View Full Version : On "Non-Supernatural Intelligent Design": Viable Epistemology/Probative Science Tool?
The topic of non-supernatural intelligent design appears deserving of its own thread where many more people are able to see it and join in.
This thread is a spin-off from Zero (http://www.sciforums.com/f47/sf27605397eaf9cf74fddb3ce29229329/member.php?action=getinfo&userid=5982)'s thread: Creationism does NOT belong in science. (http://www.sciforums.com/t8482/sf27605397eaf9cf74fddb3ce29229329/thread.html) By spinning off, this thread can explore further the topic herein unencumbered by the much broader range of possible topics still carrying forth 'over there'. Also, the discussion here won't hijack and divert Zero (http://www.sciforums.com/f47/sf27605397eaf9cf74fddb3ce29229329/member.php?action=getinfo&userid=5982)'s thread away from his original topic, and it gives us the ability to more narrowly focus the discussion in a very specific way.
So, this thread is devoted entirely to, and quite intentionally limited to, open discussion of NON-SUPERNATURAL Intelligent Design theory.
*******-> Therefore, I ask that all posters wishing to discuss the "SUPERNATURAL" form of Intelligent Design" (you know: "god did it, and Zeus watched") to please do so only in the other thread (http://www.sciforums.com/t8482/sf27605397eaf9cf74fddb3ce29229329/thread.html). We thank you. :)
////////////////////////////////////////////////////
So, to re-boot (or re-mount, as the case may be) and re-initialize....
Warren (http://www.sciforums.com/f47/sb920d139ec088c1ca0ed054bb800d7f2/member.php?action=getinfo&userid=6320), et al.;
As you see in the other thread (http://www.sciforums.com/t8482/sf27605397eaf9cf74fddb3ce29229329/thread.html), there is here a rather pronounced, though not unanimous, general disregard for pleas to the supernatural. That is, no doubt, why you have come to SciForums--motivated by a sincere desire to make your case for:
Intelligent Design, like naturalism, is a distinct epistemology. ID and naturalism are frameworks for theories and hypotheses, an epistemological underpinning for those theories and hypotheses.
....to such a community. In fact, you appreciate that you must be able to make your case effectively here, before you are able to anticipate similarly being able to sway the minds of others in other truly more rigorous venues. Because, as you've stated:
The only way to find out if a theory of intelligent design can advance our understanding beyond that of a "blind watchmaker" theory is to use the scientific method....
....(with the associated apriori need to resort to a modified form ot the scientific method, as in)....
....from an ID perspective....
....and see what comes from it.
....and the price of being able to sway such minds is being truly persuasive.
Arising from our not unexpected disregard, the sufficient, though not formally rigorous, case has been made (in the other thread (http://www.sciforums.com/t8482/sf27605397eaf9cf74fddb3ce29229329/thread.html) ) as to the why and how creationism is invalidated as a viable adjunct of science--a premise you already find agreeable; as you've stated:
I agree that ID research has been hijacked as part of a larger cultural and political movement.
Intelligent design doesn't invoke a deity.
--and so, such case already having been made, together let us all now stipulate that unprovable supernatural agents and aspects normally attributed to "Intelligent Design" henceforth have no merit in furthering the discussion of non-super-natural intelligent design now at hand.
So, onto the presentation of the specifics of your case, Warren (http://www.sciforums.com/f47/sb920d139ec088c1ca0ed054bb800d7f2/member.php?action=getinfo&userid=6320), for natural (as opposed to super-natural) intelligent design (NID)....
To help this part of the discussion to move over here, I have gathered some representative samplings of your thoughts below, mostly to spare people having to go back and forth between the threads so much. I appreciate that this collection of 'samplings' may only reflect my own personal selection bias as to what stands out most in relevence to introducing this iteration of the discussion. To that, I cop to owing a nominal amount of pleadings mea culpa. ;)
\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\
By way of tranfer from the other thread (http://www.sciforums.com/t8482/sf27605397eaf9cf74fddb3ce29229329/thread.html), I paraphrase here some of your earlier thoughts (as SciForum's principal proponent of NID) for the benefit of the ensuing discussions:
For instance, in the other thread (http://www.sciforums.com/t8482/sf27605397eaf9cf74fddb3ce29229329/thread.html), in response to Zero's statement:
"....the fact stands that creationism does NOt belong in science."
....you replied, "Depends on how you define creationism and how you define science."
Elsewhere, you asked of various others:
>"A scientist suspects that non-intelligent processes may be insufficient to produce biological complexity. He wishes to follow-up his suspicion with an investigation using the scientific method. .... Can what he is doing be called science?"
>"....are you opposed to anything that's not compatible with materialism?"
>"If biological structures are not created by random, blind, purposeless copying errors plus natural selection then how are they created? (There is nothing for natural selection to select until a complex, rational, functioning biological structure is in existence.) Is life ‘self organized’? Intelligently self-organized? What would be the difference between intelligently self-organized and intelligently designed?"
>"....without the evidence of direct experience and testimony, could we ever hope to detect such intelligent intervention? In other words, is it possible to *indirectly* detect intelligent intervention? If not, then the claim, "There is no evidence of intelligent intervention," becomes rather meaningless. For it would simply mean that our methods failed to detect the things our methods are unable to detect. But if we can indirectly detect intelligent intervention, then such an effort would qualify as science and the results would be meaningful."
>"As for teleologists presenting something unequivocal I suppose you mean (1) showing the designer in action, or (2) discovering the actual design protocols (i.e., the designer's lab notebook) or (3) providing an example of something that couldn't possibly have evolved. The problem is that even if life was indeed designed (for example), there is not one good reason (not one) why we should be able to do (1), (2), or (3). That is, (1), (2), and (3) are simply not entailed by the truth of ID in history. So the question is how do we go about detecting ID without (1), (2), and (3). And that is what ID is all about. It is about looking for fingerprints of intelligent intervention. It is about employing an "if, then" forensic approach to guide an experimental inquiry that can generate results that either support or weaken the initial design inference."
>"I can think of three possible explanations of evolution: 1) The theistic assumption that God guides nature’s creative processes. 2) A creative intelligence innate in all living matter drives the process -- a creative intelligence which might be viewed as a natural force such as gravity. However, unlike gravity, creative intelligence is neither measurable nor predictable. 3) Novel Biological structures are the result of some unknown non-intelligent, mechanistic process - as yet to be specified by ‘science’. Does our present understanding allow us to impose any one of these possibilities upon society, and prohibit consideration of the others?"
>"If science is required to limit itself to mechanistic explanations, and life is not a mechanistic process, perhaps science can not explain life."
>"....without the evidence of direct experience and testimony, could we ever hope to detect such intelligent intervention? In other words, is it possible to *indirectly* detect intelligent intervention? If not, then the claim, "There is no evidence of intelligent intervention," becomes rather meaningless. For it would simply mean that our methods failed to detect the things our methods are unable to detect."
You said variously in regards to Science, naturalism, or materialism:
>"Scientists don't accept naturalistic abiogenesis because of the evidence. No, scientists accept naturalistic abiogenesis because the game rules of science preclude any hint of teleology."
>"....it's important to note that the hostility of the scientific community towards creationism is .... a commitment of the scientific community to the blind watchmaker hypothesis."
>"....so far no one has specified exactly how biological complexity might actually be created."
>"One can use the scientific method without subscibing to the philosophy of materialism."
>" It is a faulty assumption that science is about coming up with the best possible explanation."
>"Non-teleologists embrace extraordinary claims without any evidence, yet demand (while pounding the podium) proof of ID."
About NID you've said:
>"....ID is every bit as falsifiable as Darwinism."
>"That a competent blind watchmaker may not exist at all and that certain aspects of biotic reality may be better explained by a seeing watchmaker...."
>"I believe ID can be detected in a working sense. That is, one can score features that provisionally place something in the tentative "designed" category and build from there. This is why ID researchers prefer making a "design inference" rather than asserting they have detected design."
>"Intelligent design is a form of teleology and not creationism.
>"I personally see more than sufficient evidence to trigger a suspicion that ID is behind the origin of life in the fact that biology not only needs teleological language and concepts, but that such concepts really do generate an understanding of life. I think life expresses enough complex specified information such that ID is a better explanation for its origin than geochemistry. For me, this evidence goes beyond mere suspicion and takes me close to the realm of the "most likely."
About NID as Epistemology you've said:
>"Why am I open to teleological explanations? It's a judgment call,...."
>"I'm not looking for a fail proof detector of ID."
>"I need a much more rigorous set of evidence to think random mutations and natural selection were indeed the only mechanisms behind the origin of biological innovations post-abiogenesis."
>"To me, it is not a question of proof, but a question of whether data exist that trigger a suspicion of ID."
>"The ID movement has the potential of evening the playing field by reviving its arguments in more sophisticated versions."
>"I'm questioning this whole notion that in order for a theory to be useful and increase our understanding of biotic reality it has to be devoid of teleology."
>"....if we can indirectly detect intelligent intervention, then such an effort would qualify as science and the results would be meaningful."
Some other things you have said:
>"Simply trying to establish that something is possible is about as weak of a claim there can be."
Some things said by others that you have quoted to make a your own point:
>"....plausibility is about the weakest criterion one can apply to an evolutionary hypothesis."
Warren,
I can consider sentient Intelligent Design quite easily--aliens, for instance, having engineered our earliest ancestors' RNA and/or it precursor. But, I don't think that is what you mean by Intelligent Design.
What do you mean when you say "Intelligent Design"?
m0rl0ck
08-18-02, 03:13 PM
Interesting thread subject.
Ive been thinking about this lately, mostly because my most recent time waster is rereading "Morning of the magicians".
Matter evolved from nothing (or really a primal singularity).
Life appears to have somehow evolved from matter.
Conciousness has evolved from life.
What next?
I dont know if I would go so far as to posit intellegent design, Im thinking more along the lines of the development of conciosness and spirt (very unscientific word) being inherent in the evolution of universes.
So Im for explanation 2)A creative intelligence innate in all living matter drives the process -- a creative intelligence which might be viewed as a natural force such as gravity. However, unlike gravity, creative intelligence is neither measurable nor predictable.
Maybe it is measurable though, not in calories or grams or ergs but in ethical systems. As the universe develops and becomes more self aware, how do ethical systems change? Maybe they would change to reflect the recognition of the presence this creative intellegence in all living beings. Maybe from "an eye for an eye" to "do unto others" (Please dont hang me for using christian examples here you can find the same sentiment in taoism and buddhism). Every change should be measurable, but where to look for the data?
Maybe its measurable in psychology, in self awareness.
m0rl0ck;
Maybe it is measurable though, not in calories or grams or ergs but in ethical systems.
Are you thinking that maybe because ethical systems are human constructs then humans are the means for the universe to convert its proposed 'creative intelligence' into ethical systems?
That humans are Nature's way of manifesting this 'creative intelligence' in a form other things like rocks and trees cannot?
Specifically, that the human brain is what converts this 'creative intelligence' into systems of ethics and morality not otherwise native to ourselves?
m0rl0ck
08-18-02, 07:03 PM
>>Youre you thinking that maybe because ethical systems are human constructs then humans are the means for the universe to convert its proposed 'creative intelligence' into ethical systems?
No. I think ethical systems evolving toward greater respect for concious awareness as expressed in human beings might be a signal of an evolution of the universe as a whole, of the entire system (not a good word but the only one i can think of now) evolving toward greater awareness.
>>>That humans are Nature's way of manifesting this 'creative intelligence' in a form other things like rocks and trees cannot?
Maybe. But maybe humans just manifest this awareness according to the means that they have. Rock and trees are part of the system too though, first matter, then life, then consiousness. All of the parts of an earlier form would be included in the manifestation of the next. It wouldnt be just ethical systems though if the theory were correct youd have to be able to see an "upward" trend in all kinds of human endeavor, instead of upward make that maybe more inclusive, in the same way that conciousness includes all the earlier forms. I chose ethics off the top of my head because reading the religion forum I am always impressed at the quantum leap between the "eye for an eye" and later developments and the number of ethical throwbacks we carry along with us :)
>>Specifically, that the human brain is what converts this 'creative intelligence' into systems of ethics and morality not otherwise native to ourselves?
No. You make it sound like human brains secrete ethical systems the way snails leave slime trails :)
What Im thinking is more along the lines of ethical evolution (increasing inclusivity and respect for concious awareness in other beings) being a sign of greater consiousness as a whole expressed through human beings.
As far as brains in general i dont think that the reductionist idea of human consciousness being exactly congruent to the physical structure of the brain and its chemical and electrical processes is going to survive this discussion. While thats a useful frame of reference for doing brain surgury or prescriging psychoactive drugs to cure depression im not sure that this discussion isnt outside that ideas useful frame of application.
m0rl0ck,
...ethical systems....evolving toward greater awareness.
Ah. Science! ;)
What Im thinking is more along the lines of ethical evolution (increasing inclusivity and respect for concious awareness in other beings)....
Do you think this might be an indication of design from non-supernatural intelligence?
....i dont think that the reductionist idea of human consciousness being exactly congruent to the physical structure of the brain and its chemical and electrical processes is going to survive this discussion.
I should think that science has no problem with the idea that consciousness is a bi-product of the brain's bio-electro-chemical activity. Is consciousness another indicator of design by non-supernatural intelligence?
Warren has made some distinction between 'intelligent self-organization' and 'intelligently designed' (engineered).
Do either of these two terms fit into your ideas about 'evolving awareness'?
m0rl0ck
08-19-02, 11:29 AM
>>>>Do you think this might be an indication of design from non-supernatural intelligence?
I have problems with the concepts "design" and "intellegence" in this context, because they seem to me to carry connotations of rational planning by some entity (beware! lurking anthropomorphism ahead). If you start off down this road you could easily end up painting yourself into philosohical corner where the only way out is postulating an entity of some kind (and then you end up with inquisitions, suicide bombers, wars over christs foreskin etc :) ).
I tend to think of an organic "intellegience" whose natural end is inherent in its beginnings, (this is not a good example dont take it in any way literally but only as a pointer) in the way that an oak is inherent in an acorn. A becoming rather than a product of accretive or planned design.
>>>>>I should think that science has no problem with the idea that consciousness is a bi-product of the brain's bio-electro-chemical activity. Is consciousness another indicator of design by non-supernatural intelligence?
The idea that the brain is some kind of biochemical computer with conciousness as its by product doesnt take into account actual experience, the actual raw data of conciousness. How do we experience the world? Do we see it as bits of sensory data rushing around through a biological computer?
The world comes to us as direct experience not as bits of objectivist data, but as hopes, fears, attractions, aversions etc that arise by themselves, they are there whenever we look. The very idea of the brain as a biological computer is a concious concept. Conciousness attempting to explain itself away? :)
>>>>Do either of these two terms fit into your ideas about 'evolving awareness'?
Intellegient self organization would be closest, misses the mark somehow though, doesnt include the kind of organic wholism I percieve and smells of anthropomorphism.
m0rl0ck:
....the concepts "design" and "intellegence" in this context,....carry connotations of rational planning by some entity (beware!...
Quite so, which is why I would like to narrowly focus the thread on only non-supernatural treatments of the topic ( presuming such treatments are possible, of course).
....you could easily end up painting yourself into philosohical corner where the only way out is postulating an entity of some kind....
Secretly, I think this might be the only recourse ultimately for Warren and non-deity-based ID. ;)
I tend to think of an organic "intellegience" whose natural end is inherent in its beginnings....
A non-cognitive type of 'intelligence'--like with the ability of some form of self-awareness (start <--> finish connectivity), but without the ability of judgement?
The idea that the brain is some kind of biochemical computer with conciousness as its by product doesnt take into account actual experience, the actual raw data of conciousness.
If consciousness has nothing to do with the brain as a biochemical system, why do we have a brain at all? Why aren't we just self-conscious rocks? ;)
The world comes to us as direct experience not as bits of objectivist data,...
You mean, reality isn't 32 frames per second? Or 60 Khz? :o
Conciousness attempting to explain itself...
Isn't that what the proponents of Intelligent Design also advocate?
Intellegient self organization would be closest, misses the mark somehow though, doesnt include the kind of organic wholism I percieve and smells of anthropomorphism.
I agree, for the most part--I can also entertain the notion that it can arise from inherently imprecise ID semantics.
(Note: At this point in the discussion, I should like to draw attention to Warren's conspicuous absence from the thread. I am not a proponent of Intelligent Design--either flavor--and I cannot make his case for non-supernatural ID for him.)
Warren:
In your own words, "I personally see more than sufficient evidence to trigger a suspicion...." ;)
Shall no one, can no one, speak in reasoned defense of Intelligent Design?
m0rl0ck
08-20-02, 11:18 PM
Shall no one, can no one, speak in reasoned defense of Intelligent Design?
Im still thinking about the attribution of judgement, as in a selection of one alternative or possibility over another, to something that by definition must contain all possibilities and at the same time is organically elolving (could I decide to grow another finger to improve my typing?).
Im also still thinking about wether its possible to discover an interior truth from an exterior starting point or vice versa (could you deduce electricity from a starting point of jungian psychology?) Is it possible to prove conciousness from an empirical starting point? Yet conciousness exists, we experience it.
John MacNeil
08-21-02, 12:14 AM
For argument's sake;
Theoretically, Intelligent Design has a very high probability factor of being the chosen ecological framework for complex planetary surface systems.
Neither religionism nor evolution has a satisfactory framework outside of their narrow descriptions.
Religionism can most quickly be set aside as not being further included in this hypothesis because it is dependant on an outside agent and so could only be regarded as a subset of Intelligent Design.
Evolution can almost as quickly be set aside unless it is realized that evolution will only ever produce a narrow specrtrum of diversity of life on any given planet, and since I get the impression that you are looking for a theory that would account for a diverse ecological system, such as the one on this planet, we will proceed to set it aside. When the basic molecules for the ingrediants of life are first being attracted to each other it would take eons for them to ferment and finaly begin to be gathered together in sufficient quantity for something complex to form out of the mix. That something might only form at one point on the planet and it would consume whatever it needed to consume to insure that it was able to propagate. The emerging life process would be measured in geologic time and that would insure that the first emerging species would reach population saturation on the planet before a competing species could form to compete for food resources and actually would itself remain undeveloped and part of the food chain.
On some planets it might be possible for two or maybe even up to five different species of life to form, provided the populations are separated by sufficient barriers so as to restrict premature population interaction. Plant life, of course, would form faster and be more diverse but still would be within a narrow spectrum for the same afore mentioned reason of primary species domination.
This discription precludes the possiblity of evolution as it is known in theory on this planet. However, it does allow for, and indeed calls for, natural selection in order that species can continue to pass on their better traits to the succeeding generations.
Intelligent Design begins with collecting specimen of every known kind of life form from every life supporting planet that is known and systematically experimenting with them until every nuance of them is also known, including the compatibility-of-life systems factor.
Warren suggests that:
Intelligent Design,....is a....framework....for theories and hypotheses
The only way to find out if a theory of intelligent design can advance our understanding beyond that of a "blind watchmaker" theory is to use the scientific method....
"Intelligent design is a form of teleology
When I hear the term 'Intelligent Design', I think 'directed purpose'. Warren says no deity is involved in 'intelligent design' but suggests a 'seeing watchmaker'. Does that mean to imply that nature--the Cosmos--itself is somehow self-aware, that it has a purpose toward which it knows to work by directing its components and their interactions toward that end? That in somehow understanding its ultimate purpose the Cosmos knows what it needs to achieve it and how to accomplish it?
John MacNeil suggests that
Theoretically, Intelligent Design....(is the)....chosen ecological framework for complex planetary surface systems.
If we humans, for instance, are a directed attempt by the Cosmos to become more aware of itself through our intelligence and perceptions, are we intruments of its self-analysis? Is that our lives' directed purpose?
m0rl0ck ponders:
....wether its possible to discover an interior truth from an exterior starting point or vice versa....
Perhaps 'intelligent design' implies the Cosmos has the same difficulty--the inability to learn about, and comphrehend, its own origin. And perhaps, as its constructed instruments, neither can or will we. Thus, forever we are left to speculate both wishfully and wistfully. Is that a natural consequence of 'intelligent design'?
....conciousness exists, we experience it.
Perhaps we are bubbles in the quantum foam. :)
John MacNeil
08-21-02, 02:23 PM
To suggest that perhaps the cosmos could make an attempt, through the formation of humans, to become more aware of itself is to delve into the realm of supernatural intelligent design and thus embrace theologic concepts while rejecting physics. If that is the case then perhaps you should move this thread over to the religionists section and hook up to an Ohm! meter and seek one with the universe that way.
Perhaps I have not fully understood your position, but from earlier postings I got the impression that you equate creation and religionism and reject both as lacking empirical evidence.
In my enjoining this discussion I made mention of the theory of primary species domination as being the logical culmination of planetary population. As this theory of primary species domination, which is natural selection, which heretofore was superceded by the wider theory of evolution, which in previous postings I read that you support, leaves you without a supported theory, I believe it is incumbent on you to give a clear statement on what exactly is your position and how it relates to your perception of Intelligent Design, pro or con. Or, since the theory of primary species domination now gives you a more focused understanding of the results of natural selection and makes you realize, as I do, that the theory of evolution, as it was heretofore known and understood by it's description as Darwinian Theory, is defunct, we can proceed.
Towards that end I will now make an observation. When a species has no predatory species attacking it's population it will reproduce until the environment it is in is supporting maximum capacity. This unpredatorized domination of an environment by a species has been observed in microcosm on different parts of this planet when animals have been introduced on continents that were foreign to their developement and were without natural predators. An example of note is the infestation of rabbits in Australia. There the rabbits are producing in great number and eating other species out of their food supply to the extent that some species are in danger of extinction.
It is therefore my hypothesis that for a functional ecosystem to be as diverse as the one we are somewhat familiar with on this planet, that some agent, which at this point I will refer to as the intelligent design aspect, must have integrated various primary species.
John MacNeil:
To suggest that perhaps the cosmos could....become more aware of itself is to delve into the realm of supernatural intelligent design and thus embrace theologic concepts while rejecting physics. If that is the case then perhaps you should move this thread over to the religionists section and hook up to an Ohm! meter and seek one with the universe that way.
Perhaps I have not fully understood your position,....I got the impression that you equate creation and religionism and reject both as lacking empirical evidence.
Ah, the Ohm meter--the scientologists' approach. :D No, indeed I am atheist. Because Warren says that "intelligent design is a....framework....for theories and hypotheses...." I am attempting to discover the framework's foundation and component parts. Because Warren also says that "The only way to find out if a theory of intelligent design can advance our understanding....is to use the scientific method....", I am merely forming various temporary hypotheses and offering them for validation or invalidation as part of a process of ambiguities elimination.
As you and others are applying 'intelligent design' in the context of ecological/biological systems, I was curious whether NID's proponents also will apply ID to Nature in its entirety--the Cosmos: the sum-total of the 'observable' univese and the still as yet 'unobservable' universe (the part(s) of the cosmos hidden from us for the time being because too little time has passed for information from those really distant regions to arrive at Earth). So, yes. I am (provisionally) courting such metaphysical concepts to learn how specifically NID is distinguished apart from other ID iterations--like creationism--as a Cosmos: possibly aware but not conscious (non-supernatural), and as opposed to the naturalist's no-awareness-at-all (natural) cosmos.
I believe it is incumbent on you to give a clear statement on what exactly is your position and how it relates to your perception of Intelligent Design, pro or con.
'Intelligent design' connotes 'directed purpose'--a concept that is beyond the scope and capabilities of empirical endeavors to quantify and validate. As an investigative presupposition, 'intelligent design' introduces additional complexity unnecessary to the considerable abilities of less complex, empirically supportable and defensible explanations of natural processes. That is not to say that 'intelligent design' has no merit as a teleology, but that Science has no immediate need to resort to 'intelligent design' in any of its forms.
....evolution will only ever produce a narrow specrtrum of diversity of life on any given planet,....When the basic molecules for the ingrediants of life are first being attracted to each other it would take eons for them to ferment and finaly begin to be gathered together in sufficient quantity for something complex to form out of the mix. That something might only form at one point on the planet and it would consume whatever it needed to consume to insure that it was able to propagate.
That premise might be true on a planet with one larger lake in whose limited volume the chemistry of life might be initiated and thus confined to a single geographic location. But on early Earth, at least, vast oceans provided potentially zillions of different locations for biochemical activity to begin and, therefore, what is to say that it did not do so in many different places at the same time? Thus leading to great diversity as has been seen in the fossil records of evolutionary history.
I made mention of the theory of primary species domination as being the logical culmination of planetary population.
Episodically, perhaps. But what of the occasional impacting asteroid or comet that kills the principals and allows the secondaries and the tertiaries, etc. to fill their now-abandoned niche?
When a species has no predatory species attacking it's population it will reproduce until the environment it is in is supporting maximum capacity. .... It is therefore my hypothesis that for a functional ecosystem to be as diverse as the one we are somewhat familiar with on this planet, that some agent, which at this point I will refer to as the intelligent design aspect, must have integrated various primary species.
Comet & asteroid impactors, vulcanism & plate tectonics, planet-satellite gravitional tidal interactions, evolving solar nucleosynthesis and chaotic behavior of planetary orbits explain just as adequately that which you describe, too.
As additonal response to:
I made mention of the theory of primary species domination as being the logical culmination of planetary population.
Even during the 145 Million years-long history of the Dinosaurs, the land & seas still were filled with a tremendous diversity of animal, reptile, amphibian, fish, crustacean, insect & plant, etc., species. Australia's rabbits may be decreasing the diversity of mammals and marsupials, etc. in a particular habitat, but as an unmitigated hazard to planetary diversity, only humanity would fit your example to close approximation I should think.
John MacNeil
08-21-02, 11:52 PM
Mr. G:
The 145 million year reign of dinosaur life can only be regarded as a subset of the ecological life system on this planet the same as the life system that we currently exist in can only be regarded as a subset of the ecological life system on this planet. We humans live in all the same areas as did the dinosaur life system and so there would have to be bones and fossils of our ancestral natural selection stage among the bones and fossils of those dinosaurs, that we find in such profusion, for there to be a viable assumption that we developed on this planet as a primary species coincidental with other primary species.
But we find there is no such record and there is actually a disconnection of tens of million of year between the evidentiary proof that allows archaeology to state that both systems did indeed at one time reside on this planet. Since all archaeology is in agreement that there was not enough time since dinosaur extinction and the first appearance of human life on this planet for human life to have evolved here by the method of natural selection, then it must be hypothesized that human life first appeared on this planet as a fully developed primary species. If that hypothesis is allowed then provision must also be made for the hypothesis that the dinosaur system could also have appeared on this planet as a fully developed integrated primary species system.
At some point in the distant past there had to have been an instant on this planet when there was no atmosphere and the concurrent instant when there was atmosphere. In that earliest developing stage there would as yet have been no living systems on this planet and there wouldn't be until all criteria of composition and circumstance were met. It is at this point that the odds on all the required actions intersecting to produce life would be astronomically large and unlikely to be creating different species simultaneously in a multitude of places around the planet, which would be required for there to be a plethora of primary species.
In this earliest of stages the planet would not be covered with liquid oceans as it is now and as it was when the dinosaurs reigned but would have more of an appearence like the moon Europa. I'm not sure how you meant that comet and asteroid impacts could disperse species since to my way of thinking any diplaced life form would not survive atmospheric reentry. Nor do I believe that life could travel on an asteroid let alone survive a planetary impact. As for plate tectonics, volcanism and tidal actions, they would all be secondary to life force initialization.
I have to say that before I read your thread starter on Intelligent Design I didn't know what was meant by it and from the description you quoted I'm still not quite sure although I get the idea that it is meant in the metaphysical sense. If that is it then I would have to regard the use of Intelligent Design in that case as an oxymoron since it precludes physics as the basis of intelligence and instead equates it with an idea which is only a construct of intelligence. It is also my belief that there are no constructs in the universe that cannot be described empiracally when sufficient observation has been collated.
John MacNeil:
Since all archaeology is in agreement that there was not enough time since dinosaur extinction and the first appearance of human life on this planet....
Well, certainly dinosaurs and humans were never contempories, but all archeology has not agreed that there was too little time between their respective ages for evolution to operate. Quite the contrary.
....for human life to have evolved here by the method of natural selection, then it must be hypothesized that human life first appeared on this planet as a fully developed primary species.
Your hypothesis is that 'intelligent designed' primary species--the indomitable species--appear from nowhere in fully developed forms. Further, that it is impossible for such indomitable species to arise via natural selection, and the other evolutionary mechanisms operating in parallel to it, over such brief periods of geologic time. And that the Theory of Evolution--unlike 'intelligent design', amply supported by a formidable body of evidences, is in error, unprovable and otherwise disproven. So 'intelligent design' must be the correct and the only possible alternative explanation to natural selection.
Once again, Warren has stated previously:
The only way to find out if a theory of intelligent design can advance our understanding beyond that of a "blind watchmaker" theory is to use the scientific method....
As such, what predictions can 'intelligent design' make that can be tested to begin the accumulation of proofs necessary to establish its validity as a better alternative to TOE?
If that hypothesis is allowed....
Well, that remains to be seen.
....there had to have been an instant on this planet when there was no atmosphere and the concurrent instant when there was atmosphere.
Planetary accretion mechanisms produce volatiles for atmospheres from the earliest times in a planet's existence--gaseous by-products of ice-laiden comets and asteroids and their cratering impacts, as well as vulcanism and geothermal out-gassings due to gravitational compression and chemical differentiations.
....the odds on all the required actions intersecting to produce life would be astronomically large and unlikely to be creating different species simultaneously in a multitude of places around the planet,
Presumably, I am just as free to speculate the 'odds' were just as likely there were an 'astronomically large' multitude of 'other places around the planet' where different species were arising simultaneously. To which specific species do you refer, viruses or cellular-based?
In this earliest of stages the planet would not be covered with liquid oceans as it is now....
What is the time frame defining "earliest of stages"?
I'm not sure how you meant that comet and asteroid impacts could disperse species....
No, that indomitable species are just as perishable by comet and asteroid impactors as the species they 'dominate'.
Nor do I believe that life could travel on an asteroid let alone survive a planetary impact.
Aimino acids have been found inside the Muchison (http://www.panspermia.org/chiral.htm) meteorite, as well as ALH-77306, Yamato 74662 and Yamato 791198 meteorites, and others:
Murchison, Pueblito de Allende, Murray, Cold Bokkeveld, Orgueil, Alais, Nogoya, Mokoia, Groznaya, Mighei, Yamato-74662, Yamato-791198, Belgica-7904 and ALH-77306. Organic material, sugars, amino acids and nucleic bases, can be extracted from these meteorites. Amino acids have been identified in many of them. The biggest problem is due to possible contamination from the human skin. In the Murray CC 17 amino acids have been identified (Lawless 1971) of which 11 are not found in proteins. The greatest number of amino acids have been found in the Murchison CC. 74 amino acids have been reported (Cronin et al 1988): 8 out of 20 "protein"-amino acids, 11 out of 150 "biological"-amino acids and 55 "non-biological"-amino acids. The 5 nucleic bases constituting RNA and DNA have all been identified in Murchison, Murray, and Orgueil meteorites (L.L. Hua, et al., 1985). The most important building bricks for life is present at least in three carbonaceous chondrites but they are not 'biological active' so it is not life. (http://www.astro.ku.dk/~cramer/papers/life/)
A great many organic molecules (http://www.chl.chalmers.se/~numa/astrophysics/molecules/list.html) are found throughout space within intersteller gas clouds--gas clouds from which form comets, asteroids and planets. Planets form from materials containing organic molecules which, when dissolved in water, afford abundant material useful to biotic chemistry.
....before I read your thread starter on Intelligent Design I didn't know what was meant by it...
I, too, am still trying to find out. Warren?
I get the idea that it is meant in the metaphysical sense.
I suspect that is so, though I have been trying to limit such connotation while I query ID proponents for reasons why it isn't so, even though it seems to be.
....Intelligent Design....precludes physics as the basis of intelligence and instead equates it with an idea which is only a construct of intelligence.
Ah, yes. Another oxymoron offered to ID proponents to ponder: objective subjectivity. :)
Phillip E. Johnson, Darwin on Trial:
"In the broadest sense, a creationist is simply a person who believes that the world (and especially mankind) was designed, and exists for a purpose."
John MacNeil
08-22-02, 04:13 PM
Mr. G.,
I found your last two posts very amusing at my expense and all over the misuse of a single word. Where I used the word "appear" what I meant was "arrive". I was very tired when I wrote that post and I noticed I also misspelled a word. I went back and corrected the misspelled word, which I generally do when I find them, but of course it would not be proper to go back and change a whole word.
For clarification, I will state for the record that I, too, do not believe in creationism. I believe that all matter, and all systems constructed of matter, can be described empirically.
You say that not all archaeologists believe that there wasn't enough time between the dinosaurs and us for humankind to evolve. That is contrary to my understanding of a speculated time frame for species development. Perhaps you could direct me to a book or two.
When I intimated that our species arrived here fully formed I was thinking that they were brought here, in the physical sense. If the amino acids that arrived here on meteorites weren't the result of contamintion, then I still don't see how anyone could seriously entertain the idea that they could have developed into us in the time period since dinosaur extinction. But perhaps that's not what you really meant. I got the impression that the word "appear" got you so incensed that I was a creationist after all, that you furiously pounded the keys on your keyboard in your flaming response. But, perhaps I'm being too theatrical.
Everything, whether it be biological life or a star or a planet, had to go through a development stage. That means that there has to be a concurrance where one development stage meets the succeeding development stage. My point was that the atmosphere must develop first in order for there to be an environment conducive to the development of animate life. As for a time frame, we will have to be content with saying "a long time ago" because the time frame that I hear most, which is six billion year or so, is derived from the universe having "big banged" 9, 12 or 15 billion year ago and that is a ludicrous assumption. The "big bang" theory is actually the ultimate creationist theory and so it can be dismissed with impunity.
John;
Sorry. I wasn't trying to take expensive shots at your person. I'm trying really hard in this thread not to do that sort of thing--like I do very often in other threads. I'm trying to be a good boy. :)
As for the Johnson quote, I should have prefaced it as a reply to Warren's previously posted comments about 'intelligent design' not necessasrilly being associated with creationism. Actually, nothing of what you have said is the direct motivation for my making that post. Sorry, again, for the confusion. I plead hasty composition in between the necessities of doing real work on occasion here at work. ;)
The "big bang" theory is actually the ultimate creationist theory and so it can be dismissed with impunity.
The Big Bang Theory (the Standard Cosmologic Model) and the Theory of Evolution are actually quite similar, and similarly misunderstood, in this regard: neither has anything to say about origins.
The Standard Model only has something to say about matters that occurred during times T > 0. Whereas the field of Cosmology might otherwise idly speculate about cosmogenesis (time T <= 0 ), the Standard Model most certainly deals only with matters T > 0 ).
Likewise, The Theory of Evolution deals only with what happens to life(forms) after it first appears, it has no direct dealings with how life first appeared--abiogenesis.
John MacNeil
You say that not all archaeologists....
Well, I said "Not all archeology" in large part because you said "all archeolgy", and I felt like being contrary. ;) But also because I haven't heard or read any archeologists say that human origins post-dates dinosaur extinction, because the genetic 'origins' of the human species were already present in the mammals that co-existed with the dinosaurs and later survived the K-T impact.
....time frame for species development.
I presume that the time frame would be different for different species and not a defined period for any one of them.
....they were brought here, in the physical sense.
By whom/what?
If the amino acids that arrived here on meteorites....how....could...they....have developed into us in the time period since dinosaur extinction.
You're right. It's not what I meant. ;) I'm saying that abiogenesis was fueled by the naturally occuring chemical molecules that came to Earth as part of its late-stage accretion processes (and which actually continues today at much reduced level due to meteoritic dust, grains, and rocks falling to Earth by the thosands of tons per year). That world-wide oceans, atmospheric gases and pre-biotic chemical molecules dissolved in-solution would eventually give rise to the biotic chemistry from which we finally have appeared.
....the impression that the word "appear" got you so incensed that I was a creationist....
Not at all. I've been very calm and mostly considered about what you've been saying. We could well be conversing across the table over pizza and beer, and you'd be perfectly safe. :)
....your flaming response. But, perhaps I'm being too theatrical.
Yep. :) If there was flaming is was my lunch-time jalapena breath.
....the atmosphere must develop first in order for there to be an environment conducive to the development of animate life.
Oceans must be first to provide the solvent in which the molecular ingredients of pre-biotic chemistry can be dissolved. And, there's essentially no atmosphere on Europa....
....six billion year or so,...
4.5 Billion years, the age of the solar system/Earth based on stellar evolution models and cosmogonic (from Cosmogony) studies of solar system formation & evolution, rock dating techniques, etc.
John MacNeil
08-26-02, 01:24 PM
Mr. G.,
Whether cosmogonists agree on 6 billion or 4.5 billion year as the age of the formation of the solar system is irrelevant to the inadequacy of Darwinian Theory as a viable model for the explanation and decription of our present ecological framework in which human population abound. While Darwinian Theory of evolution was temporarily an adequate framework within which to work for over a century, it has been outpaced by discovery and so has been relegated to the dusty Theory Shelf of science. This happens to most theories eventually, as it has happened to the theories of Newton and Copernicius and a legion of others.
Archaeology gives the date of 3.5 to 3 billion year ago as the formative period for the first single celled life forms, called stromatolites, and it states that they were the most advanced life form for the next 2 billion year. Archaeology further states that those original stromatolites were formed from prokaryotic cells, some of which are the photosynthesizing microbes called cyanobacteria. If the stromatolites required 2 billion year to evolve into eukaryotic cells, which were the first dual-celled life forms, then it must have taken at least 1 or 2 billion year for the cyanobacteria to evolve into stromatolites. By that description, recorded life on this planet predates the formation of this planet according to the currently accepted cosmogonic model.
Archaeology also states that it took 300 million year for the first vertibrates to evolve into the first mammals which predate the dinosaurs. Yet it claims it took less than 55 million year for the ecosystem on this planet to recover from a mass extinction caused by an asteroid and then to develop a whole different type of lifeform. Even if the asteroid didn't kill every living lifeform on the planet, it would still be required to go back at least 600 million year to the metazoas, the first multi-celled animals, for there to be a change in genetic formation that could lead to a whole new species or group of species.
Archaeology is able to use carbon 14 dating methods, and others, to determine that stromatolites existed when they did and so theorize that cyanobacteria must have pre-dated them by a couple of billion year, but with all their science they can't offer any proof that we humans evolved on this planet. They have abundant physical evidence from a couple of hundred million year ago that dinosaurs existed, but they have no proof that hominids were here past 3.2 million year ago. There is one incidence of record of phylogenetic evidence of hominids from 3.6 million year ago, but that is only two single footprints.
Archaeology further states that our pre-evolutionary development stage were the neanderthals, an animal with a thick, guarded brow with a low cranium that couldn't possibly have contained a brain near as large as ours. The last of these living neanderthals, the remains of which were found in southern Spain and Portugal, were carbon 14 dated to determine that they lived as recently as 28,000 year ago. Clearly, there is no evidence that we evolved from apes or any of the primitive looking hominids that archaeology tries to relate us to. The more that science finds out about us and about the fossil record, the more they keep trying to squeeze everything into the same outmoded Darwinian Theory of evolution whether the evidence or timeframes correlate or not. Archaeology keeps harking back to the one point, that if they could only find the "missing link", which wasn't "Lucy", then they could finally tie their Darwinian Theory up in a neat package so all the disparate parts fit. It is because of this search for a "missing link" that I said in another thread that the evolutionists are operating on the same belief system as are the religionists, but in different categories. By that I didn't mean to equate religionism and empirical methodology.
As for who brought us here? And when? I have no idea who and all I can do is speculate about the when and the why. If the last living neanderthals were proved to have resided in southern Spain and Portugal as recently as 28,000 year ago then our type of human probably haven't been here much longer than that. If someone did bring many different species of human to this planet it must have been so that they eventually would intermingle and become a race without prejudice, which possibly is a problem in some parts of the galaxy where planetary societies of single species human meet other planetary societies of single species human. Us being brought here could possibly be an explanation of why so many religions have the belief of their Gods descending from the heavens and could explain why many ancient texts and drawings seem to depict machines that are located in the sky.
There really is no need to apologize, as I can tell from re-reading my posts that I definately am to blame for any misunderstanding about my stated position. It justs takes a while to get around to saying something succinctly that is contrary to accepted belief. And anyway, I'm not so thin-skinned that I would be upset by words. And I also wouldn't be worried about you jumping across the table at me and spilling my beer just because I said something that didn't jive with your personal view of the universe. I can tell from your discourse that you are a reasonable person and I have no fear in such company.
James R
08-26-02, 09:55 PM
John,
<i>While Darwinian Theory of evolution was temporarily an adequate framework within which to work for over a century, it has been outpaced by discovery and so has been relegated to the dusty Theory Shelf of science.</i>
Quite the contrary, in fact. All of biology, genetics and other life sciences work with evolution as their most basic theory these days. It is intrinsic to modern biology in all its forms.
<i>...By that description, recorded life on this planet predates the formation of this planet according to the currently accepted cosmogonic model.</i>
Then there's something wrong with your description.
<i>Archaeology also states that it took 300 million year for the first vertibrates to evolve into the first mammals which predate the dinosaurs. Yet it claims it took less than 55 million year for the ecosystem on this planet to recover from a mass extinction caused by an asteroid and then to develop a whole different type of lifeform.</i>
The mammals already existed at the time of the extinction of the dinosaur. There was no need to start again from scratch.
<i>[W]ith all their science they can't offer any proof that we humans evolved on this planet.</i>
There never can be absolute proof of that - only reams of circumstantial evidence. For example, why is our genetic makeup so close to all the other lifeforms on Earth if we come from elsewhere? Does all life on Earth come from somewhere else?
<i>Clearly, there is no evidence that we evolved from apes or any of the primitive looking hominids that archaeology tries to relate us to.</i>
Yes there is. Look at the similarities in body structure and so on. It's obvious. If we're not related to the other great apes, why are we so similar to them?
<i>Archaeology keeps harking back to the one point, that if they could only find the "missing link", which wasn't "Lucy", then they could finally tie their Darwinian Theory up in a neat package so all the disparate parts fit.</i>
You have a fundamental misunderstanding of archaeology if you think that archaeologists go looking for "missing links".
John MacNeil:
....the inadequacy of Darwinian Theory as a viable model....Darwinian Theory of evolution has been relegated to the dusty Theory Shelf of science. This happens to most theories eventually, as it has happened to the theories of Newton and Copernicius and a legion of others.
But not to the theory of genesis, a theory for which a book is the only 'evidence'? In fact, the scientific theory of Darwinian Evolution via Natural Selection is quite alive and well. As is the Standard Cosmologic Model (Big Bang). As is the geologic Theory of Plate Techtonics. Each supports the other by voracity of testability and confirmable prediction. That is not to say that each Theory will not be modified, or perhaps falsified, by future findings and knowledge. It is to say that such ideas are expected to be transitory, despite their unequalled descriptive and explanatory powers, eventually to be replaced by Scientific Theories even better at explanation and prediction then they, themselves. The theory of genesis has no factual descriptive power, and no predictive power. So, btw, what are the testable predictions of 'intelligent design'?
Archaeology gives the date of 3.5 to 3 billion year ago as the formative period for the first single celled life forms,....
3.8BY
If the stromatolites required 2 billion year to evolve into eukaryotic cells,....then it must have taken at least 1 or 2 billion year for the cyanobacteria to evolve into stromatolites.
Apparently only .6 BY, according to the pesky fossil record. ;)
....the ecosystem on this planet to recover from a mass extinction caused by an asteroid and then to develop a whole different type of lifeform.
Mass-extinction impact events have occured several-to-many times over geologic history. Not all life forms were driven to extinction by any one of those impact event. Therefore, terrestrial 'life' never has had to 'start over from the very beginning'.
Even if the asteroid didn't kill every living lifeform on the planet, it would still be required to go back at least 600 million year to the metazoas,....
Assumption.
....for there to be a change in genetic formation that could lead to a whole new species or group of species.
Assumption.
....but with all their science they can't offer any proof that we humans evolved on this planet.
Proponents of intelligent design have no evidence that we were not evolved here. They can offer as 'evidence' only supposition, speculation, and non-rigorous discounting of Natural Selection-based Darwinian Evolution Theory to support their claims. For 'intelligent design' to supplant the TOE, ID must produce testable hypotheses and predictions or it will always be nothing more than a sterile, Science-like clone of creationism--a more insidious form of Lysenkoism.
....no proof that hominids were here past 3.2 million year ago...., etc. etc. etc.
Let us, or the sake of this discussion, together stipulate that the homonid fossil record is incomplete, and at various points is not compelling. Whether or not that might change in the future is not important here. It is time, now and herein, for you to take 'intelligent design' as a 'scientific theory' out of the reactionary "Darwin is dead, long live ID" mode and move on to the 'intelligent design'-can-explain-all-things-adequately -described-by-TOE stage. To do that, you must be able to provide experimentally testable ID predictions. State some of ID's scientifically testable predictions, and describe scientific tests of these predictions able to be performed by ID's scientic opponents. If ID wants to 'run with the dogs', ID has to run with the dogs (Such profundity scares even me. ;) ).
....who brought us here? And when? I have no idea who and all I can do is speculate....
Not a good sign/indicator of ID validation anytime soon. So, if Darwinian TOE is dead, ID isn't any more alive than "no idea"? ;)
....I can tell from your discourse that you are a reasonable person and I have no fear in such company.
Just wait 'til I have a few more beers in me. :)
Speaking of Natural Selection, where the hell is Warren?
John MacNeil
08-27-02, 12:56 AM
Mr. G.,
I don't understand why you introduce the theory of genesis. I thought we had both agreed that creationism, religionism and supernatural beings had no place in a discourse about the physical state?
I've stated before that I believe that natural selection is the method by which species evolve. On that, I hope, we're agreed. Although with your steadfast refusal to state what you do actually believe, or what you're most inclined to believe, having a dicussion with you is tentative. Maybe you aren't distinguishing between natural selection as a process and evolution as the theory of an ecological system, as I am.
You seem to play this "Intelligent Design" as if it's some kind of trump card. And to be quite honest, I still don't know what you mean by it because you only ever use someone else's abstract quote when you speak of it. You'll recall that when I spoke of "intelligent design aspect" it was not meant as some metaphysical or supernatural conjunction stated "Intelligent Design" as if representing holistic theory, but as an intervention by intelligent people, from some other populated planet somewhere in the galaxy.
I don't know where you get your information from, but there certainly seems to be a disconnect in your dating of early life forms. When you say prokaryotic cells only took .6 billion year to develop and the next stage of evolutionary life, the stromatolites, took 2 billion year to develop and then the next stage after that, the eukaryotic cells, took less than a billion year, then you have natural selection starting out fast, slowing down incredibly, and then speeding up incredibly. I was under the impression that the very first life was the absolute slowest to develop, not the fastest. And I think even the stoutest adherents of Darwinian Theory will agree with me on that.
According to the books I've read, some as recent as c.1999, there were two mass extinctions allowed for in the timetable of evolutionary development, the first at 250 milion year b.c. and the second at 65 million year b.c.
Now as I have never heard the term "Intelligent Design" before reading your thread for the first time, I am glad now to here you mention ID predictions which you want scientifically tested. Why don't you now list the ID predictions so I will finally know what this ID is?
When I joined this thread it was because I detected a vacancy in the theory of ID, without knowing what it was, because it did not address matter and the systems composed of matter as being able to be described empiracally. I also detect implausible assumptions within the theory of evolution, without having to refute natural selection, which I concur with. There is abundant evidence of unexplained markings and happenings on this planet that no scientist can explain, and so it is only logical to think that someone smart is instrumental in arranging the sequence of events. That means, that since our planetary science is incapable of providing description for the unexplained events, the people who are responsible must come from some other planet.
The hominid fossil record for our kind of human is not only incomplete, it doesn't exist. They have found record of Neanderthal beings that were alive 28,000 year ago. For all we know they weren't the last ones alive, just the last evidence of when we knew they were alive. For all we know they will find evidence of neanderthals that lived only 18,000 year ago. To skip over the most important archaeological proof that we couldn't possibly have evolved from neanderthal man, because there was insufficient time for such a natural selection process, seems to be an attempt to ignore reality so that your arcane position can be adherred to.
John MacNeil:
I don't understand why you introduce the theory of genesis....we had both agreed that creationism, religionism and supernatural beings had no place in a discourse about the physical state?
Yes, for the specific purpose of restricting claims to supernatural authority. But the purpose of refering to the genesis story was to contrast it, an immutable theory, against the provisional theories of science, like the TOE.
....your steadfast refusal to state what you do actually believe, or what you're most inclined to believe,....
From 08-22-02: "'Intelligent design' connotes 'directed purpose'--a concept that is beyond the scope and capabilities of empirical endeavors to quantify and validate. As an investigative presupposition, 'intelligent design' introduces additional complexity unnecessary to the considerable abilities of less complex, empirically supportable and defensible explanations of natural processes. That is not to say that 'intelligent design' has no merit as a teleology, but that Science has no immediate need to resort to 'intelligent design' in any of its forms."
And (anticipating the near-term need for this, too) in my post of 08-18-02, I also said: "I can consider sentient Intelligent Design quite easily--aliens, for instance, having engineered our earliest ancestors' RNA and/or it precursor."
Maybe you aren't distinguishing between natural selection as a process and evolution as the theory of an ecological system,....
I'm not aware (most likely because it's outside my field of expertise) that the TOE makes any claim to being a theory of an ecological system. I thought it only attempts to explain genetic change over time via Natural Selection.
"Intelligent Design"....I still don't know what you mean by it...
In a non-supernatural sense, neither do I, which is why I almost always inclose it in quotes--it's someone else's terminology. Alien Design I can understand. Supernatural Design I can understand, even though it's irrational. Non-supernatural, non-alien "Intelligent Design" I don't understand, and Warren hasn't explained what he means by it.
....there certainly seems to be a disconnect in your dating of early life forms.
From Precambrian Period: Origin of Life (http://www.cosmiverse.com/reflib/Precambrian%20Period.htm): "Not until about 3.6 billion years ago did cells evolve that could produce their own food by photosynthesis. The earliest evidence of photosynthetic organisms are stromatolites, which are domed and layered sedimentary structures formed by mats of filamentous one-celled cyanobacteria and trapped sediments."
When you say prokaryotic cells only took .6 billion year to develop and the next stage of evolutionary life, the stromatolites,...
You are correct; I was wrong to quote .6BY. I meant to say .9 BY: 4.5BY -.9BY = 3.6BY. From Introduction to Cell and Virus Structure (http://micro.magnet.fsu.edu/cells/): "Bacteria - One of the earliest prokaryotic cells to have evolved, bacteria have been around for at least 3.5 billion years...." And from Introduction to Light and Energy (http://micro.magnet.fsu.edu/primer/lightandcolor/lightandenergyintro.html): "Geologists have found huge rock-like mats of fossilized cyanobacteria, termed stromatolites, that are over 3 billion years old...."
....there were two mass extinctions allowed for in the timetable of evolutionary development, the first at 250 milion year b.c. and the second at 65 million year b.c.
Those two likely resulted from asteroid impacts. There is evidence of 5 mass extinctions in the passed 650 MY via various causes: about 650MY (Precambrian/Vendian ME), 530MY (Cambrian ME), 430MY (Ordovician ME), 365MY (Denovian ME), 245MY (Permian ME), and 65MY (End-Cretaceous 'K-T' ME).
I am glad now to here you mention ID predictions which you want scientifically tested.
As we're both trying to find out what is non-supernatural "intelligent design", I think you and I should speak to testable predictions of Alien Design, your premise, and leave NID to be explained by Warren, as it is his idea.
To skip over the most important archaeological proof that we couldn't possibly have evolved from neanderthal man, because there was insufficient time for such a natural selection process, seems to be an attempt to ignore reality so that your arcane position can be adherred to.
It is my understanding (http://www.people.virginia.edu/~rjh9u/humtree.html) that Homo Neanderthalenses were for a time the contemporaries of Homo Sapiens and shared a common ancester but were not the specific progenitor of Homo Sapiens Sapiens.
========================================
There is abundant evidence of unexplained markings and happenings on this planet that no scientist can explain, ....the people who are responsible must come from some other planet.
I spoke of "intelligent design aspect"....as an intervention by intelligent people, from some other populated planet somewhere in the galaxy.
I also detect implausible assumptions within the theory of evolution, without having to refute natural selection,....
Although I am open to the idea of Alien Design, I remain unconvinced that there exists sufficient evidence for it that cannot also be used as evidence for some other possible, perhaps even more plausible explanation--like TOE. ;)
One possible test of the hypothesis of Alien Design, based on the proposition that humans were brought to Earth in our present form having been engineered on "some other populated planet somewhere in the galaxy" is: there should be measurable differences in certain ratios of isotopic abundances within some or all of the molecules that make up our tissues and skeletons. That is, that there should be a testable difference between humans and native terrestrial life forms on the molecular level--humans having been built from molecular materials of extra-terrestrial origin and history.
Mr. G
That is, that there should be a testable difference between humans and native terrestrial life forms on the molecular level--humans having been built from molecular materials of extra-terrestrial origin and history.
That is of course, if the extra-terrestrial molecular materials are any different than those found on Earth. ;)
Q:
....if the extra-terrestrial molecular materials are any different than those found on Earth.
Surely there are going to be noticible internal differences between an authentic Rolex watch and a Rolex knock-off made 12 time zones away by a different 'watchmaker'. The form may be the same but the metallurgy of the gears would bear local influences.
For instance, in a technologically advanced, extra-terrestrial culture where economics fuels their space explorations and lifeform engineering activities, the need for investment protection strategies--such as our familiar patents--would imply some measure of identifiable uniqueness of the end product that makes it distinguishable from competitors' unlicensed versions (like a small but periodic nucleotide sequence that to the discerning eye would shout out, "Made on Tau Ceti 4 by @.4>2.4345, Inc.").
Artists always sign their work.
John MacNeil
08-27-02, 07:06 PM
Mr. G.,
"Darwin's theory of evolution, which holds that all species of plants and animals developed from earlier forms by hereditary transmission of slight variations in successive generations,"---Webster's
This inclusive description implies a system while natural selection is the hereditary change within a single species.
Before tackling a subject that will necessarily be mostly conjecture upon observance of known phenominal occurrence, I believe there is more to be said about our phylogenic record and the conjectured theory of evolution.
The human evolution chart that Johanson and Edgar use is mere speculation and is similar to the human evolution tree that the Smithsonian Institution uses in their "Encyclopedia Smithsonian" web-site and here is what they have to say about the modern stage of human evolution, "The origin of modern Homo Sapians is not yet resolved. Two extreme scenarios have been proposed." They, of course, know that the theory of evolution doesn't seem to work for human phylogeny based on the known evidence, hence the "extreme" proposals. They have an excellent web-site (that is easy to navigate, look under "human evolution") with clear, color pictures of hominid evidence that dates to almost five million year ago. You can recognize that the only skulls that appear to be modern human are dated to around 30,000 year ago.
The next two specimen closest in age and development to the modern human are the Neanderthal and the Skhul V, both of which are known to have lived during the same epoch. The Skhul V is dated at 90,000 year and was found in Palestine in 1932. Both the Neanderthal and the Skhul V have a thick brow, prognathic face, wide, angular cheekbones and a low cranium. It is easy to picture similariies between the two, but none of those similarities are shared with the modern human skull.
The modern Homo Sapians have lighter skeletons than all the previous hominids. They have very large brains, by comparison. They have a high, vaulted cranium. Their skull is proportionately different than all previous hominids. The differences are so acute that even the scientists recognize that there couldn't be an evolutionary transmogrification between the species, hence the earlier quote, in the allotted time frame. If evidence of a link with Neanderthal, or Skhul V, and modern human existed, the archaeological evidence would be multitudinous and supportable, since it is far easier to find evidence of relatively recent vintage.
With the evidence that does exist, it can only be objectively concluded that there is not now and never was an hereditary connection between modern human and the next two closest, in geologic history, species of hominid. That means that the known fossil record cannot fulfill the criteria of "all species" to meet the definition of Darwinian Theory of Evolution and so the theory itself cannot meet empirical definition. Ergo, the theory of evolution is not valid.
Creationism, Evolutionism, and New Age are all thesis that have based their foundations on faith. Through constant repitition and indoctrination they all seek to portray their view as the only unassailable view that should be regarded with favor by the majority of the population. The Creationists have their religious artifacts and the Evolutionists have a faulty, all encompassing theory of development with scientific proofs of natural selection in limited scenarios and the New Agers have their mysticism. Evolution must be categorized with the other two thesis of faith because the evolutionists refuse to objectively portray the evidence as it exists and therefore they degrade science and stunt the developmental thought of future scientists.
John:
As I've previously stipulated above, "....the homonid fossil record is incomplete, and at various points is not compelling" but I would like to read more than "Darwin is dead, long live...." Alien Design. Let us suppose for a brief moment that the TOE indeed is dead. Dead, and buried. Now, all that stands between Alien Design "the idea" and TOAD (hehe, now that's kinda funny) being "TOE's replacement" is testable powers of prediction and tangible evidence.
What are some of Alien Design Theory's testable predictions, and what are some of the tangible evidences accumulated so far that might be convincing to folks like me?
James R
08-27-02, 11:25 PM
Don't mind me... I don't need a reply.
John MacNeil
08-28-02, 07:46 PM
Mr. G.,
When a theory is found to not meet the scientific criteria on which it was formulated, then it is not up to anyone to declare it invalid. It just is. If we choose to recognize the truth of what the science shows us, then we can progress in our thought processes. If we don't choose to interpret the truth for what it is, then our thought processes stagnate. That choice of whether or not to believe the evidence is for each individual to decide for themselves.
When we move on to "Theory Of Alien Design" it must be recognized from the start that we do not possess enough information in order to formulate an all encompassing theory so we will necessarily have to confine ourselves to a thesis, which, of course, will still allow for the funny acronym "TOAD". But before we move on to discussing the evidence for such a thesis we must first discuss the "Ultimate Creationist Theory" (commonly known by it's cartoon name, Big Bang) because it interferes with the working nature of the universal model.
The Ultimate Creationist Theory states that all matter in the universe was at one time concentrated in a dense ball in space and for some unknown reason it exploded in an instant and then all that matter shot out from the central explosion and dispersed itself throughout space in every conceivable direction. Then the Ultimate Creation Theory says that all that matter slowed down for some other unknown reason and formed into planets and stars and galaxies. The Ultimate Creationist Theory further states that after the matter formed into planets and stars and galaxies it once again started moving outwards in all directions, which is referred to as the expanding universe, without ever supplying a hypothesis for this second expansion.
The Ultimate Creationist Theory was first hypothesized after Edwin Hubble observed the phenomena of redshift and misinterpreted it as empirical evidence for recession velocity. From that faulty interpretation of observation was born the cartoonish expanding universe, followed by the equally cartoonish "Big Bang" and that was followed by the polar theory of the "Big Bang", the equally outlandish "Black Hole" theory. Ever since they came up with those goofy theories, observation of spatial phenomena has been forcing them to create ever more stupid theories to try and hold those big three together. This was all begun in the days of Albert Einstein, perhaps our greatest scientist ever, and when he gave his opinion that the universe was a complimentary universe, meaning that it worked as a system, the same as a galaxy or any other system in space, his opinion was ignored by all the lesser intelligent people in favor of the opinion of a science laborer, a person much like them.
Hubble's observation of redshift, which is what sparked the Ultimate Creationist Theory and it's bastard child the "Black Hole Theory", was challenged by Astronomer Halton C. Arp, then of the Palomar Observatory, in his books, one of which is "Quasars, Redshifts and Controversies", c. 1987. Arp found from his observation, for which he has photograhic evidence, that redshift is not empirical evidence for recession velocity but is instead an indication of relative motion. The "Controversies" part of his book is that when he tried to make that information known, his observation time at the observatory was reduced and he was subsequently forced to resign. The reason he was forced out was because a lot of people, institutions and companies were making a lot of money off of perpetuating the Ultimate Creationist Theory.
The Ultimate Creationist Theory says that the universe began in an instant 9, 12, or 15 billion year ago. They arrive at these figures by figuring how old the planet earth is and basically doubling that number. The actual number is not constant because they want to be able to change it whenever they learn that the earth is a little older than they previously thought. So according to their "big bang" theory the universe exploded from a dense ball in an instant and in the same amount of time that our planet has been in existence, every other planet and star and galaxy, trillions upon trillions of them, a number so far beyond counting that we'll probably never have a computer large enough to calculate the number, also completely formed into their shapes and systems. And, of course, this was supposd to have happened after the exploded universe was expanding for billions of year and then slowed down enough to form into things and then start expanding again. As if the Ultimate Creationist Theory isn't illogical enough, the timeline alone should make you consider the veracity of it's applicability.
When galaxies are gathered in clusters they are not simply expanding away from everything else, as an expanding universe would dictate, but are complimenatarily associated in a gravity field. Galaxies don't just go off crashing into other galaxies, as scientists so often speculate. They maintain their distances from each other by the interaction and connectivity of their gravity fields. This interaction and maintenance of place is vividly illustratd by the Thursday, May 10, 2001, Astronomy Picture Of The Day which you can see at:
http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/astropix.html
All nine of those galaxies are in a galaxy field which orbits around the megastar that is the hub of the galaxy field. This is vividly illustrated by the Sunday, November 21, 1999 picture that's located in the same calendar index. You can't help but notice that the megastar is far larger than the spiral galaxy that is to the right of it. All the other colored lights visible in the picture are galaxies at variant distances in the same galaxy field. In the caption of that picture you will observe that they claim the megastar is an ellipsoidal galaxy, which clearly it isn't because there is no indication of interiorly located interaction of gravity fields. They also give description of the megastar as being mostly found where galaxies are abundant, which is locationally correct because the megastars are what the galactic gravity fields revolve around.
When you study the picture of the megastar with all the galaxies in the space around it, it becomes apparent that all of what is there couldn't have formed on a timeline that is ultimately derived from determining the age of the planet we live on. The Ultimate Creationist Theory is based on faulty interpretation of observed phenomena and ignores relativity. It has let our young scientists develop their thought processes on a flawed foundation and because of it we get such other misinterpretations as a megastar at the hub of a galaxy field being an over-big ellipsoidal galaxy.
I understand fully how being told by all the top scientists that a thing is true can stop a young mind from mentally exploring subjects along empiracal line of thought. All the time that I was growing up I heard and read about the "big bang" theory and how other theories were judged by how they related to the "big bang". I didn't pursue the actual subject because almost everyone in science said it was true, and I believed them. Then, when I was thirty-five or so, Time magazine had an article in it that described what the actual theory was and when I read it I was shocked by how stupid it was. Since then whenever they proffer a big theory I take it with a grain of salt and wait to make up my mind about it until I've had time to think it through.
John:
Okay. Let us suppose for a brief moment that the Big Bang Theory (the Standard Cosmologic Model) is dead. Dead, and buried. Now, all that stands between Alien Design "the idea" and the theory of Alien Design being "TOE's replacement" is testable powers of prediction and tangible evidence.
What are some of Alien Design Theory's testable predictions, and what are some of the tangible evidences accumulated so far that might be convincing to folks like me?
It's one thing to say that the three most substantive, current scientific theories (well, two, anyway. You haven't yet said anything about plate techtonics) are garbage because they are based on wrong assumptions and wrong interpretations of data and reproducible observational evidence.
It's quite another thing to replace them with theories that are even more Scientifically substantive.
Now make your scientific case for Alien Design. I think we're up to speed on the rhetorical case for AD.
James R
08-29-02, 12:24 AM
John,
I agree with Mr. G. that you need to tell us how your theory makes any substantive predictions which differ from the Big Bang theory. It appears, however, that you have minimal understanding of the theory you are trying to replace, which is always a bad sign. For the benefit of others who might be reading this thread, I'd like to address some of your misconceptions.
<i>But before we move on to discussing the evidence for such a thesis we must first discuss the "Ultimate Creationist Theory" (commonly known by it's cartoon name, Big Bang)...</i>
First problem: The big bang theory does not describe the moment of "creation", so it cannot be considered a creationist theory. It only describes events subsequent to the Planck time.
<i>The Ultimate Creationist Theory states that all matter in the universe was at one time concentrated in a dense ball in space and for some unknown reason it exploded in an instant and then all that matter shot out from the central explosion and dispersed itself throughout space in every conceivable direction.</i>
The reasons for the expansion are in fact well known. Read the work of Alan Guth, for example, which explains ideas such as the false vacuum which drove the inflationary period in the early universe.
<i>Then the Ultimate Creation Theory says that all that matter slowed down for some other unknown reason and formed into planets and stars and galaxies.</i>
No it doesn't. The matter clumped but at no time slowed down.
<i>The Ultimate Creationist Theory further states that after the matter formed into planets and stars and galaxies it once again started moving outwards in all directions, which is referred to as the expanding universe, without ever supplying a hypothesis for this second expansion.</i>
There is no "second expansion". It's a continuation of the same process. Expansion has never stopped; it has continued since the beginning of the universe.
<i>The Ultimate Creationist Theory was first hypothesized after Edwin Hubble observed the phenomena of redshift and misinterpreted it as empirical evidence for recession velocity.</i>
Do you have an alternative interpretation? (Please don't trot out the Setterfield "tired light" model, which has been decisively proven to be false.)
<i>[The Big Bang theory] was followed by the polar theory of the "Big Bang", the equally outlandish "Black Hole" theory.</i>
Your history is a bit rusty. The big bang idea came along a long time after the theory of black holes.
<i>Arp found from his observation, for which he has photograhic evidence, that redshift is not empirical evidence for recession velocity but is instead an indication of relative motion.</i>
Recession <b>is</b> relative motion. No news there.
<i>The reason he was forced out was because a lot of people, institutions and companies were making a lot of money off of perpetuating the Ultimate Creationist Theory.</i>
Really? How interesting. Please outline the chain of causation in this case for me, preferably with evidence.
<i>The Ultimate Creationist Theory says that the universe began in an instant 9, 12, or 15 billion year ago. They arrive at these figures by figuring how old the planet earth is and basically doubling that number.</i>
Wrong. Study up on supernova measures of cosmological distances, the Hubble constant etc. Calculating the age of the universe is a much more complicated business than you suppose. And when scientists make such a calculation they always include error bounds - unlike any Creationist.
<i>The actual number is not constant because they want to be able to change it whenever they learn that the earth is a little older than they previously thought.</i>
No, the number is not constant because our observations and methods are continually becoming more accurate.
<i>...every other planet and star and galaxy, trillions upon trillions of them, a number so far beyond counting that we'll probably never have a computer large enough to calculate the number, also completely formed into their shapes and systems.</i>
Actually, the numbe, whilst large, is easily estimated, to within a few orders of magnitude.
<i>When galaxies are gathered in clusters they are not simply expanding away from everything else, as an expanding universe would dictate, but are complimenatarily associated in a gravity field.</i>
Yes. The keyword here is "clusters", which refers to <b>gravitationally bound</b> groups of galaxies. On smallish scales, local gravitational influences overcome the general expansive trend. Have you read <b>any</b> basic cosmology at all?
<i>...the megastars are what the galactic gravity fields revolve around.</i>
If you'd studied basic physics, you'd know that any star with a mass more than a couple of orders of magnitude greater than that of our Sun could not exist. "Megastars" are physically impossible.
<i>All the time that I was growing up I heard and read about the "big bang" theory and how other theories were judged by how they related to the "big bang". I didn't pursue the actual subject because almost everyone in science said it was true, and I believed them.</i>
i.e. you were lazy and didn't want to find out for yourself.
<i>Then, when I was thirty-five or so, Time magazine had an article in it that described what the actual theory was and when I read it I was shocked by how stupid it was.</i>
So, your entire knowledge of the big bang theory is not even based on a scientific publication, but on something you read in <i>Time</i>? How great your knowledge of the subject must be. Silly me for studying this stuff for years. I could have learnt all I needed to know from a popular magazine.
John MacNeil
08-29-02, 02:03 AM
James, you're a stupid person who doesn't know anything, or are you on assignment for the U.S. state department?
John:
Let us suppose for a brief moment that James R. is dead. Dead and buried. Now, all that stands between Alien Design "the idea" and the theory of Alien Design being "TOE's replacement" is testable powers of prediction and tangible evidence.
Well, you know the rest.... ;)
John MacNeil
08-29-02, 08:28 PM
Mr. G.,
Discussion--"talk or writing in which the pros and cons or various aspects of a subject are considered"--Webster's
It seems that with my posting in this thread I have struck a nerve. Because I dare make observation that the known science doesn't support two of the leading conventional theory, I am subjected to strident calls of "Prove it! Prove it!" and accused of using rhetoric. All the time that you "evolutionists" were assailing the "creationists" with your same strident calls and demanding that they hurry up and give you their proof, you were using science as your podium. Now the instant someone else uses science to show where your incomplete theory and your goofy theories depart from reality, you give up discussion and resort to the antics of bullying children. You "evolutionists" and "creationists" are all the same kind of fanatics, operating your theories on faith and using scare tactics and propaganda to try and keep people in line.
You say, "Let us suppose for a brief moment that the theory of evolution and the theory of ultimate ceationism are dead, dead and buried," as if you have some empirical proof to the contrary and you're just waiting for the precise moment to jump out of ambush and clobber me over the head with it. Well, I'm afraid it's too late for that. Those theories are dead and buried and there are no creationist tricks you can use to bring them back to life.
Corporate science is a lot like corporate government in their falseness. When I told you of Astronomer Halton Arp being forced out of his position at the Palomar Observatory you gave it no notice, as if by ignoring it, it could be thought of as not worth having been mentioned. Before Halton Arp tried to make public his opposition to the ultimate creationist theory by refuting the scientific community's accepted position on redshift interpretation, he was one of their bright stars. He is the author of numerous scholorly publications and received awards from the American Astronomical Society and the American Association for the Advancement of Science. He was president of the Astronomical Society of the Pacific. He has a bachelors degree from Harvard and a Ph.D from the California Institute of Technology, both cum laude. All that counted for something before he tried to replace the accepted dogma with factual observation. Once he dared buck the big boys who control where the research money flows, then all that he'd done before counted for nothing and they character assassinated him and shuffled him out the door. And, as always, science suffered because of the ignoramuses who value wealth and their perceived social standing over the advancement of true science.
As for TOAD? I already stated that there could be no "theory" because we have no boundaries that we could affix to such a theory. Of course you conveniently ignored that so you could again make your strident call of "Prove it! Prove it!". I said that by necessity we would be confined to using the term thesis, or hypothesis really, which is the stage before a theory when we all are seeking more data on which to formulate a theory.
The evidence for people from other planets having visited this planet is voluminous, both from recorded history and from the present. There is document evidence that goes back over ten thousand year that can be found in the writings of the early scribes. The very descriptive recordings are found in the earliest Tibetan books, in the cuniform clay tablets of the Gilgamesh, which was two thousand year before genesis, also Ezekial in genesis, in the Dead Sea Scrolls and the writings of just about every other early civilization that knew how to record the events of their day. But you apparently don't consider the testimony of the early historians valid proof so I declined, in this discussion, to use any of that type of evidence to support my belief. It makes no difference, there is plenty of physical evidence of a tangible nature to examine as well.
There is a bas-relief carving in the ancient Mayan site at Palenque, in Mexico, of a space person in modern gear operating the controls of a space machine. You can see a picture of the beautifully detailed carving on page 93 of Erich Von Daniken's "In Search Of Ancient Gods", c.1973. This is a carving that is more valid and permanent than a photograph. It depicts a scene of scientific construct that the carver observed in a time when there was no organized science.
"We must consider real a fact of which we possess eight thousand certain sightings. I cannot say if they are or are not interplanetary vehicles, but nobody can doubt anymore their existence."--Professor Hermann Oberth, Physicist.
I hope now that you will abstain from the strident "Prove it! Prove it!" attack and join the discussion.
John:
I commend you for having the balls to stand up for your position; unlike Warren who sensed he was in for some critical scrutiny and ran away like a panty-bunched, Titanic crewman pushing women and children aside to get to a life boat.
And, yes:
You say, "Let us suppose for a brief moment that the theory of evolution and the theory of ultimate ceationism are dead, dead and buried," as if you have some empirical proof to the contrary and you're just waiting for the precise moment to jump out of ambush and clobber me over the head with it.
....this thread was an ambush. More precisely, it was a thread intended to give advocates of Intelligent Design all the rhetorical, non-scientific rope needed to quite effectively hang themselves before the spectating masses in this public square.
The plain and simple revealed truth, as James R. cogently observed, is that people such as you, and Warren, bash Science and scientific theories without the slightest operational understanding of what is Science, how Science actually works, and what is a Scientific Theory.
Science, in fact, is all about "Proving It". To complain that proof is required but shouldn't be required is certain proof that your personal theories are not only unscientific but irrational.
I couldn't have made my point, and James R.'s, any better than have you, and Warren.
Intelligent Design theory--supernatural, non-supernatural, or alien--is scientifically unsupportable, scientifically unsubstantiable, and otherwise scientifically irrelevent.
But at least you are willing to stand up and be accounted. I respect you for that.
The beer and pizza is on me.
James R
08-30-02, 04:23 AM
John,
Discussion 101:
Calling me stupid doesn't actually help support your argument. To do that you need to try to refute what I've said.
Have a nice day.
John: I commend you for having the balls to stand up for your position; unlike Warren who sensed he was in for some critical scrutiny and ran away like a panty-bunched, Titanic crewman pushing women and children aside to get to a life boat.
But at least you are willing to stand up and be accounted. I respect you for that.
I don't. I don't see anything much more than an armchair politician weighing in with his ideas on science, who can pick and choose his references (such as Von Daniken) to attack scientific theories, without offering anything plausible to explain in its stead. Calling evolution a faith-based theory is moronic enough. He won't acknowledge reasonable argumentation. As James R. demonstrated, Mr. MacNeil is more persuaded by lay writing (and I would add a good dose of that spooky In Search Of music ) rather than a lifetime of research that correlates with many lifetimes of scientific research. I wouldn't say he's continuing to stand up for himself in that he's just ignoring what's being refuted about his statements and just driving the conversation tangentially with more science from other fields that he doesn't understand (which he construes as its inherent falsity).
When his argumentation is ridiculed with admittedly dismissive language, he mistakes it for a personal judgement and responds with blunt insults. Nothing here is to be commended. In fairness, I would take issue with your characterization of Warren as "panty-bunched," but you've a mountain of level-headed dissertation preceding your final judgement, which, if not entirely socratic in its humility, is socratic in its form. The others merely have a pile of diarrhea they are sitting on, poorly digested from whatever limited "research" they've taken on.
Mr. G, the sheer horsepower you've expended on this thread is incredible. I am going to reread it several times before I weigh in more on various specifics. The onslaught of fallacious assumption is almost too much to digest in one sitting. Perhaps you'll have finished him off by then. But don't wait. Quit kissing his ass and finish him.
Finish him!
Finish him!
Le Coq
John MacNeil
08-30-02, 10:18 AM
Mr.G.,
"The intuitive mind is a sacred gift and the rational mind is a faithful servant. We have created a society that honors the servant and has forgotten the gift."--Einstein
You don't make a very good spin doctor. I am the one who believes in science and has stated throughout that empirical description must be applied to all state of matter. You think that talking about the requiremnts of scientific observation is the same as making some. I have given you several examples from scientists to illustrate the falseness of your creationist theories, and you totally ignore all of them in favor of your diatribe.
You think you "creationists" and "evolutionists", proponents of "God" and the "Big Bang", can hide your association, but there are plenty of people who are on to your kind. The church in the Vatican has been around as a single party, tax-free religious government since before the fifth century. They have seen hundreds of armed governments of other nations come and go over the centuries and in all that time they have been amassing their power and influence and keeping mostly secret while remaining visually in the forefront of society. They could teach the modern secret services a thing or two about "secrecy". The "big bang" is as creationist as the god creating the earth and the heavens and if you don't knowingly perceive that then perhaps you have been duped as well and are just following along like any wooly member of a herd of sheep.
Herman Oberth was assistant to Werner Von Braun, the U.S.'s most famous rocket scientist, who is also on record with similar views to Oberth's. Einstein, of course, was perhaps the greatest scientist who ever lived on this planet. Halton Arp, astronomer. I've used these people's work and opinions to illustrate the falsity of your creationist orientation and to reinforce my position that matter and systems constructed of matter can best be described with empirical methodology, and you steadfastly refuse to address any of the reality of the evidence I've proffered and continue to avoid all subjects of reality in favor of obfuscation.
If you are unable to discuss the subject in a logical manner, I'll understand that, since neither your "creationist theory" nor your "ultimate creationist theory" are defensible. While joining up with the fringe element may give you persuasive power, by sheer volume of your chatter, in some circles, it advances your creationist position not one single step towards reality.
John:
"We have created a society that honors the servant and has forgotten the gift."--Einstein
A block of stone is just a rock until the disciplined mind of the sculptor frees the statue from its imprisonment. What good for all can come of a statue you might imagine in rock if you haven't the proper tools and operational skill sets to release it?
It's good to have ideas. But for ideas to have universal, utilitarian purpose, they first have to be converted into something of substance. Air guitars are a one-person experience. If you want people to hear your music, you have to build a working guitar.
I am the one who believes in science and has stated throughout that empirical description must be applied to all state of matter.
Surely the TOE, the SCM (Big Bang) and the TOPT (plate tectonics) are each, and together, the result of many others who also believe in science -- people who also hold qualifying opinions quite contrary to your own. You don't know personally most, or any, of them, so you cannot say with any certainty that any one of them is less intuitive than you.
You think that talking about the requiremnts of scientific observation is the same as making some.
Alien design is your claim. As there isn't a single alien in evidence for any of us to see, it is up to you to show us how to come by alternative observational evidence. But, it can't be subjective evidence obvious only to yourself. It has to be objective (requiring real tools and real skill sets) evidence, obvious to everyone regardless of one's personal world-view.
I have given you several examples from scientists to illustrate the falseness of your creationist theories, and you totally ignore all of them in favor of your diatribe.
Anecdotes are evidence only of one's ability to quote the words of others. None of your quotes, nor all of them, is evidence for alien design. It's just more talk.
You think you "creationists" and "evolutionists", proponents of "God" and the "Big Bang", can hide your association, but there are plenty of people who are on to your kind.
Our kind? As opposed to "Your kind"? And where do "their kind" fit into your equation? Or, the "Other kind"?
The....Vatican....over the centuries....they have been amassing their power and influence...could teach the modern secret services a thing or two about "secrecy"."
Do you suspect the Vatican is where the aliens are hiding? Now, there's a testable hypothesis!!
The "big bang" is as creationist as the god creating the earth and the heavens and if you don't knowingly perceive that then perhaps you have been duped as well and are just following along like any wooly member of a herd of sheep.
The Standard Cosmologic Model is just a conceptual framework for organizing information and drawing tentative conclusions. It has no power to do things like initiating the Rapture, or cause you to feel obligated to put money in the collection plate so that the priests can afford some leisure time with the alter boys.
Herman Oberth was assistant to Werner Von Braun,....Einstein,...was perhaps the greatest scientist who ever lived on this planet.
So? Oberth's & Von Braun's expertise was rocketry/engineering, not genetics or cosmology. Einstein's expertise was not genetics or engineering. Each of them had opinions, yes. But, science's knowledge base is not built from opinion. It's built from reproducible data. Halton Arp has very little independently reproducible data.
I've used these people's work and opinions to illustrate the falsity of your creationist orientation....
Quotes are just more talk. Talk is not motion. Motion is not always action.
....and to reinforce my position that matter and systems constructed of matter can best be described with empirical methodology,
Empirical connotes experience. For you to suggest that you have empirical evidence of alien design further implies you have experience with alien engineering. Have you probative experience to back up your claim?
....you steadfastly refuse to address any of the reality of the evidence I've proffered....
Might that actually be my estimation of appropriate addressing?
...and continue to avoid all subjects of reality in favor of obfuscation.
You do know what is said about beauty?
If you are unable to discuss the subject in a logical manner, I'll understand that, since neither your "creationist theory" nor your "ultimate creationist theory" are defensible.
John, no more beer for you. Have some more pizza. And let me have your car keys.
While joining up with the fringe element may give you persuasive power, by sheer volume of your chatter, in some circles, it advances your creationist position not one single step towards reality.
John. Why don't I just call you a cab.
John:
This thread isn't about personalities, it's about ideas. It's about a request for objective substantiation of the claim of Intelligent Design -- any non-supernatural form. I'm can't deny alien design as a possibility. I can deny the salience of proffered evidence in support of alien design. If alien design is such an obvious conclusion, why have you so far been totally unsuccessful at the task of convincing the rest of us? Your evidence, so far, is not convincing. Use some new tools and skill sets to show us the statue that only you see and haven't, so far, been able to show us.
John MacNeil
08-31-02, 12:27 AM
Mr. G.,
Your last post in response to my previous post is an entire example of obfuscation. It illustrates exactly what I've been describing as your refusal to engage in discussion. I suppose you must have gotten complacent with your posting skills, but a mental bully is the same as any other kind of bully, as soon as you stand up to them and require them to back up their bravado, they fade.
Maybe I'm being too harsh, perhaps you really are just a "babe in the woods". Maybe you really are clueless about how the real world works, so if that is the true nature of it , then I'll take a few moments to clue you in.
The Vatican has been the seat of religious government of catholicism for over fifteen hundred year. In all that time they have been a single party organization, a single party that has been in power for almost seven time as long as the United States has been a country. Their power is immense, when compared to that of nations. Other governments have armies that they consider to be the fulcrum of power, but the Vatican has seen thousands of such power groups and they all have faded after being dominant for some period.
The problem with most such power groups that rely on the force of arms is that they do not have long term planning and as such they make stupid decisions that detrimentally affect their organization. A case in point, since you referred to the subject, is the recent spate of denunciations of priests for sexually molesting children. That is a crime that the American government was aware of for a long time but they kept away from prosecuting any of the priests before the recent proceedings because they were using the knowledge of those crime as leaverage in dealing with the Vatican. They began their recent campaign of burning churches and arresting priests because they thought the time was right that they could destroy the religious base in the country when they coupled those actions with their propaganda. Of course that operation had no chance of achieving their hoped for outcome. And that is because the government had deluded themselves into believing that the religious base in the country was weak, and all they accomplished was to make the religionists stronger by weeding out the leeches. The money factor is not a consideration, as the Catholic organization is one of the wealthiest organizations in the world.
The religious government of the Vatican endorses creationism and they have been censoring information for almost two thousand year in order to keep any information that contradicts their premise from coming to the attention of the public. They are much better at censorship than the U.S. government and they have successfully kept most references of alien visitation in history secret. They play the other creationist theory, the ultimate one, off against the regular one and they don't care that it doesn't get settled because that suits their purpose. If the bible view was to succumb to the Ultimate Creation view, they would fit that within the framework of their religion because it would still be a creationist view. Their main object now in regards to the subject of creation is just to keep both sides arguing creation, but from different podiums. As long as no rational discussion intercedes between those two creationist view, then they are maintaining their agenda. And people like you are doing their proselytizing for them.
And you don't seem to understand what a theory is or what it is for, as is evident by your continued description of it. A theory is a formulation of apparent relationships or underlying principles of certain observed phenomena which has been verified to some degree. You consider Hubble's description of redshift as recession velocity as veracity for the Ultimate Creation Theory and ignore Arp's photographic proof that proves otherwise. Obviously, you have not bothered to read Arp's book. You keep droning on with your diatribe about me not providing proofs when you are refusing to examine anything and refusing to engage in the discussion. Perhaps you are not capable of engaging in an intelligent discussion in which flaming and ambushing are not favored?
John MacNeil:
You are free to believe whatever you like, as you are free to say whatever you like. We all are free to do so. But, it is not from ones ability to believe anything, nor from one's ability to say anything, that the obligation arises in others to believe and say the same things. Such influential modifications of the behaviors of others arises from believing in something of mutually recognized substance arrived at by some mutually compelling rationale. In that regard, you are failing to make a convincing case for the hypothesis of alien design.
You believe, and you ask others to believe, that aliens made us, that aliens have been amongst us throughout history, that the vatican has secret proof of aliens, that Science's theories of biologic and cosmologic evolution are baseless and without merit, that subsribers to Science's theories of biologic and cosmic evolution are stupid and clueless, and that they are in cahoots with fundimentalist religionists in a massive conspricacy by a monolithic fringe horde to keep the truth about aliens and human origins secret from us all.
And at the same time, you refuse to address with precise specificity repeated requests for any testable hypotheses and falsifiable predictions able to be made by your Alien Design hypothesis. Instead, you choose to offer as your only proof quotations and paraphrased anecdotes of certain notable, deceased individuals who had nothing at all to say about alien design, and discountable references to an astronomer whose ideas are based on singular interpretation of ambiguous data with nary a concern for his being as capable of error as was Einstein.
You are free to characterize my contributions to this thread any way you like, as you are free to call into question my state of mind in any terms you desire. My suspicion is that your equally ample pyschoanalytic abilities were acquired under the expert tutorage of Dr. Velikovsky.
John MacNeil:
Say what you will by way of rebuttal in your next post, but in the interest of preventing this thread from devolving into little more than off-topic verbal combat, let us thereafter return to phrasing our posts according to more scholarly mannerisms.
This is a thread about the validation of certain ideas and not about proof by ad hominem.
You consider Hubble's description of redshift as recession velocity as veracity for the Ultimate Creation Theory and ignore Arp's photographic proof that proves otherwise.
Halton Arp: Armchair Pseudoskeptic.
Arp has teamed up with Tom Van Flandern; ``The case against the big bang'', Phys.-Lett. A 164 (1992) 263 -- 73. Stereophonic loonies.
"In the beginning there was an unspoken covenant that observations were so important that they should be published and archived with only a minimum of interpretation at the end of the paper. Gradually this practice eroded as authors began making and reporting only observations which agreed with their starting premises. The next step was that these same authors, as referees, tried to force the conclusions to support their own and then finally, rejected the papers when they did not. As a result more and more important observational results are simply not being published at the journals in which one would habitually look for such results. The referees themselves, with the aid of compliant editors, have turned what was originally a helpful system into a chaotic and mostly unprincipled form of censorship."
(Halton Arp, Seeing Red, 1998)
The rantings of a classical crackpot.
John MacNeil
08-31-02, 02:54 PM
Mr. G.,
You misstate my case. I never said that Aliens made us, but that they may have been instrumental in bringing different species of us humans to this planet. I pose that hypothesis on the fact that there is no phylogenic record that proves our type of human were here before 30,000 year ago. The fact that we can't prove such a record is corraborated by the Smithsonian Institution. If we can't prove our genetic evolution past a mere 30,000 year ago, how can we be so certain that our interpretation of evidence from several billion year ago is conclusive evidence that the Theory of Evolution holds true for all life on this planet? I have no doubt that natural selection works for individual species to evolve, but that operation of natural selection is a process that works within what is claimed to be the theory of everything. What I've been saying is that the current evidence does not support the theory that everything evolved on this planet according to the description of Darwinian Theory. Therefore that leaves open other possi