Originally posted by Mexico========================
Ok granted I can see why the Macro/Micro can be a useful term. However I think your major problem here is not being able to visualize how long a Billion years is. I'm very glad that you accept the old earth by the way, there is no way and very little point in discussing evolution with someone who doesn't.
Taking the example of the fruit fly: If we can see s ...[text shortened]... developed similar adoptions in morphology to facilitate a similar mode of life.....
You seem to think that in larger creatures this would take only 1 or 2 generations
===========================
No I don't!
I apply the very same rule of assumming a long passage of time.
I understand how it is suppose to take a long time. I do not purposely shrink the amount of time in order to render the argument weak.
Originally posted by MexicoThank you for thinking to thank.
Thank you Jaywill by the way for having a reasoned conversation, presenting your views and importantly not evading points. I'm trying for discussion here not argument. Also please remember that the point of the original post wasn't a defense of evolution. I wished for Intelligent Design and any other alternatives to be presented for analysis. And a conclusion ...[text shortened]... e way. What happens to intelligent design if they successfully create life without gods hands?
And try to remember this cordiality when you visit one of the other discussions which may be on a more spiritual subject like the life, death, and resurrection of Christ.
I think the detection of intelligence is an accepted science in the realm of a number of disciplines:
1.) Issurance Fraud
2.) Detective work (say as in murder)
3.) Even the search for Extra Terrestial life in Outer Space - SETI.
Why intellegence detection should not be applied to biological organisms surprises me.
First hard line evos said ID is not science because it cannot be falsified. Of course there are plenty of efforts by Miller and others to do exactly that and claim that they HAVE falsified it.
So you can't have it both ways. If is can be falsified then it qualifies to be called science research.
Now as to WHO or WHAT is the intelligent agent? That probably goes beyond the scope of the scientific part. But why not follow the evidence where ever it may lead. If it leads up to the detection of probably intelligent design stop at that point and hand the rest over to other areas of the search for TRUTH?
The student is allowed to leave the science lab and go to philsophy class or religion club or spiritual meeting or read something they believe is revelatory and continue her or his search for truth.
ID in the science research should just try to detect whether or not intelligent design is probable in the functioning of the system.
Originally posted by jaywillWhy stop looking for only intelligence in living things?
Thank you for thinking to thank.
And try to remember this cordiality when you visit one of the other discussions which may be on a more spiritual subject like the life, death, and resurrection of Christ.
I think the detection of intelligence is an accepted science in the realm of a number of disciplines:
1.) Issurance Fraud
2.) Detecti ...[text shortened]... t try to detect whether or not intelligent design is probable in the functioning of the system.
Why not music, or ghosts, or hamburgers?
We don't look for these things because, 1. it's nonsensical, and 2. we don't need them to explain the living things.
If we find that a model or theory is not able to explain something successfully, then we'll definitely need to look elsewhere. But we don't have that situation here. The model works. We don't need to add to it or change it.
Now do you have evidence to the contrary that requires a reworking of the model?
Of course, you say, it all looks designed.
Sorry, not good enough. Lots of things in nature 'look' designed. You're going to have to do better than that. You're going to have to show irrefutable evidence that something 'was' designed.
Originally posted by Mexicothat's so kind of you to give us permission to not abandon our faith...how BIG of you.
Ok all I ever see on this forum is people defending evolution from half assed arguments. So I ask those of you who don't believe in it:
Whats your alternative, the answer has to be based in science, not religious text. If what you put forward can be argued scientifically, without contradictions, half truths and arm waving then I will happily admit that its ...[text shortened]...
Fair?
Also I'm referring specifically to evolution here, not origin or the big bang....
the truth is "if it can't be defended..." then I "HAVE to admit" absolutely NOTHING. I don't owe you, the scientific ommunity, or ANYONE else an accounting of my beliefs, whatever they may be. And you are an arrogant, pompous, intolerant bigot to even suggest that I do.
6 edits
Originally posted by amannion====================================
Why stop looking for only intelligence in living things?
Why not music, or ghosts, or hamburgers?
We don't look for these things because, 1. it's nonsensical, and 2. we don't need them to explain the living things.
If we find that a model or theory is not able to explain something successfully, then we'll definitely need to look elsewhere. But we don't h at. You're going to have to show irrefutable evidence that something 'was' designed.
Why stop looking for only intelligence in living things?
===================================
I think I lost your train of thought here. But ...
==============================
Why not music, or ghosts, or hamburgers?
==================================
People like composer John Cage (Phd.) have explored chance music. That is leaning in the direction of extracting the intelligent design OUT of the composition process.
That's been done.
People who study parapscychology are into studying ghosts. So some people take that seriously.
I have my own thoughts on that - poltergeists and occult phenomenon have there areas of research.
The hamburger thing, I am not sure about. They taste good though.
=============================
We don't look for these things because,
==============================
I just told you that some people do.
===================================
1. it's nonsensical, and 2. we don't need them to explain the living things.
==================================
People study things like that (not sure about hamburgers) and provide their various interpretations.
And with all this lattest talk about multiple dimensions( ten rather than Einstienian four) and multiple universes, even parallel universes and multiple big bangs, string theory, brain theory , etc. , I'm surpirsed that you would not recognize that modern minds are imagining a very queer world/s indeed.
So some people may be inclined to study what you consider a waste of time. I am not arguing for or against these things. I am only saying that you are sounding kind of old fashion for the 21rst century.
It is possible that they will use these new paradigms to explain old ideas. You haven't heard all the chatter about parellel universes?
================================
Of course, you say, it all looks designed.
Sorry, not good enough. Lots of things in nature 'look' designed. You're going to have to do better than that. You're going to have to show irrefutable evidence that something 'was' designed.
====================================
So an eyeball only looks designed?
The design appearance is an illusion. Take two Prozacs and the illusion of design will go away in the morning.
Pseudo Buddhist philosophy.
Be sure to let SETI folks know that if they receive a series of, say, Prime numbers in a radio message from a distiant solar system, that that is probably an illusion of design. They should not assume Extra Terresterial Intelligence because of that. It is only an appearance.
Originally posted by jaywillWhy would a SETI signal be relevant here?
[b]====================================
Why stop looking for only intelligence in living things?
===================================
I think I lost your train of thought here. But ...
==============================
Why not music, or ghosts, or hamburgers?
==================================
People like composer John Cage ...[text shortened]... ot assume Extra Terresterial Intelligence because of that. It is only an appearance.[/b]
We're intelligent. It's entirely possible that there may be other intelligent creatures on other worlds (although I must say the arguments against it - a la Fermi's paradox I find quite convincing). I can imagine a scenario where we detect signals from intelligent civilisations.
So what?
That's not the intelligence you're talking about. You're talking about supernatural intelligence.
Parallel universes and multiple dimensions - I'm very familiar with that. I have no problem with such speculations since we still don't have anything like a complete model in any of these areas.
That's not so with evolution and natural selection.
My notion of hamburgers and others was to ridicule the idea of focusing on intelligence - didn't seem to work on you though. I think I stuffed up in the way I put that argument. Sorry about that.
Originally posted by jaywillYes an eyeball only looks designed, much in the same way a snowflake looks designed.
[b]====================================
Why stop looking for only intelligence in living things?
===================================
I think I lost your train of thought here. But ...
==============================
Why not music, or ghosts, or hamburgers?
==================================
People like composer John Cage ...[text shortened]... ot assume Extra Terresterial Intelligence because of that. It is only an appearance.[/b]
Are you arguing that snowflakes are designed too?
Originally posted by PinkFloydAnd you seem to have failed almost entirely in reading the rest of the thread. My point here was to make the arguements for/against teaching ID as science in a classroom, I don't care what people believe. Which is clearly stated in the forst few posts, I simply want to open this argument up and see if there is any science in what people want to teach in science classes. Nothing more.
that's so kind of you to give us permission to not abandon our faith...how BIG of you.
the truth is "if it can't be defended..." then I "HAVE to admit" absolutely NOTHING. I don't owe you, the scientific ommunity, or ANYONE else an accounting of my beliefs, whatever they may be. And you are an arrogant, pompous, intolerant bigot to even suggest that I do.
If it's not science then yes it has to be admitted just that, nothing more, just that it shouldn't be thought in science classes.
As for the belligerent name calling, thats just unnecessary.
And no need to shout either sweetheart.
Originally posted by Mexicoi think this will get to "kids should be taught not only science, but other viewpoints beyond science, including other methods of perception of reality like the ones based on the Holy Bible (TM)"
And you seem to have failed almost entirely in reading the rest of the thread. My point here was to make the arguements for/against teaching ID as science in a classroom, I don't care what people believe. Which is clearly stated in the forst few posts, I simply want to open this argument up and see if there is any science in what people want to teach in scien ...[text shortened]... belligerent name calling, thats just unnecessary.
And no need to shout either sweetheart.
Originally posted by amannionI was told last night that the shape of snowflakes may have something to do with cloud bacteria that provide the surface around which raindrops and snowflakes often form. I have no idea if it's true.
Yes an eyeball only looks designed, much in the same way a snowflake looks designed.
Are you arguing that snowflakes are designed too?
1 edit
Originally posted by MexicoNo need to whisper either, Hoss.
And you seem to have failed almost entirely in reading the rest of the thread. My point here was to make the arguements for/against teaching ID as science in a classroom, I don't care what people believe. Which is clearly stated in the forst few posts, I simply want to open this argument up and see if there is any science in what people want to teach in scien belligerent name calling, thats just unnecessary.
And no need to shout either sweetheart.