Intelligent Design vs. Casino Universe

Coprnicus died peacefully in bd after reviewing his galley copies of his work. Bruno was killed for heresy. Its the same thing in US where religion had attempted to control ALL the science classes in schools until after the SCopes trial when several USSC cases ruled AGAINST fundamentalist religions that controlled the schools. IT ALWAYS SEEMED THAT IT WAS THE RELIGIONS THAT WERE DOING THE KILLING

Besides, ve n if Copnicus WERE to be executed for his beliefs(which he WASNT) . Hed still be right. Are you saying that the chirches must control our thoughts and our science?

Hardly a SINGLE EXAMPLE. Are you really this dumb? Theres 155 years of experiment and research nd evidence about evolution and none of it has been refuted. GOT MILK?
(Actually, there have been a few things refuted but they were fraudulent attempts mostly by the religious types to cast doubt on field work--like C14 testing of lacquer covered dinosaur bones)
but if all the evidence validates and no evidence refutes, what is that. THATS VALIDATION BUBBA.

Show me where any evidence is refuted by any genera of tube worms?? Or do you really mean calcify"??

Not for sure. What will you say about the A-bomb, the H-bomb, the N-bomb ... and the retro virus ... and the 'secret' reports from the medical trials of medicines with suspicious therapeutic effect, scheduled for destruction without announcing the results to the public.
The point is not who is the better, and who is the best ... in misusing with money and power. The point is that you cannot claim that some theory (evolution for example) is the best possible explanation when you have no other two: at least the last but one best possible, and the worst possible ... theory. Anyway.


Whether it is the church or the satellites or the drones (through sigma and beta quantum communication) - what is the difference? The manipulations of the church are at least explicit, for the other types of 'data collection', 'processing by algorithms' and 'automated decision making' are no comments.


Yes, but this is not science (to make a theory at first and then to attach 'evidences' to it) ... in the classical understanding of the term. The process should be in reverse.
You collect evidences and make plausible inferences of any kind (on the grounds of the evidences, not on the grounds of attachments to a theory) and construct several theories, from which to choose the best 3 plausible ones ... from which to choose the best possible one. Then and only then you may claim that you have 'the best possible'.
FM, you cannot choose best possible theory from a set of ONE theory.

All those you listed were perpetrated by a country that's predominantly christian.

It's leaders and many of our soldiers are christians. Christianity is a religion.

Not 'all', but rather 'some of them', for many of the people claim to be atheists (which is my favourite theme), and not a few claim to be agnostic (like me for example) - having the imprudence to confess that there are a lot of things that we don't know, and not a few things that we don't even know whether they are cognizable or not ... and why.
Christian country means official religion. What the people are thinking and doing there at sub-government and sub-public level is very different story.


So, what. This neither proves that Big Bang created us ... out of nothing, nor that FM knows what he is talking about when he claims that the Green Algae & the Cyanobacteria can appear without any problems out of nowhere and out of nothing ... on 100% sterile planet (without any biosphere, anywhere) ... so far you have the theory of the right type.
The appearance of bacteria (transfered from the biosphere) into liquid environment and the appearance of bacteria (out of nowhere and by reason unknown) into sterile water pond are things without any co-relation ... let alone 'indisputable evidence' based on inference by analogy.

Im chuckling because that's the very statement that science makes about you Creationists. You have an EXPLANATION but need to find some evidence
Hee Hee

Sorta like how "Creationism" morphed into "Intelligent Design" eh?
If my work would disprove anything in the theory of evolution, I WOULD BE FAMOUS as the guy who found the chink in the armor of a concept. You don't think that scientists test their findings aganst several more or less ridiculous EXPLANATIONS?. Then you know nothing about research.

Michael Behe reported his "Irreducible complexity "findings before he did a complete analysis of his model. He produced a very scientific sounding series of reports that stated that blood clotting is a very complex (irreducibly so) process that only humans have.
Then, within a year, several research organizations showed that Behe failed to show that blood clotting follows a similar but simpler enzyme cascade in lower animals.
DUHHH. Nothing like presenting your evidence that " fully supports " ID only to have it yanked out from under because its incomplete.

Was Behe's findings done to deceive or was it an honest mistake that shows that evolution is a fully testable model?.

why try to change your story?
Th point is, through history it hadn't been the scientists who went out in an army to destroy the anti-science people. On the contrary, it was the popes priests, sachems and religious patriarchs who destroyed those with ideas that were considered heresy.

THAT WAS the response to your point. Coming up with A bombs and H Bombs , these are the products of a "Christian NAtion" so where do you go from here?

No, we (the agnostics) don't have any a priory explanation.
BTW this is called phenomenology. You have a set of subjective experiences (and it is not sure whether they are entirely subjective) and you have to find some plausible explanation (of the phenomenon and of the message). This is different approach, but it is not non-scientific ... for a lot of sciences are using it.


The formal verification is not 'ridiculous EXPLANATIONS'. It verifies the correctness of a claim or a theory (in this case).
It may seem O.K. with you that you have a beautiful theory in contradiction with ugly assumptions, but it is not O.K. FTWW contradiction should be interpreted as impossibility to exist in the physical world.
The things that I know about research are enough to me.

Example: The statement that s.th. is the best in comparison to itself is contradiction in essence, from where automatically follows that any such statement is invalid as a statement (invalid for any plausible interpretation).

In order to claim that evolution is the best you should accept at least two other plausible theories explaining the evidences.
You reject the ID, you don't accept any other plausible explanation (except for evolution) ... where will you get the other two theories from, FM ... in order to construct your statement with 'the best'?

phenomenology is usually one heartbeat away from "FRINGE" and "CONSPIRACY THEORY"

I think you listen to too much George Nori and read too much von Deniken.

PS, your word is "a priori" (a priory is a motel run by the abbey).

OK, what are they?
You miss the whole point. SCIENCE DIDNT PROPOSE ID as a competing "Theory"--Your guys did>
SO , they've been promising that evidence is forthcoming(Weve been waiting since 1996 when johnsan and Behe published their glove dropping books).

Evidence comes in and is viewed within a series of "working models" which are either reinforced or discarded.

I personally see no way that ANY research could continue if someone were to compare any data against and Intelligent Design model. WHERE WOULD ONE GO NEXT?? ALL THE ANSWERS ARE IN!



DISCUSSION IN A FIELD LAB
Q: What'have we got?

A: "Well weve got some fossils here that come from two different horizons and while they look the same they have some fundamental differences"
A: "They are the product of an Intelligent designer's handiwork"


CONCLUSION: "OK lets go get a beer"

The phenomenology has different interpretation in architecture, in archaeology, in particle physics, in philosophy, as existential phenomenology, phenomenology of perception, phenomenology of religion, of spirit, in psychology, and as general scientific method, used in any science to describe a body of knowledge that finds the correlation and associations of the empirical observations of phenomena.
For example, one has the phenomena:
- rocks of the right type
- science of the right type
- theory of the right type
- & missing assumptions ... of the right type
and one studies these phenomena and tries to find the grounds for the correlations of the empirical observations on these phenomena.


So is that. A sure sign that somebody is missing the other two theories of 'the best' statement is the moment at which he starts dealing with the spelling misconceptions ... of the spell checker.
Do you have the other two theories from 'the best' statement, or not?

FM, you are totally missing something. You made the claim that 'evolution is the best explanation', so you are supposed to state out which are the other two theories that you are comparing evolution with to conclude that it is 'the best' (from the three ones) ... and on what criteria you are making 'the best' assessment?
- most appropriate, useful or helpful
... means that it explains more things than any other theory (like for example from where have the Green Algae and Cyanobacteria appeared on the Earth 3.8 Bya)
... you have proven that it is plausible, and how it works (not in the sense of how it swaps genetic material within a species, but how does the genetics work)
You have a skeleton of a mammoth ... with all the beautiful genetics within its teeth ... and you cannot revive the species to life for you don't have the vaguest idea of how the genetic code of a living creatures work

- better than all others in quality or value
By setting aside the fact that you don't have the other two theories explaining the evidences, let's assume you have them and you have to compare them in order to find 'the best'.
Let's consider the qualities:
1. A good theory makes its inapplicability promptly and unambiguously known.
As evolution is applicable to everything, no matter what the assumptions might be, this does not concern you.
2. A good theory approximates objects, not their relationships.
Your theory approximates relationships and places the objects within a priori constructed taxonomy, but these are details
3. A good theory sets up its own limits and abilities.
The evolution is applicable without any limits (of physics and math logic for example) and has the abilities exceeding the abilities of any class of impossibility.
4. A good theory rapidly makes new predictions from old predictions.
The evolution can predict that there is life in the ocean of Ganymede without explaining how, why, and from which branch of the taxonomy the Tube Worm appeared on the bottom of the Atlantic ... and when.


It is exactly what I said. You, in the capacity of representing frivulously the science don't recognise ID as a theory that explains the evidences. Hence you are missing the second theory for the purposes of comparison, from where follows that you cannot claim 'better' and 'the best' for such a claim over one example would be void and invalid.


Perhaps you mean: '- Evolution. - O.K. lets go get a beer'
Are you developing some special sense of humour or what. The case of ID raises more questions than you can ever possibly imagine?
By whom, when, how, why, by means of what, where are they ... where are we - are just few of them.

Evolution is only the "best explanation" for people with a pressing need for it to be. And it isn't even an explanation. It's a description.

S. you are absolutely correct. Thank you!
I didn't pay attention that FM is missing (''inter alia'') the definition for 'Explanation'.
Def: An explanation is a set of statements constructed to describe a set of facts which clarifies the
1) causes (like for example the very first appearance of the bio-code on the planet),
2) ''context'' (the mechanics of the biocode that causes new species ... and arranges the beautiful taxonomy of FM ... which is missing the branch of the tube worm on the bottom of the ocean) and
3) ''consequences'' (in this and that case scenario what will happen with the biospere, etc.) ... and where will those facts go.
FM, notwithstanding that he is missing 1) 2) and 3) this does not impede him from claiming to be 'the best' ... and for knowing a priori everything that might be found.

This whole "the best" argument is silly, Herald. try old earth creationism, young earth creationism, intelligent design, "first there was Raven and Raven flew over the sea with mud in his beak, and the mud that dropped formed our land, and we sprang from the mud" "the earth is flat and supported on the backs of four giant elephants who stand on the back of an even more immense turtle swimming thru the universe, who stands on the back of an even larger tortoise, and then it's turtles all the way down", if you must have two others, that's five.

And evolution explains what has happened since blue-green algae, which at this point is the first organism that left traces that we know of. The question of origins is an entirely separate question. But remember, plausible hypotheses to account for the development of precursor chemicals, and possible pathways to get there for some of them have been proposed, using only the laws of chemistry and physics. No supernatural intervention required.

And ID doesn't explain the evidence. That's the problem with it. As a competing "theory" (wrong use of the term, incidentally), it doesn't.

How can it when you are deciding which evidence you are referring to and for subjective reasons? The evidence is that in the blink of an eye in evolutionary time scales the Christian project produced what you see around you and on which you are wholly dependent.

And that evidence is staring you in the face all day long and the evidence you are speaking of is derived from selected book larnin', selected by others, which you believe with a desire which some say borders on indecent exposure. What else could it be?

Why are you saying this to me. It is an argument of FM, if you pay attention to the thread a few posts ago.
Which one is the 'silly' argument.
That one cannot claim (and choose) 'the best' from a single choice.
That the atheists deny any other explanations except for the evolution, as non-scientific (as if the big bang and the evolution are masterpieces of scientific justification and verification).
That the evolution does not deal with causality ... anywhere.
Or maybe that FM does not know how to revive a mammoth ... for he claims that he is well aware with the bio-code ... which in his understanding of the world is a bio-polymer printed from ACGT & U on a laser printer ... for he claims that the bio-code is nothing but (bio)chemistry ... without even bothering to use the prefix bio-.
If the evolution is valid (the best explanation as some people here claim) it should be able to explain everything, incl. the origin of life on the Earth ... not only a cherry-picked part of the evidences.


All these are ID. It doesn't matter whether it is God or some prior ILF - it is ID. FM denies the possibility of ID. He does not claim that it is worse explanation of the evidences. He claims that it is impossible ... and pronounces everybody believing in it as idiot.


You should convince FM to accept at least two more theories ... in order to be able to construct a valid claim of the type 'the best'.
May I ask you something. We (the humans) have been several times on the Moon (the Russians with the one-way ticket trips, the Americans (if it was not a Hollywood production), and the Chinese) ... so we brought a lot of bacteria to the Moon ... and how many of them have survived ... none.
Do you know why is that? It is because the bio-code is planet-specific and one cannot move alien bacteria (with or without nitrogen) from asteroids to the Earth ... not to mention that FM does not even have the vaguest idea of how the alien bacteria will survive the plasma from the friction of the asteroid through the Earth's atmosphere ... in order to enfish the ocean with Cyanobacteria & Green Algae ... from the outside space.
The other case scenario is for the Cyanobacteria & Green Algae to appear out of chemistry ... by reason unknown. If FM is acquainted in details with this biochemistry (as he claims) he should be able to revive the mammoth from the bio-code ... without any problems.

You do a good job H of exposing the emptiness at the core of evolution theory. Not that it needs much more exposing than it already has been for those who have all their ducks in a row.

I prefer the emptiness at the core of the social significance of it for people of our culture and the full flower of the social significance of it at the core of another culture based upon it, for want of anything else to base it once the entrancing camp-fire stories of the goat-herders have been dispensed with.

No, it is not ... a separate issue. It is inseparable to the theory. The question of the origin is the assumption to the theory (of evolution here), otherwise you may start looking like FM with his claims that the method for measuring time doesn't need to be calibrated at the zero (and for the range within which it is valid).
The assumptions ... and the causes of the origin are the key to understand the processes ... otherwise one may start a brand new theory from population 7 BN, for example ... and draw some mind-blowing inferences after that.