorry for this. I just can not bear this any more.

Neither gravity nor matter are negative energy Of course. But the potential energy due to gravitation is. Lee, why don't you learn the basics before stepping into a topic? This happens again and again and again. Do you really like making a fool out of yourself?

, nor are any of the concepts on the Wikipedia page, nor is potential energy (how much of this was produced in the Big Bang to counterbalance the radiation?) in the sense of a quantity that would balance energy such as radiation and so on, as far as I can tell. See, "as far as I can tell". This is not our problem (nor the one of any physicist), but only yours.

ETA: Try Gravitational_energy


Wait, the design is bad because nature is imperfect, and the evidence for a fall is missing because, what, nature is perfect? Umm, no. Evidence is mysteriously missing that the bad design was caused by the fall. Then one would expect the bad design having no evolutionary precursors. Which they have: on the other hand, there's plenty of evidence that the bad design was caused by evolutionary processes (because evolution can only work with what it got there and modify it, it can not invent entirely new things from scratch).

Is anyone willing to bet that Lee will not severely misrepresent what I said in the paranthesis?

[Oolon Colluphid]

Unless God intervenes supernaturally in the world. As in me praying for healing, and being healed, I recommend this type of procedure, though not every such prayer I have said has been answered, the ones that have been have been convincing.

Especially when the healing happens to you...
Ah, the Argument from Personal Credulity. To paraphrase Dawkins (translating the Bishop of Birmingham's inability to understand why polar bears are white)...

"I personally, off the top of my head, sitting at my computer, never having studied medicine or pathology, never having investigated the etiology and courses of diseases, and having been educated in fuck-knows-what-but-nothing-medical, have not so far managed to think of a reason why some diseases regress or cure themselves. Ergo Goddidit."

So, Lee... you threw away those crutches. Sure. But did you manage to grow a new leg by any chance?

[reddish]

This question however only becomes interesting when we can consider a viable proposal of a means of unintelligent design,
Well if you can't be bothered to at least try to understand what I write, there's really no chance you will actually learn something, is there?

not to mention a source of all matter and energy.
That is an interesting, if completely unrelated, question. I somehow think that the Christian God isn't a particularly compelling answer, far from it - I'd rather settle for "we don't know" than considering such an outrageously silly idea.

[Febble]

Unless God intervenes supernaturally in the world. As in me praying for healing, and being healed, I recommend this type of procedure, though not every such prayer I have said has been answered, the ones that have been have been convincing.

Especially when the healing happens to you...

Well, I agree that prayer can heal the mind. And I also know that the mind can heal the body. I just don't see anything differently-natural about it.

[Jet Black]

But I wasn't talking about QM versus GR, the point is that a lack of knowledge before a certain point in time is not an inconsistency.

of course it is. The reason that we don't know about it is because the theories are inconsistent. We don't know anything before a certain time because we don't have the theoretical capacity to do so, just like before GR we didn't have any capacity to explain the development of the universe at all (and so people back then thought the universe was created by God as is, and now they think it was created from the BB, and when we have quantum gravity, no doubt they'll try to push the creation event somewhere else in a never ending desparate regression of their foregone conclusions.

Unless you really can't measure distances shorter than the planck length (which is the reason it is an inherent limitation if string theory has it correct on that point).

I don't know what that has to do with anything I said
[QUOTE]
Then matter doesn't exist either? Since one can change into the other.
[QUOTE]
tut tut lee. note that E in the equation always has to be something else, for example in this case it is converted into excitation of the electromagnetic field. You don't just get "raw energy". As I point out, and you go to any physicist, Energy does not exist in it's own right. It is merely a conserved quantity* because of the symmetry of time... or do I have to repeat this until the keyboard breaks?

you seem to have addressed most of my statements by ignoring them. you are aware that I have two masters degrees and a PhD in physics right?

*various relativistic caveats aside.

[Sven]

you seem to have addressed most of my statements by ignoring them. you are aware that I have two masters degrees and a PhD in physics right?
Since when it's important what the experts say - especially if they are atheists?

[JonF]

Neither gravity nor matter are negative energy, nor are any of the concepts on the Wikipedia page, nor is potential energy (how much of this was produced in the Big Bang to counterbalance the radiation?) in the sense of a quantity that would balance energy such as radiation and so on, as far as I can tell.
Yup. I know. As far as you can tell.

That's very significant, Lee.

As far as you can tell.

As far as you can tell.

Get back to us when you understand the basics of the subject. Hint: there's a major error in "Neither gravity nor matter are negative energy".

[JonF]

Wait, the design is bad because nature is imperfect, and the evidence for a fall is missing because, what, nature is perfect?
The evidence for a fall is missing because there ain't any evidence that nature was ever more perfect (or imperfect) than it is now. IOW, the evidence for a fall is missing because we haven't found any evidence for a fall, and that's what "missing" means. Duh.

[Flint]

Febble:

Well, I agree that prayer can heal the mind. And I also know that the mind can heal the body. I just don't see anything differently-natural about it.I can't help but regard this statement as highly misleading. Yes, mental states can cause chemical changes. Yes, certain types of illnesses are sensitive to these changes. But prayer seems very poor at healing cancer, broken bones, clogged arteries, Down's syndrome - this could become a very long list. I hope you are not suggesting that the body NEEDS prayer to deploy its many self-healing mechanisms.

For that matter, I wonder how prayer might compare with simple optimism?

Apparently no amount of prayer can heal the disinclination to pay one's taxes!

[Berthold]

The Church tax, perhaps.

[RAFH]

True. The big bang does not cover anything prior to Planck time.

But..., if the sum of the energy in the universe is 0, it really could have come from nothing without violating conservation of energy.

The sum of energy is not 0, it is fixed. We can take that fixed point and assign it 0, but there is still net energy and matter.

[RAFH]

Lee, for a change, here is a theological objection to your argument. If God is responsible for some things but not others, God cannot be said to be the cause of everything. But if God is the cause of everything, there can be no way of establishing, scientifically, that he is, because you have no control condition. The only properties we can infer from the universe about God are the properties of the universe.

I believe, as you know, that God is the cause of everything. In fact, I simply define God as the answer to the question "why is there anything at all?" But that means there can be "no positive evidence for him on other grounds". The only "evidence" is that we are here at all. To which atheists can simply say - but why should there be a reason that we are here at all?

I prefer to think of it as "Why shouldn't we be here?"

We actually have a viable proposal of a means of fairly intelligent design - i.e. the mechanisms proposed in the ToE, which predict precisely what we see - good, but sub-optimal design, and not what we'd predict from a Perfect Designer - perfect design first time.

As for the "source" of existence itself, see above.

And every time.

[Gamera]

:confused: Why is this important, though? If the proposed alien race caused this ("Directed Panspermia"?) then do those proposing this have to provide a testable thesis as to the process? If the SETI researchers find a probably intelligent signal, do they need to also provide schematics for the transmitter before we believe them?
.


The answer to the first question is yes. The answer to the second question is no. They are separate issues and suggest your profound misunderstanding about scientific theories vs. factual evidence.

A theory must be testable or it is not a theory. So if you claim that an alien race started evolution on this planet in a way that can never be detected, it is not a theory and we don't need to entertain it. It is untestable and hence not a scientific explanation (but rather faith, hope, entertainment, narrative, et al.).

If SETI detects "probably intelligent" signals, that would presumably be probative of the existence of a fact (alien intelligence). It isn't a theory, but evidence of a factual claim. Depending on the "probably intelligent" signal, the evidence may be rebuttable or not. Depends.

See the difference?

[Gamera]

Unless God intervenes supernaturally in the world. As in me praying for healing, and being healed, I recommend this type of procedure, though not every such prayer I have said has been answered, the ones that have been have been convincing.


This of course is not a scientific theory, but an anecdote (probably highly influenced by confirmation bias).

Again, it is this kind of loose thinking that makes ID a laughingstock in the scientific community and why it is destined to be an amusing footnote to intellectual history, like luminiferous ether to explain light waves.

[ninewands]

This of course is not a scientific theory, but an anecdote (probably highly influenced by confirmation bias).

Again, it is this kind of loose thinking that makes ID a laughingstock in the scientific community and why it is destined to be an amusing footnote to intellectual history, like luminiferous ether to explain light waves.
Except the aether WAS a scientific theory right up to the point it was scientifically falsified. For this reason I would submit it deserves more respect in the history of science than ID does.

[Febble]

Except the aether WAS a scientific theory right up to the point it was scientifically falsified. I would submit it deserves more respect in the history of science than ID does.

AND its falsification led to a breakthrough in understanding.

[Febble]

And every time.

Well, yeah, but clients tend to muck up the grandest of Grand Designs, don't they? They go and hang little lace curtains at the frameless windows, not to mention washing from the balconies.

If there was evidence that the designs started good and got worse, I'd say that was evidence for a designer. But the evidence seems to go the other way.

[Gamera]

Except the aether WAS a scientific theory right up to the point it was scientifically falsified. For this reason I would submit it deserves more respect in the history of science than ID does.

Good point.

[spamandham]

The sum of energy is not 0, it is fixed. We can take that fixed point and assign it 0, but there is still net energy and matter.

Says who?

[spamandham]

You will then need to explain to me what negative energy is.

It looks like others have already covered this in the interim.

[Sven]

Except the aether WAS a scientific theory right up to the point it was scientifically falsified.
Was it? Which evidence supported it - apart from the unsupported assertion that waves need a medium?

I think the first try to support it empirically (Michelson-Morley) was already its failure. So I'd rather call it the "hypotheses of ether".

[Don Alhambra]

I think unsupported assertion is a little harsh. You can see how the idea came about. Waves were known to travel through various media - water, air, solids. So the inference was that waves required a medium to travel in - you had to have something to vibrate before you could have vibrations in it. :)

It was the lack of understanding of the properties of electromagnetic radiation that prompted the aether hypothesis.

[Sven]

I think unsupported assertion is a little harsh. You can see how the idea came about. Waves were known to travel through various media - water, air, solids. So the inference was that waves required a medium to travel in - you had to have something to vibrate before you could have vibrations in it. :)

OK, inference - or argument by analogy. Doesn't make it a theory, though.

[Don Alhambra]

Granted!

[JoeNothin]

Well, I agree that prayer can heal the mind. And I also know that the mind can heal the body. I just don't see anything differently-natural about it.I'm curious how you're thinking about this. How is healing the mind different from healing the body? I always thought of the mind as being a property of the body. I'm not sure I understand the distinction you're making.

[Febble]

I'm curious how you're thinking about this. How is healing the mind different from healing the body? I always thought of the mind as being a property of the body. I'm not sure I understand the distinction you're making.

Well, I agree. But what I mean is that we know that the placebo effect is a real effect. How you think can affect the way your body heals itself. Prayer has lots of characteristics likely to maximise the placebo effect. And prayer (or meditation if you will) can certainly "heal" the mind - which is one of the reasons people do it.

There is some evidence that meditation affects the balance of activation between the sympathetic and parasympathetic nervous system - shifts the ratio in favour of the parasympathetic, i.e. shifts the whole organism from "fight or flight" response to "rest and digest". And in reverse, drugs like propanol probably do the same, leading to a "quieter" mind (which is why snooker players and musicians take propanol).

The mind is certainly a property of the body, but you can get at the body through the mind as well as getting at the mind through the body.

[Flint]

How you think can affect the way your body heals itself. Prayer has lots of characteristics likely to maximise the placebo effect.It might be correct to say that prayer IS a placebo. And placebo effects have a limited range of utility, as I wrote earlier. What the body's normal healing mechanisms can't handle, prayer can't either.

[Febble]

It might be correct to say that prayer IS a placebo. And placebo effects have a limited range of utility, as I wrote earlier. What the body's normal healing mechanisms can't handle, prayer can't either.

Yes, it might be. Although I'm not sure I'd call something a placebo if there were no artifice involved (although I agree the mechanisms may be identical, at least in some circumstances). Giving someone a large red sugar pill and telling them it might contain an active drug seems different from asking someone to meditate in order to lower their blood pressure. Or to do whatever it is that healers do. I had someone "lay on hands" once, and it was an extraordinary experience. I don't know what is they do (or what I did to feel it). But it certainly produces a somatic sensation, and I'd be surprised if it didn't sometimes make people feel better. It made me feel weird.

[lee_merrill]

The sum of energy is not 0, it is fixed. We can take that fixed point and assign it 0, but there is still net energy and matter.
Right. Why do I have to dispute such obvious points?

"Energy does not really exist, as I said..." (this from Jet Black)

Sigh ...

[Sven]

Right. Why do I have to dispute such obvious points?
Because they are not obvious at all. You'll find that many cosmologists disagree with RAFH. Stephen Hawking being an example (see, for example, here: http://thegreatlearning.tripod.com/vaccum-physics.htm Or buy the book.)


"Energy does not really exist, as I said..." (this from Jet Black)

Sigh ... Indeed, sigh. Both Jet and I explained this in great detail. You should actually read what we wrote.

[Jet Black]

Right. Why do I have to dispute such obvious points?

"Energy does not really exist, as I said..." (this from Jet Black)

Sigh ...

let's play "ignore the PhD physicist when he contradicts me". Fine....

Ignore this then (http://scienceworld.wolfram.com/physics/Energy.html)

Energy is an abstract quantity of extreme usefulness in physics because it is defined in such a way that the total energy of any closed physical system is always constant


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_%28physics%29

In physics and other sciences, energy (from the Greek ενεργός, energos, "active, working")[1] is a concept, a quantifiable attribute of physical systems. It is not an object or a substance, but it is quantifiable in a way such that it cannot be created or destroyed. The units used to quantitate energy are the same as those used to define work in physics.

but of course, when Jet Black says so, lee sighs, because Jet Black contradicts him. Whenever anyone else says anything to the contrary however, regardless of their qualifications, lee agrees with them. Fucking retarded PhD Physicists don't even know what energy is.

[Tomk80]

but of course, when Jet Black says so, lee sighs, because Jet Black contradicts him. Whenever anyone else says anything to the contrary however, regardless of their qualifications, lee agrees with them. Fucking retarded PhD Physicists don't even know what energy is.
I think you underestimate Lee here, Jet. I am guessing that even now Lee will not believe "energy does not really exist". I mean, he felt the voltages running through his body when his brain got electrocuted. Gotta be right when you feel the energy, doesn't it?

[Suitcase Nuke]

[edited]

[Worldtraveller]

This thread seems to have run its course, and it's starting to get too personal.

I'm closing it. Feel free to PM me or another E/C mod if you want to argue why it should be re-opened. Or better yet, start a new thread with a specific topic that you wish to continue to discuss.

Lane, E/C moderator