| Topic: |
Science > Physics |
| User: |
"" |
| Date: |
27 Feb 2005 12:25:59 PM |
| Object: |
black holes and intelligent design |
The scientific community seems to believe that black holes indeed
exist, yet no one has ever seen one. The belief in the existence of
black holes is inferred from the observed behavior of matter and light
outside of the locations of the alleged black holes - i.e., the
observed behavior can only be explained by the existence of a black
hole; therefore, black holes must exist. See
http://www.damtp.cam.ac.uk/user/gr/public/bh_obsv.html and
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2005/02/050222195319.htm
Yet when it comes to belief in intelligent design, when we see ample
evidence of an intelligent Creator of life, which is more sophisticated
than anything that man has ever designed on his own, the scientific
community decides, instead of using Occam's razor in explaining how
life came about by inferring the existence of an intelligent Creator,
to postulate that the sophistication of natural life was caused by
accident. Yet, this alleged accident has never been reproduced in a
laboratory. But the scientists still stubbornly believe that this must
have happened.
This is a serious inconsistency on the part of the scientific community
in how it makes decisions as to what it chooses to believe. This is why
conventional science is becoming a religion of sorts.
Craig
.
|
|
| User: "Ian H Spedding" |
|
| Title: Re: black holes and intelligent design |
27 Feb 2005 05:33:45 PM |
|
|
<cafeinst@msn.com> wrote in message
news:1109528759.622572.167570@l41g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
The scientific community seems to believe that black holes indeed
exist, yet no one has ever seen one. The belief in the existence of
black holes is inferred from the observed behavior of matter and light
outside of the locations of the alleged black holes - i.e., the
observed behavior can only be explained by the existence of a black
hole; therefore, black holes must exist. See
http://www.damtp.cam.ac.uk/user/gr/public/bh_obsv.html and
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2005/02/050222195319.htm
That's right, black holes are predicted by _theory_, an intelligent creator
or God isn't. And there's a difference between evidenced belief and
unevidenced belief - or faith. Every time I let an apple fall to the
ground I find evidence for what we call gravity. I don't see the same for
God - quite the reverse, in fact.
Yet when it comes to belief in intelligent design, when we see ample
evidence of an intelligent Creator of life,
So you all keep saying, but you never show us any - and mousetraps don't
count, neither do eyes nor any other complex organs.
which is
more sophisticated
than anything that man has ever designed on his own, the scientific
community decides, instead of using Occam's razor in explaining how
life came about by inferring the existence of an intelligent Creator,
to postulate that the sophistication of natural life was caused by
accident.
Plainly, you don't know what Occam's Razor says. Here's a hint: until
you've ruled out natural causes, an intelligent creator is an unnecessary
entity.
Yet, this alleged accident has never been reproduced in a
laboratory. But the scientists still stubbornly believe that this must
have happened.
The Big Bang, black holes, dark matter and dark energy haven't been
reproduced in the lab either. That doesn't mean there isn't good reason to
think they exist.
This is a serious inconsistency on the part of the scientific community
in how it makes decisions as to what it chooses to believe. This is why
conventional science is becoming a religion of sorts.
Sure it is. That's why planes fly, antibiotics kill bacteria, we can see
galaxies ten billion light-years away and you have a computer to type all
your nonsense into. Scientists just prayed for it all and it appeared,
didn't it? It had nothing to do with long, hard years of research at all,
did it?
Like it or not, scientists believe what they believe because they have
evidence or at least good theoretical reasons for those beliefs. There's
evidence for evolution, there's none for your Intelligent Creator.
Ian
--
Ian H Spedding
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: black holes and intelligent design |
27 Feb 2005 05:59:47 PM |
|
|
I sense hostility in many of the replies to my arguments. Why? The
theory of intelligent design explains how life got here.
It is a good scientific theory which is testible and has passed the
test: The fact that no one has ever been able to recreate life from
scratch or even describe precisely the steps of how life evolved
implies that the mechanism for producing life is too sophisticated for
man to understand. And this implies that life could not have started by
accident, since if so, man would be able to duplicate such an accident
in a laboratory easily. Therefore, life must have come about through
intelligent design.
I am sorry if you don't want to believe it, but it is the best
scientific theory out there for explaining the origin of life.
Craig
.
|
|
|
| User: "Craig Franck" |
|
| Title: Re: black holes and intelligent design |
27 Feb 2005 07:39:15 PM |
|
|
<cafeinst@msn.com> wrote
I sense hostility in many of the replies to my arguments. Why? The
theory of intelligent design explains how life got here.
The issue isn't what it explains -- it explains everything simultaneously
-- the issue is what kind of explanation or statement it is.
It is a good scientific theory which is testible
This claim is the problem. ID is not a scientific theory.
and has passed the
test: The fact that no one has ever been able to recreate life from
scratch or even describe precisely the steps of how life evolved
implies that the mechanism for producing life is too sophisticated for
man to understand. And this implies that life could not have started by
accident, since if so, man would be able to duplicate such an accident
in a laboratory easily. Therefore, life must have come about through
intelligent design.
The reasoning:
we can't do or give a detailed explanation of X at the moment;
therefore,
X cannot be accomplished by a natural process
is not a test. It's not valid reasoning. I'd call it a folk argument.
Also, the idea that because man cannot understand something we must
leave the realm of normal scientific explanation is silly on the face of it.
I am sorry if you don't want to believe it,
I'm sorry you can't accept that the vast majority of scientists consider
your test for intelligent design ludicrous.
but it is the best
scientific theory out there for explaining the origin of life.
It only seems that way to you.
--
Craig Franck
craig.franck@verizon.net
Cortland, NY
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Ian H Spedding" |
|
| Title: Re: black holes and intelligent design |
28 Feb 2005 04:51:23 AM |
|
|
<cafeinst@msn.com> wrote in message
news:1109548787.591162.30890@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
I sense hostility in many of the replies to my arguments. Why?
It's nothing personal. It's just frustration at seeing the same
misunderstandings trotted out time after time.
The
theory of intelligent design explains how life got here.
No, saying "God/an Intelligent Designer did it" is a suggestion or a
conjecture or an attribution or a possibility but it's not a theory - not
in the scientific sense.
It is a good scientific theory which is testible and has passed the
test:
Partly, a good scientific theory is a detailed explanation which covers
what is already known and points us towards things we don't yet know -
things we can look for, things we can test for to check out whether the
theory works or not.
All Intelligent Design says is that life looks so complicated that it just
doesn't seem likely that it could have come about by accident. That isn't
evidence. It isn't even a good argument. Just because we can't imagine how
something happened doesn't mean it couldn't have happened.
As an illustration, let's say an aircraft crashes in bad weather. Saying
the crash was caused by bad weather or pilot error is suggesting
possibilities not constructing a theory.
A theory emerges after air accident investigators re-assemble the wreckage
and study the data retrieved from the "black boxes". They know that the
plane was flying at night, in cloud and in bad weather. They know the
pilot was inexperienced at flying by instruments only. The plane flipped
over on to its back, probably caused by the bad weather. The pilot made no
attempt to right the plane, probably because he didn't trust or was
confused by what the instruments were telling him. An engine fault warning
light came on but the pilot cut the wrong engine causing the plane to fall
into a spin and crash. Why the pilot cut the wrong engine may never be
known but there is now a workable theory of what happened based on a
patient gathering and study of the data. That is what theories are all
about and that is what Intelligent Design doesn't do.
The fact that no one has ever been able to recreate life from
scratch or even describe precisely the steps of how life evolved
implies that the mechanism for producing life is too sophisticated for
man to understand. And this implies that life could not have started by
accident, since if so, man would be able to duplicate such an accident
in a laboratory easily. Therefore, life must have come about through
intelligent design.
First, the theory of evolution isn't about creating life out of non-life.
That's abiogenesis. Evolution is about how life changed and diversified
_after_ it had appeared.
Second, science has only been looking at abiogenesis in the lab for less
than a hundred years. Nature had around four billion years since the
formation of the Earth. So give the boffins a break, it's a bit early yet
to say that they're never going to be able to understand it or do it.
I am sorry if you don't want to believe it, but it is the best
scientific theory out there for explaining the origin of life.
Sorry, Craig, that's the whole problem: it's not even a good explanation
let alone a scientific theory. There's nothing to show that God or
Superman or little green men from the far side of the Andromeda galaxy have
ever had anything to do with life on Earth.
That's not to say it couldn't have happened. But until we find something
like the phrase "Made in Heaven (tm) All Rights Reserved" encoded somehow
in our junk DNA the naturalistic explanation works best.
Ian
--
Ian H Spedding
.
|
|
|
| User: "Franz Heymann" |
|
| Title: Re: black holes and intelligent design |
28 Feb 2005 09:24:44 AM |
|
|
"Ian H Spedding" <harry@spedding53.fsnet.co.uk> wrote in message
news:cvut5k$ph1$1@newsg3.svr.pol.co.uk...
<cafeinst@msn.com> wrote in message
news:1109548787.591162.30890@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
I sense hostility in many of the replies to my arguments. Why?
It's nothing personal. It's just frustration at seeing the same
misunderstandings trotted out time after time.
I would like to dissociate myself from that viewpoint.
For me it is something personal.
I see no reason why a nerd like this OP should ***** all over this
newsgroup.
There are more suitable newsgroups where he and his ilk can talk to
each other to their hearts' content.
[snip]
--
Franz
"The great tragedy of science -- the slaying of a beautiful hypothesis
by an ugly fact."
T.H. Huxley
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Philipp Trummer" |
|
| Title: Re: black holes and intelligent design |
28 Feb 2005 08:42:18 AM |
|
|
That's not to say it couldn't have happened. But until we find something
like the phrase "Made in Heaven (tm) All Rights Reserved" encoded somehow
in our junk DNA the naturalistic explanation works best.
In the next installment of the bible:
Jesus 2, God's own patent lawyer.
SCNR
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Repeating Rifle" |
|
| Title: Re: black holes and intelligent design |
28 Feb 2005 02:03:03 PM |
|
|
Did god make moonstones (labradorite) individually? They certainly seem to
have incorporated more advanced technology than the design and construction
of watches. I am talking about watches often used in the argument that "if
you find a watch, it did not happen naturally.
It was not until the 20th century that technology enabled the construction
of arrays such as are found in moonstone.
There! I have sunk to their intellectual level.
Bill
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Franz Heymann" |
|
| Title: Re: black holes and intelligent design |
28 Feb 2005 02:09:15 AM |
|
|
<cafeinst@msn.com> wrote in message
news:1109548787.591162.30890@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
I sense hostility in many of the replies to my arguments. Why?
Is it not as obvious to you as it is to the readersof this ng that you
talk nonsense?
[snip]
--
Franz
"The great tragedy of science -- the slaying of a beautiful hypothesis
by an ugly fact."
T.H. Huxley
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Franz Heymann" |
|
| Title: Re: black holes and intelligent design |
28 Feb 2005 02:09:16 AM |
|
|
<cafeinst@msn.com> wrote in message
news:1109548787.591162.30890@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
I sense hostility in many of the replies to my arguments. Why? The
theory of intelligent design explains how life got here.
The theory of "blame god" does not have any predictive powers by which
its validity can be tested, so I suggest you go back to the drawing
board.
It is a good scientific theory which is testible and has passed the
test:
That is a straightforward lie. I thought your god does not like
liars.
It has no predictive powers at all, and such explicative statements as
it might make are easily bettered by those of the modern Darwinists.
If your religion does not forbid you from doing so, I suggest you read
one or two of Dawkins' books before climbing deeper into the shonga.
The fact that no one has ever been able to recreate life from
scratch or even describe precisely the steps of how life evolved
implies that the mechanism for producing life is too sophisticated
for
man to understand.
Your conclusion does not follow from your premise.
There are in fact more than one very plausible suggestions for how
life might have originated without any meddling by an outsider.
And this implies that life could not have started by
accident, since if so, man would be able to duplicate such an
accident
in a laboratory easily.
Neither does this conclusion follow from your premises.
Your powers of deduction need some sharpening.
Therefore, life must have come about through
intelligent design.
You are drawing an incorrect conclusion from an incorrect premise
followed by illogical argumentation.
I would suggest that the original chemical interaction which set the
evolutionary process in motion has a very small probability per unit
time under the prevailing circumstances. Like something in the ball
park of 1 per 3*10^11 years. I would also suggest that there are
other chemical processes which, under prevailing circumstances have an
even smaller, but nevertheless finite probability per unit time.
I am sorry if you don't want to believe it, but it is the best
scientific theory out there for explaining the origin of life.
Do you believe in the tooth fairy as well?
--
Franz
"The great tragedy of science -- the slaying of a beautiful hypothesis
by an ugly fact."
T.H. Huxley
.
|
|
|
| User: "Bruce Sinclair" |
|
| Title: Re: black holes and intelligent design |
28 Feb 2005 02:56:10 PM |
|
|
In article <cvujjb$9gf$2@titan.btinternet.com>, "Franz Heymann" <franz.heymann@btopenworld.com> wrote:
<cafeinst@msn.com> wrote in message
news:1109548787.591162.30890@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
I sense hostility in many of the replies to my arguments. Why? The
theory of intelligent design explains how life got here.
The theory of "blame god" does not have any predictive powers by which
its validity can be tested, so I suggest you go back to the drawing
board.
Neither has god repeasted her experiment. I'm led to believe the awarding of
her phd is awaiting this work :)
Bruce
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
It was so much easier to blame it on Them. It was bleakly depressing to
think that They were Us. If it was Them, then nothing was anyone´s fault.
If it was Us, what did that make Me ? After all, I´m one of Us. I must be.
I´ve certainly never thought of myself as one of Them. No-one ever thinks
of themselves as one of Them. We´re always one of Us. It´s Them that do
the bad things. <=> Terry Pratchett. Jingo.
Caution ===== followups may have been changed to relevant groups
(if there were any)
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Elf M. Sternberg" |
|
| Title: Re: black holes and intelligent design |
27 Feb 2005 08:50:13 PM |
|
|
writes:
It is a good scientific theory which is testible and has passed the
test: The fact that no one has ever been able to recreate life from
scratch or even describe precisely the steps of how life evolved
implies that the mechanism for producing life is too sophisticated for
man to understand.
That's not a "test," that's an unsupported hypothesis. When
human beings take raw atoms and craft something living from them, the
response from the ID side will be, "See? It took real thinking and
design to make it happen."
Since either failure or success leads to the same conclusion,
the test is not useful for showing the validity of the conclusion. Try
again.
Elf
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: black holes and intelligent design |
02 Mar 2005 05:38:02 PM |
|
|
Elf M. Sternberg wrote:
cafeinst@msn.com writes:
It is a good scientific theory which is testible and has passed the
test: The fact that no one has ever been able to recreate life from
scratch or even describe precisely the steps of how life evolved
implies that the mechanism for producing life is too sophisticated
for
man to understand.
That's not a "test," that's an unsupported hypothesis. When
human beings take raw atoms and craft something living from them, the
response from the ID side will be, "See? It took real thinking and
design to make it happen."
Since either failure or success leads to the same conclusion,
the test is not useful for showing the validity of the conclusion.
Try
again.
Nope. If humans were to craft life out of atoms, the test which I
described could not be used to reject the null hypothesis, that life
evolved by accident. That wouldn't mean design theory is wrong; it just
would mean that no conclusion could be drawn from the test. But the
fact that life is too sophisticated for humans to understand how to
create it from scratch implies that intelligent design theory passes
the test, so that we can safely reject the null hypothesis of
macro-evolution, since man has had plenty of time to try to figure it
all out and failed.
Furthermore, the fact that life has only been found on earth, but
nowhere else in our universe, implies that the universe is not as
symmetrical as scientists assume. Conventional scientists make the
assumption that the universe is pretty much the same everywhere. If
this is so, then we should find life everywhere, but we don't.
According to modern-scientific thinking, the universe should look more
like Star Trek, which is pretty much uniform, with humanoids running
around everywhere, some more advanced than others. The fact that we
have not found any aliens out there and no aliens have tried to contact
us proves that the modern science assumptions are faulty and earth is,
in fact, a very special place in the universe, a miracle, in religious
terms.
Also, some of you claimed that invoking God in a theory is not good
science because it does not predict anything about God. Well, I'll
apply that same logic to the black hole; the theory of black holes is
wrong because it doesn't predict anything about the black hole, since a
black hole is by definition a singularity and thus mathematically does
not make sense. So black holes are bad science.
Also, the fact that people even care about their origins implies that
macro-evolution is false. After all, what biological need is there for
people to think about such matters? And even if you were to find a
biological need for it, what is the biological need to convince others
like me of the truth of macro-evolution? Convincing me isn't going to
bring you material gain. All of the posters against me are
contradicting themselves by simply posting against me.
Craig
.
|
|
|
| User: "Elf M. Sternberg" |
|
| Title: Re: black holes and intelligent design |
04 Mar 2005 02:27:23 PM |
|
|
writes:
Furthermore, the fact that life has only been found on earth, but
nowhere else in our universe, implies that the universe is not as
symmetrical as scientists assume.
I notice that both of your positions are dependent upon an
argument from ignorance: because we haven't figured out how to
manufacture life *yet*, life must have been designed. (Note the hubris
here: life must have come about by a process similar to what we humans
do, but so advanced we humans can't do it, but not so advanced that we
can't tell someone else did it. The designer fits into a rather narrow
range.) Because we haven't found life elsewhere in the universe *yet*,
we must somehow be special, blessed.
It's a god of the gaps argument, and one that is theologically
suspect.
Also, some of you claimed that invoking God in a theory is not good
science because it does not predict anything about God. Well, I'll
apply that same logic to the black hole; the theory of black holes is
wrong because it doesn't predict anything about the black hole, since
a black hole is by definition a singularity and thus mathematically
does not make sense.
Except that's a bad argument: black holes clearly do make sense
because we have and can write all sorts of things about their nature.
There may yet be things about them that we can't understand, but up
until the event horizon they're predictable, regular, mathematically
knowable phenomena.
Nothing like that exists for your proposed deity.
Also, the fact that people even care about their origins implies that
macro-evolution is false. After all, what biological need is there for
people to think about such matters?
We're here, we're conscious. Evolutionarily, we've developed a
wide variety of thinking skills which make us efficient predators and
reproducers, even against one another. Given that we are conscious,
wondering why is an understandable side-effect, but please don't
attribute magical powers to it.
Convincing me isn't going to bring you material gain.
Material gain is not the only thing the human animal wants.
Elf
--
Elf M. Sternberg
http://www.drizzle.com/~elf/
You know how it is. You're all oiled up and wrestling naked in the manner
of the ancient Greek warriors and the next thing you know you're using
your lever to move the world. - Gen. J.C. Christian
.
|
|
|
| User: "Dirk Bruere at Neopax" |
|
| Title: Re: black holes and intelligent design |
04 Mar 2005 05:04:01 PM |
|
|
Elf M. Sternberg wrote:
cafeinst@msn.com writes:
Furthermore, the fact that life has only been found on earth, but
nowhere else in our universe, implies that the universe is not as
symmetrical as scientists assume.
I notice that both of your positions are dependent upon an
argument from ignorance: because we haven't figured out how to
manufacture life *yet*, life must have been designed. (Note the hubris
here: life must have come about by a process similar to what we humans
do, but so advanced we humans can't do it, but not so advanced that we
can't tell someone else did it. The designer fits into a rather narrow
range.) Because we haven't found life elsewhere in the universe *yet*,
we must somehow be special, blessed.
As soon as we synthesise a virus, and create life, we will of course become its
God and it will have to worship us or we will punish it in the fires of an
autoclave.
--
Dirk
The Consensus:-
The political party for the new millenium
http://www.theconsensus.org
.
|
|
|
| User: "glbrad01" |
|
| Title: Re: black holes and intelligent design |
05 Mar 2005 05:12:35 AM |
|
|
"Dirk Bruere at Neopax" <dirk@neopax.com> wrote in message
news:38s7r1F5rf7h2U1@individual.net...
Elf M. Sternberg wrote:
cafeinst@msn.com writes:
Furthermore, the fact that life has only been found on earth, but
nowhere else in our universe, implies that the universe is not as
symmetrical as scientists assume.
I notice that both of your positions are dependent upon an
argument from ignorance: because we haven't figured out how to
manufacture life *yet*, life must have been designed. (Note the hubris
here: life must have come about by a process similar to what we humans
do, but so advanced we humans can't do it, but not so advanced that we
can't tell someone else did it. The designer fits into a rather narrow
range.) Because we haven't found life elsewhere in the universe *yet*,
we must somehow be special, blessed.
As soon as we synthesise a virus, and create life, we will of course
become its
God and it will have to worship us or we will punish it in the fires of an
autoclave.
--
Dirk
We've synthesized computer viruses. Virtual viruses, virtual life, no less
real and active for being virtual. Unless I read you wrong and you were
being comedic, exactly when did we become their God pray tell? Until we can
create and activate our defenses, they are the gods, not us. We've reached
nothing better than temporary stalemates. Those are our greatest possible
victories in the eternal war of natural testing, to keep on attaining
stalemates as it is absolutely clear that nature keeps on raising the stakes
of complexity and complication and chaos against us cresting the mountain.
Keeping to an "Intelligent Design."
Of course this state of affairs is because ultimately we are always our
own worst enemies. We are [singularly] the only aware species in our space
at this time. Our natural ultimate enemy will be us. All singularities have
dual personalities; are inherent dualities. What is more, such duality of
personality ("personality," a good word to use for blackholes as well)
spawns complexity and complication: third, fourth, and more (countless),
indeterminate 'horizon' states. In us, the would be more perfect among us go
for the more perfect state of singularity (giving benefit of the doubt: the
positive) in all of us, and get an absolutely consistent return in reduction
to the more absolute--more inimical--state of duality (positive) (negative),
pulsing out of control, for all their totalitarian state application of
artistry, artifice, scientific controls and other means and ways (for all
their cajoling and coercion). I would say this consistent state of affairs
ultimately defeating universally suicidal Utopias adheres to "Intelligent
Design."
Brad
.
|
|
|
| User: "Dirk Bruere at Neopax" |
|
| Title: Re: black holes and intelligent design |
05 Mar 2005 10:30:36 AM |
|
|
glbrad01 wrote:
"Dirk Bruere at Neopax" <dirk@neopax.com> wrote in message
news:38s7r1F5rf7h2U1@individual.net...
Elf M. Sternberg wrote:
cafeinst@msn.com writes:
Furthermore, the fact that life has only been found on earth, but
nowhere else in our universe, implies that the universe is not as
symmetrical as scientists assume.
I notice that both of your positions are dependent upon an
argument from ignorance: because we haven't figured out how to
manufacture life *yet*, life must have been designed. (Note the hubris
here: life must have come about by a process similar to what we humans
do, but so advanced we humans can't do it, but not so advanced that we
can't tell someone else did it. The designer fits into a rather narrow
range.) Because we haven't found life elsewhere in the universe *yet*,
we must somehow be special, blessed.
As soon as we synthesise a virus, and create life, we will of course
become its
God and it will have to worship us or we will punish it in the fires of an
autoclave.
--
Dirk
We've synthesized computer viruses. Virtual viruses, virtual life, no less
real and active for being virtual. Unless I read you wrong and you were
being comedic, exactly when did we become their God pray tell? Until we can
create and activate our defenses, they are the gods, not us. We've reached
nothing better than temporary stalemates. Those are our greatest possible
victories in the eternal war of natural testing, to keep on attaining
stalemates as it is absolutely clear that nature keeps on raising the stakes
of complexity and complication and chaos against us cresting the mountain.
Keeping to an "Intelligent Design."
Of course this state of affairs is because ultimately we are always our
own worst enemies. We are [singularly] the only aware species in our space
at this time. Our natural ultimate enemy will be us. All singularities have
dual personalities; are inherent dualities. What is more, such duality of
personality ("personality," a good word to use for blackholes as well)
spawns complexity and complication: third, fourth, and more (countless),
indeterminate 'horizon' states. In us, the would be more perfect among us go
for the more perfect state of singularity (giving benefit of the doubt: the
positive) in all of us, and get an absolutely consistent return in reduction
to the more absolute--more inimical--state of duality (positive) (negative),
pulsing out of control, for all their totalitarian state application of
artistry, artifice, scientific controls and other means and ways (for all
their cajoling and coercion). I would say this consistent state of affairs
ultimately defeating universally suicidal Utopias adheres to "Intelligent
Design."
Or evolution.
That which is not fitted for survival dies.
It has more to do with congruence with reality being a survival trait.
'Evil' always involves self destruction and/or deception and that is not a
survival trait in the long term.
--
Dirk
The Consensus:-
The political party for the new millenium
http://www.theconsensus.org
.
|
|
|
| User: "glbrad01" |
|
| Title: Re: black holes and intelligent design |
05 Mar 2005 05:05:20 PM |
|
|
"Dirk Bruere at Neopax" <dirk@neopax.com> wrote in message
news:38u559F5qtbj1U1@individual.net...
glbrad01 wrote:
"Dirk Bruere at Neopax" <dirk@neopax.com> wrote in message
news:38s7r1F5rf7h2U1@individual.net...
Elf M. Sternberg wrote:
(snip)
Or evolution.
That which is not fitted for survival dies.
It has more to do with congruence with reality being a survival trait.
'Evil' always involves self destruction and/or deception and that is not a
survival trait in the long term.
--
Dirk
Amazing isn't it the survival rate of the shortlived? The turnover rate is
huge but the presence is constant. In order to compete and win, the
competition has to be there...constant.
Brad
.
|
|
|
| User: "Dirk Bruere at Neopax" |
|
| Title: Re: black holes and intelligent design |
13 Mar 2005 10:13:29 PM |
|
|
glbrad01 wrote:
"Dirk Bruere at Neopax" <dirk@neopax.com> wrote in message
news:38u559F5qtbj1U1@individual.net...
glbrad01 wrote:
"Dirk Bruere at Neopax" <dirk@neopax.com> wrote in message
news:38s7r1F5rf7h2U1@individual.net...
Elf M. Sternberg wrote:
(snip)
Or evolution.
That which is not fitted for survival dies.
It has more to do with congruence with reality being a survival trait.
'Evil' always involves self destruction and/or deception and that is not a
survival trait in the long term.
--
Dirk
Amazing isn't it the survival rate of the shortlived? The turnover rate is
huge but the presence is constant. In order to compete and win, the
competition has to be there...constant.
Less to do with lifespan than breeding rate.
--
Dirk
The Consensus:-
The political party for the new millenium
http://www.theconsensus.org
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Joshua Halpern" |
|
| Title: Re: black holes and intelligent design |
04 Mar 2005 08:24:16 PM |
|
|
Dirk Bruere at Neopax wrote:
Elf M. Sternberg wrote:
cafeinst@msn.com writes:
Furthermore, the fact that life has only been found on earth, but
nowhere else in our universe, implies that the universe is not as
symmetrical as scientists assume.
I notice that both of your positions are dependent upon an
argument from ignorance: because we haven't figured out how to
manufacture life *yet*, life must have been designed. (Note the hubris
here: life must have come about by a process similar to what we humans
do, but so advanced we humans can't do it, but not so advanced that we
can't tell someone else did it. The designer fits into a rather narrow
range.) Because we haven't found life elsewhere in the universe *yet*,
we must somehow be special, blessed.
As soon as we synthesise a virus, and create life, we will of course become its
God and it will have to worship us or we will punish it in the fires of an
autoclave.
Been there, done that http://www.sunysb.edu/ovprpub/tsc/polio.html
josh halpern
.
|
|
|
| User: "Dirk Bruere at Neopax" |
|
| Title: Re: black holes and intelligent design |
05 Mar 2005 08:52:04 AM |
|
|
Joshua Halpern wrote:
Dirk Bruere at Neopax wrote:
Elf M. Sternberg wrote:
cafeinst@msn.com writes:
Furthermore, the fact that life has only been found on earth, but
nowhere else in our universe, implies that the universe is not as
symmetrical as scientists assume.
I notice that both of your positions are dependent upon an
argument from ignorance: because we haven't figured out how to
manufacture life *yet*, life must have been designed. (Note the hubris
here: life must have come about by a process similar to what we humans
do, but so advanced we humans can't do it, but not so advanced that we
can't tell someone else did it. The designer fits into a rather narrow
range.) Because we haven't found life elsewhere in the universe *yet*,
we must somehow be special, blessed.
As soon as we synthesise a virus, and create life, we will of course become its
God and it will have to worship us or we will punish it in the fires of an
autoclave.
Been there, done that http://www.sunysb.edu/ovprpub/tsc/polio.html
I'm really referring to the current project of assembling a virus (IIRC) using a
minimum gene count.
Totally unique life form.
--
Dirk
The Consensus:-
The political party for the new millenium
http://www.theconsensus.org
.
|
|
|
| User: "Ernest Major" |
|
| Title: Re: black holes and intelligent design |
05 Mar 2005 11:16:55 AM |
|
|
In article <38tvchF5tdn74U3@individual.net>, Dirk Bruere at Neopax
<dirk@neopax.com> writes
Joshua Halpern wrote:
Dirk Bruere at Neopax wrote:
Elf M. Sternberg wrote:
cafeinst@msn.com writes:
Furthermore, the fact that life has only been found on earth, but
nowhere else in our universe, implies that the universe is not as
symmetrical as scientists assume.
I notice that both of your positions are dependent upon an
argument from ignorance: because we haven't figured out how to
manufacture life *yet*, life must have been designed. (Note the hubris
here: life must have come about by a process similar to what we humans
do, but so advanced we humans can't do it, but not so advanced that we
can't tell someone else did it. The designer fits into a rather narrow
range.) Because we haven't found life elsewhere in the universe *yet*,
we must somehow be special, blessed.
As soon as we synthesise a virus, and create life, we will of course become
its
God and it will have to worship us or we will punish it in the fires of an
autoclave.
Been there, done that http://www.sunysb.edu/ovprpub/tsc/polio.html
I'm really referring to the current project of assembling a virus (IIRC) using a
minimum gene count.
Totally unique life form.
ITYM Mycoplasma - <URL:http://www.orau.gov/gtl2005/abstracts/Venter.pdf>
--
alias Ernest Major
.
|
|
|
| User: "Dirk Bruere at Neopax" |
|
| Title: Re: black holes and intelligent design |
05 Mar 2005 11:58:24 AM |
|
|
Ernest Major wrote:
In article <38tvchF5tdn74U3@individual.net>, Dirk Bruere at Neopax
<dirk@neopax.com> writes
Joshua Halpern wrote:
Dirk Bruere at Neopax wrote:
Elf M. Sternberg wrote:
cafeinst@msn.com writes:
Furthermore, the fact that life has only been found on earth, but
nowhere else in our universe, implies that the universe is not as
symmetrical as scientists assume.
I notice that both of your positions are dependent upon an
argument from ignorance: because we haven't figured out how to
manufacture life *yet*, life must have been designed. (Note the hubris
here: life must have come about by a process similar to what we humans
do, but so advanced we humans can't do it, but not so advanced that we
can't tell someone else did it. The designer fits into a rather narrow
range.) Because we haven't found life elsewhere in the universe *yet*,
we must somehow be special, blessed.
As soon as we synthesise a virus, and create life, we will of course become
its
God and it will have to worship us or we will punish it in the fires of an
autoclave.
Been there, done that http://www.sunysb.edu/ovprpub/tsc/polio.html
I'm really referring to the current project of assembling a virus (IIRC) using a
minimum gene count.
Totally unique life form.
ITYM Mycoplasma - <URL:http://www.orau.gov/gtl2005/abstracts/Venter.pdf>
Bacteria... far more complex that I thought.
--
Dirk
The Consensus:-
The political party for the new millenium
http://www.theconsensus.org
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Bruce Sinclair" |
|
| Title: Re: black holes and intelligent design |
06 Mar 2005 05:50:34 PM |
|
|
In article <38s7r1F5rf7h2U1@individual.net>, Dirk Bruere at Neopax <dirk@neopax.com> wrote:
Elf M. Sternberg wrote:
cafeinst@msn.com writes:
Furthermore, the fact that life has only been found on earth, but
nowhere else in our universe, implies that the universe is not as
symmetrical as scientists assume.
I notice that both of your positions are dependent upon an
argument from ignorance: because we haven't figured out how to
manufacture life *yet*, life must have been designed. (Note the hubris
here: life must have come about by a process similar to what we humans
do, but so advanced we humans can't do it, but not so advanced that we
can't tell someone else did it. The designer fits into a rather narrow
range.) Because we haven't found life elsewhere in the universe *yet*,
we must somehow be special, blessed.
As soon as we synthesise a virus, and create life, we will of course become its
God and it will have to worship us or we will punish it in the fires of an
autoclave.
.... or more likely it will worship us ... and we will still punish it ...
given the stories of gods that I've read :)
Bruce
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
It was so much easier to blame it on Them. It was bleakly depressing to
think that They were Us. If it was Them, then nothing was anyone´s fault.
If it was Us, what did that make Me ? After all, I´m one of Us. I must be.
I´ve certainly never thought of myself as one of Them. No-one ever thinks
of themselves as one of Them. We´re always one of Us. It´s Them that do
the bad things. <=> Terry Pratchett. Jingo.
Caution ===== followups may have been changed to relevant groups
(if there were any)
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "PD" |
|
| Title: Re: black holes and intelligent design |
04 Mar 2005 10:42:41 AM |
|
|
wrote:
Elf M. Sternberg wrote:
writes:
It is a good scientific theory which is testible and has passed
the
test: The fact that no one has ever been able to recreate life
from
scratch or even describe precisely the steps of how life evolved
implies that the mechanism for producing life is too
sophisticated
for
man to understand.
That's not a "test," that's an unsupported hypothesis.
When
human beings take raw atoms and craft something living from them,
the
response from the ID side will be, "See? It took real thinking and
design to make it happen."
Since either failure or success leads to the same
conclusion,
the test is not useful for showing the validity of the conclusion.
Try
again.
Nope. If humans were to craft life out of atoms, the test which I
described could not be used to reject the null hypothesis, that life
evolved by accident. That wouldn't mean design theory is wrong; it
just
would mean that no conclusion could be drawn from the test. But the
fact that life is too sophisticated for humans to understand how to
create it from scratch implies that intelligent design theory passes
the test, so that we can safely reject the null hypothesis of
macro-evolution, since man has had plenty of time to try to figure it
all out and failed.
"Plenty of time" is an unsupported (and I would say unsupportable)
judgement.
The fact that we have not figured out something (in fact, anything in
particular) does not imply that it is beyond our means to understand,
only that it hasn't yet been understood. After all, go back a mere 100
years, and how atoms could possibly be stable was beyond our
capabilities.
Whether there is a boundary between things we will eventually
understand and things we will never understand, is a matter of faith
and unanswerable. There are those who believe strongly either way.
Furthermore, the fact that life has only been found on earth, but
nowhere else in our universe, implies that the universe is not as
symmetrical as scientists assume. Conventional scientists make the
assumption that the universe is pretty much the same everywhere. If
this is so, then we should find life everywhere, but we don't.
Not so. Isotropy does not imply homogeneity. After all, even though
raisins are uniformly distributed in a box of Raisin Bran, a
near-sighted raisin that can see only himself and surrounding bran
flakes might mistakenly assume that he is unique.
Moreover, our vision is somewhat weak, but improving. There are planets
surrounding stars in our immediate neighborhood (our own galaxy) that
we did not know were there until just a few years ago. The fact that we
could not see them a decade ago does not mean that they weren't there.
According to modern-scientific thinking, the universe should look
more
like Star Trek, which is pretty much uniform, with humanoids running
around everywhere, some more advanced than others.
Again, this is an unsupported and unsupportable claim. "Running around
everywhere" is a statement about ubiquity. Rarity, on the other hand,
is much different than uniqueness. The choices are broader than only
"unique" or "ubiquitous".
The fact that we
have not found any aliens out there and no aliens have tried to
contact
us proves that the modern science assumptions are faulty
Not so. I know of no scientific calculation that says, "We should have
heard by now." There is nothing in science that is challenged by the
fact that we have not found anything yet.
and earth is,
in fact, a very special place in the universe, a miracle, in
religious
terms.
Special and rare does not equal unique. Is God so small that he can
only create and keep an eye on one world?
Also, some of you claimed that invoking God in a theory is not good
science because it does not predict anything about God. Well, I'll
apply that same logic to the black hole; the theory of black holes is
wrong because it doesn't predict anything about the black hole,
That is incorrect. There is a LOT that is predicted about black holes.
since a
black hole is by definition a singularity and thus mathematically
does
not make sense.
That is incorrect, as well. A singularity is a perfectly well-defined
mathematical entity. I don't know where you got this information. What
*is* true is that ordinary physics that applies in non-singular space
breaks down at the singularity, but that does not mean that the
singularity cannot exist because singularity don't make sense.
So black holes are bad science.
And that is a *wholly* unsupported statement.
Also, the fact that people even care about their origins implies that
macro-evolution is false. After all, what biological need is there
for
people to think about such matters?
You are assuming that evolution implies that everything that occurs in
a biological organism must be driven by evolutionary constraints --
that is, biological advantage. That is *clearly* not the case, and
evolution makes no such claim. My cat running around the house like a
banshee for no good reason is not driven by biological advantage, nor
does evolution claim it is. Evolution is mute on why would would want
to draw pictures on walls.
PD
And even if you were to find a
biological need for it, what is the biological need to convince
others
like me of the truth of macro-evolution? Convincing me isn't going to
bring you material gain. All of the posters against me are
contradicting themselves by simply posting against me.
Craig
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Bruce Sinclair" |
|
| Title: Re: black holes and intelligent design |
02 Mar 2005 06:51:46 PM |
|
|
In article <1109806682.173141.133810@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>, wrote:
Elf M. Sternberg wrote:
writes:
It is a good scientific theory which is testible and has passed the
test: The fact that no one has ever been able to recreate life from
scratch or even describe precisely the steps of how life evolved
implies that the mechanism for producing life is too sophisticated
for
man to understand.
That's not a "test," that's an unsupported hypothesis. When
human beings take raw atoms and craft something living from them, the
response from the ID side will be, "See? It took real thinking and
design to make it happen."
Since either failure or success leads to the same conclusion,
the test is not useful for showing the validity of the conclusion.
Try
again.
Nope. If humans were to craft life out of atoms, the test which I
described could not be used to reject the null hypothesis, that life
evolved by accident. That wouldn't mean design theory is wrong; it just
would mean that no conclusion could be drawn from the test. But the
fact that life is too sophisticated for humans to understand
.... at the moment. So was .. well ... pretty much everything for most of our
history. Just because we do not know something now does not mean we will
never know it. :)
how to
create it from scratch implies that intelligent design theory passes
the test, so that we can safely reject the null hypothesis of
macro-evolution, since man has had plenty of time to try to figure it
all out and failed.
Um ... not logical. "plenty of time" does not equal "enough time" ... for
example. See above.
Bruce
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
It was so much easier to blame it on Them. It was bleakly depressing to
think that They were Us. If it was Them, then nothing was anyone´s fault.
If it was Us, what did that make Me ? After all, I´m one of Us. I must be.
I´ve certainly never thought of myself as one of Them. No-one ever thinks
of themselves as one of Them. We´re always one of Us. It´s Them that do
the bad things. <=> Terry Pratchett. Jingo.
Caution ===== followups may have been changed to relevant groups
(if there were any)
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Uncle Al" |
|
| Title: Re: black holes and intelligent design |
27 Feb 2005 07:51:55 PM |
|
|
wrote:
I sense hostility in many of the replies to my arguments. Why?
Galileo.
The
theory of intelligent design explains how life got here.
Keebler elves, too.
It is a good scientific theory which is testible and has passed the
test:
[snip]
Idiot. Religion and science are orthognal. Only one will get you a
working flush toilet or surviving babies.
--
Uncle Al
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/
(Toxic URL! Unsafe for children and most mammals)
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/qz.pdf
.
|
|
|
| User: "glbrad01" |
|
| Title: Re: black holes and intelligent design |
01 Mar 2005 06:03:24 AM |
|
|
You aren't intelligent enough to argue against Intelligent Design.
Brad
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "shane" |
|
| Title: Re: black holes and intelligent design |
27 Feb 2005 06:17:10 PM |
|
|
wrote:
I sense hostility in many of the replies to my arguments. Why? The
theory of intelligent design explains how life got here.
It is a good scientific theory which is testible and has passed the
test: The fact that no one has ever been able to recreate life from
scratch or even describe precisely the steps of how life evolved
implies that the mechanism for producing life is too sophisticated for
man to understand. And this implies that life could not have started by
accident, since if so, man would be able to duplicate such an accident
in a laboratory easily. Therefore, life must have come about through
intelligent design.
I am sorry if you don't want to believe it, but it is the best
scientific theory out there for explaining the origin of life.
Craig
Your use of punctuation above seems to indicate the test was the failure
of science to re-create life in the lab, coupled with not being able to
decribe every step of evolution. If so this is not a test of ID. If that
is not what you were implying, just what test has ID passed?
The ease which you are able to say that the accidental origin of life
could be duplicated in the lab in no way means that the actual
experiment is that easy. I can just as easily challenge you to prove god
exists by saying it's easy, just go to the third heaven and knock on the
door. The fact that you haven't done this easy thing means he doesn't
exist. Or if you suscribe to the alien designer, just go to his home
planet and ask him to come here to explain it all to us. The fact that
you haven't done this easy thing means he doesn't exist, so ID is
therefore disproved. Hey, this science thing is easier than i thought.
--
shane
The truth will set you free.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: black holes and intelligent design |
27 Feb 2005 06:42:40 PM |
|
|
wrote:
I sense hostility in many of the replies to my arguments. Why? The
theory of intelligent design explains how life got here.
There is a difference between explanation (in the scientific sense) and
attribution. A scientific explanation describes the operation of some
specific process that can be directly or indirectly observable and that
is more likely to produce one certain kind of result than it is to
produce any other kind of result. ID does not describe any specific
process that can be directly or indirectly observed to produce life
forms, it simply *attributes* the creation of life to an unidentified
intelligent designer, based on the current lack of knowledge about how
certain aspects of biology and biochemistry could have evolved.
Even if you suppose that God did originally come up with the design for
life on earth, you're still not saying anything scientifically
definable about the *process* by which those designs would have been
realized and made physically real. Thus, evolution is still the best
*scientific* explanation for how the species actually got here,
regardless of where their design came from.
Plus you have to admit, with the hostile and ever-changing conditions
life has to cope with, it would be a fairly inept and unintelligent
designer who would somehow fail to equip his creatures with the ability
to evolve and adapt. Intelligent design is not evidence against
evolution, but (from a metaphysical standpoint) the design of evolution
itself may be the best evidence in favor of the intelligence of the
Designer.
m
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Cheezits" |
|
| Title: Re: black holes and intelligent design |
27 Feb 2005 10:44:32 PM |
|
|
wrote:
It is a good scientific theory which is testible and has passed the
test: The fact that no one has ever been able to recreate life from
scratch or even describe precisely the steps of how life evolved
implies that the mechanism for producing life is too sophisticated for
man to understand.
Ah, so it's too complex to have been designed.
Sue
--
"It's not smart or correct, but it's one of the things that
make us what we are." - Red Green
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
