Evolution v Intelligent Design; Should we really teach evolution?

[Norsefire]

All definitions are artificial, based on concepts we know. The concept of happiness, for instance, that we can feel; but happiness is an artifial word with an artificial definition.

 

[Oli]

Apparantly SnakeLord does not think so, and therefore it is not; if he believes gods and aliens have different meanings, then I shall be happy to conform to whatever he finds comprehensable in the hopes that he finally understands what I am saying.

Now you're getting obscure.
Gods and aliens don't have different meanings?

We can, however, know that it was either caused with or without intent. Please present me with anything other than "with" or "without"; there is no middle ground.

No we can't know and I can't present you with anything else because the laws of physics (and presumably everything else we know) didn't apply before the creation. Therefore we can make no speculation about how or why it happened.

And the laws of physics exist....in our universe, as we know them. As for anything, if anything, outside, obviously there would exist different laws of physics.

But the laws of physics as we know didn't apply THEN. In fact they didn't even apply for a short time afterwards. So if they don't apply you can't make inferences.

What do you mean?

Simply that, since physics and anything we else we know didn't, and couldn't, apply before the creation then you can't speculate on how or why it happened. The rules as we know them didn't exist.

Based on observation, however, it is an informed speculation. I never claimed anything to be fact. But by " a very real possibility", I mean, informed speculation, which cannot be discarded at the moment, either with or without intent.

Of course it can be discarded, since there's no way of proving it one way or the other.

The pursuit of knowledge! Perhaps, in the future, it will be possible to know. But we should always question everything.

Make your mind up. You posited that it would be impossible to know.
Now, is it impossible or is it not?
And once again, it's not knowledge, it's speculation with no way of testing.
Shelve until further evidence along.
Don't waste time.

 

[Norsefire]

Now you're getting obscure.
Gods and aliens don't have different meanings?

Meanings are subjective; gods, I define as simply vastly advanced life, in relation to Human beings. Gods could be aliens, of course, since my definition of gods is not mutually exclusive to the definition of "alien", which means different. Therefore, it's different, more advanced life, of which there is nothing at all ridiculous about the notion.

No we can't know and I can't present you with anything else because the laws of physics (and presumably everything else we know) didn't apply before the creation. Therefore we can make no speculation about how or why it happened.

The laws of physics are irrelevant, because there can only be intent or non intent. No matter what laws of physics we're dealing with, intent is the quality of having active choice or will.

Of course it can be discarded, since there's no way of proving it one way or the other.

The big bang cannot be proved, should it be discarded? String theory cannot be proved, should it be discarded?

Make your mind up. You posited that it would be impossible to know.
Now, is it impossible or is it not?
And once again, it's not knowledge, it's speculation with no way of testing.
Shelve until further evidence along.
Don't waste time.

It's impossible as long as we can't travel back in time to observe for ourselves. Of course, time is a property of the universe, so we wouldn't be able to travel back to before time existed....

It's speculation that has a basis, and therefore, should be taught as a concept.

 

[Oli]

Meanings are subjective; gods, I define as simply vastly advanced life, in relation to Human beings.

Then you're using your own definitions...

Gods could be aliens, of course, since my definition of gods is not mutually exclusive to the definition of "alien", which means different. Therefore, it's different, more advanced life, of which there is nothing at all ridiculous about the notion.

And if it existed before the big bang we can never know anything about them.
Back to potato mashers....

The laws of physics are irrelevant, because there can only be intent or non intent. No matter what laws of physics we're dealing with, intent is the quality of having active choice or will.

With things as they are as we know them now, agreed. Change the rules and everything changes. intent or otherwise may not come into it.

The big bang cannot be proved, should it be discarded?

But there's pretty good evidence for it.

String theory cannot be proved, should it be discarded?

String theory provides some answers and works as far as it goes.

It's impossible as long as we can't travel back in time to observe for ourselves. Of course, time is a property of the universe, so we wouldn't be able to travel back to before time existed....

I.e. it's impossible.
Therefore fruitless to speculate.

It's speculation that has a basis, and therefore, should be taught as a concept.

No, since it can never be used for anything and gives us nothing that isn't already provided (better) by other theories.

 

[Norsefire]

Then you're using your own definitions...

Then I shall go by my original definition of advanced intelligent life.

And if it existed before the big bang we can never know anything about them.
Back to potato mashers....

Not quite; we can, as I said, narrow things down.

Potato mashers? There is no observation or logic that could ever lead you to the conclusion of potato mashers. It isn't broad enough.

With things as they are as we know them now, agreed. Change the rules and everything changes. intent or otherwise may not come into it.

I fail to see how changing the laws of physics means intent is irrelevant; intent is always relevant regardless of the laws of physics. It is a quality of consciousness. Unless consciousness itself is impossible, intent can always exist. And if consciousness itself is unlikely, then that further suggests our universe is fine-tuned.

But there's pretty good evidence for it.

No, there's circumstancial (and therefore, subjective) evidence for it. Besides, I am not denying the big bang; in fact, I think there was a big bang.

The question is, what caused the big bang?

String theory provides some answers and works as far as it goes.

It can't be proved, and therefore provides answers ONLY if you take it to be true (which would also be the case of ID)

I.e. it's impossible.
Therefore fruitless to speculate.

Time travel isn't impossible. And again, narrow it down, at least so we can have an idea.

No, since it can never be used for anything and gives us nothing that isn't already provided (better) by other theories.

Any theory at all falls under intent (such as ID) and non intent.

 

[buckybeam]

Not only do you demonstrate an inability to understand logical concepts, but you also cannot differentiate concept from content.

"Sacrificed split body creation" is an entire concept very independent of ID, in that there is no logical basis behind it.

Is teaching string theory to a Hindu wrong? Or the big bang? Or the concept of dark matter? No.

Intelligent design is the concept that the universe was created by an intelligent entity. It suggests nothing further than this. The logical basis is, as we can observe, the only forces of causation in the universe are intelligence and nature. That is where ID is derived from. Absolutely nothing that is observed could ever make you come to the conclusion of "sacrificied split body creation"

but hindus dont beleive that the world was created by ID. to suggest ID to a hindu would be to suggest no ID to a christian. not good in usa public schools

 

[buckybeam]

I just looked in to see how things are going. As I expected, you still have learnt nothing.

its so unfortunate

 

[Norsefire]

but hindus dont beleive that the world was created by ID. to suggest ID to a hindu would be to suggest no ID to a christian. not good in usa public schools

Huh?


I can't even understand what the hell you are trying to say, probably because you don't even understand what we are talking about

 

[Oli]

Then I shall go by my original definition of advanced intelligent life.

I.e. alien: not us.

Potato mashers? There is no observation or logic that could ever lead you to the conclusion of potato mashers. It isn't broad enough.

Since rules didn't apply a potato masher is as good an explanation as any other.

I fail to see how changing the laws of physics means intent is irrelevant; intent is always relevant regardless of the laws of physics.

Not provable at all. Mere speculation based on current conditions.
If all the rules are different then you can't apply the current rules. That's what different means.

It is a quality of consciousness. Unless consciousness itself is impossible, intent can always exist. And if consciousness itself is unlikely, then that further suggests our universe is fine-tuned.

And when the rules were different maybe consciuosness (or something else) used something other than intent.

No, there's circumstancial (and therefore, subjective) evidence for it. Besides, I am not denying the big bang; in fact, I think there was a big bang.

Hmm, background radiation, expansion of the universe among other things...

The question is, what caused the big bang?

What flavour is up?
How green is C sharp?
Meaningless question.
We can never know.

It can't be proved, and therefore provides answers ONLY if you take it to be true (which would also be the case of ID)

Wrong on two counts: the answers come whether you want them or not. And they fit observation.
And ID does not provide any answers that aren't given by other better theories.

Time travel isn't impossible.

Really?

And again, narrow it down, at least so we can have an idea.

You can't narrow naything down if the answer is ultimately unknowable.

Any theory at all falls under intent (such as ID) and non intent.

So?
If they don't provide better answers or the answers we have now in a simpler way why bother adding new speculations?

 

[Norsefire]

I.e. alien: not us.

Yes

Since rules didn't apply a potato masher is as good an explanation as any other.

Then you must also agree that nature is as good an argument as a potato masher, which unfortunately, and hypocritically, atheists deny

Not provable at all. Mere speculation based on current conditions.
If all the rules are different then you can't apply the current rules. That's what different means.

Intent is a state of being, a state of having, which I don't think matters so long as consciousness is possible.

And when the rules were different maybe consciuosness (or something else) used something other than intent.

What would that be? It's certainly possible, sure, but now you're just speculating like me

Hmm, background radiation, expansion of the universe among other things...

Again, it's circumstancial; and again, it's evidence only of a big bang, not what caused it.

What flavour is up?
How green is C sharp?
Meaningless question.
We can never know.

Not with attitudes like that

Wrong on two counts: the answers come whether you want them or not. And they fit observation.
And ID does not provide any answers that aren't given by other better theories.

What are "better" theories? Then, as you say, the laws of physics were different, so those theories are merely speculative and could easily be wrong.

Really?

Theoretically, it is possible, if you can accelerate past the speed of light. However, anything with mass cannot do so, so it's impossible for us. Maybe in the future we will figure out a way to work around this.

You can't narrow naything down if the answer is ultimately unknowable.

No, you can't find anything if the answer is unknowable; you can, however, narrow certain things down, by categorization. Intent or lack of intent.

So?
If they don't provide better answers or the answers we have now in a simpler way why bother adding new speculations?

To try to broaden our understanding. What is the "default" answer? There is none, so nobody is adding anything to anything

 

[Oli]

Then you must also agree that nature is as good an argument as a potato masher, which unfortunately, and hypocritically, atheists deny

Must?
No.
Since the rules don't apply then anything could have been the cause. In fact "nature" couldn't have been the cause possibly since nature (as we define it) didn't exist "prior" to the big bang.

Intent is a state of being, a state of having, which I don't think matters so long as consciousness is possible.

No, if the rules are different then everything is different.
Intent is not a "state" at all.

What would that be? It's certainly possible, sure, but now you're just speculating like me

No I'm not speculating, I'm saying that there is NO WAY to tell since the rules were different.

Again, it's circumstancial; and again, it's evidence only of a big bang, not what caused it.

Science has already stated that it cannot and may never be able to answer what caused it. The big bang itself though does have evidence going for it.

Not with attitudes like that

You miss the point.
If the rules are different then any speculation is null and void and all questions become meaningless.

What are "better" theories?

Evolution.

Then, as you say, the laws of physics were different, so those theories are merely speculative and could easily be wrong.

Nope ID claims to be an answer to how we got here and how things work: it does neither.

Theoretically, it is possible, if you can accelerate past the speed of light. However, anything with mass cannot do so, so it's impossible for us. Maybe in the future we will figure out a way to work around this.

So it's not possible....

No, you can't find anything if the answer is unknowable; you can, however, narrow certain things down, by categorization. Intent or lack of intent.

No: if the answer is unknowable then narrowing things down is pointless since you could be on completely the wrong track and never know it.
Intent or lack of doesn't necessarily come into it.

To try to broaden our understanding. What is the "default" answer? There is none, so nobody is adding anything to anything

How is it broadening our understanding if there are no predictions from the theory?
If it boils down to "aliens did but we can never find them or actually find out if they really did" how does that add to our understanding?
If we go with the big bang then we can get useful information from it, building step by step. Something that never be true for a "it happened this way but we can never actually know" speculation.

 

[Norsefire]

Then asserting that the universe began naturally, or wasn't created, is pointless, as you say, because it is unknowable, as you say

I disagree, however, because it either was created or came to be naturally.

Also the big bang doesn't answer the question of "natural" or "created"

And evolution isn't a better theory for how the UNIVERSE came to be:bugeye:

 

[Oli]

Then asserting that the universe began naturally, or wasn't created, is pointless

Exactly.

I disagree, however, because it either was created or came to be naturally.

You can't state that with any confidence: it's a belief not a logical theory.

Also the big bang doesn't answer the question of "natural" or "created"

The big bang never claimed to have that answer anyway. Science has always said that what came "before" the big bang is a question best left to metaphysics.

And evolution isn't a better theory for how the UNIVERSE came to be:bugeye:

ID doesn't claim to say how the universe came to be either: it claims to tell us how we got here.
I thought we were arguing ID vs evolution as well as origins of the universe...

 

[Norsefire]

You can't state that with any confidence: it's a belief not a logical theory.

I can, because as I said, I have observations to back it up.

The big bang never claimed to have that answer anyway. Science has always said that what came "before" the big bang is a question best left to metaphysics.

Well, something must have come before

ID doesn't claim to say how the universe came to be either: it claims to tell us how we got here.
I thought we were arguing ID vs evolution as well as origins of the universe...

Not the ID theory, but ID: intelligent design. Design by intelligence. And yes, we're talking about both the universe and Humanity.

 

[Oli]

I can, because as I said, I have observations to back it up.

Observations based on the rules as they are now, not as they were then.

Well, something must have come before

Why?
If the rules were different then it's only a bias based on things as they are now that say "there must have been something before".

Not the ID theory, but ID: intelligent design. Design by intelligence. And yes, we're talking about both the universe and Humanity.

I haven't come across ID claims as to the start of the universe, only us.

 

[Norsefire]

I know, because it is its own theory. But ID can also mean the actual meaning, which is design by intelligence.

So basically you are an agnostic?

 

[Oli]

Agnostic?
I don't think so since that would mean I don't know either way.
Since I haven't seen any evidence for god I'd say atheist if I thought about it at all.
I have no belief since there's no evidence of anything to believe in.

 

[Norsefire]

Agnostic?
I don't think so since that would mean I don't know either way.
Since I haven't seen any evidence for god I'd say atheist if I thought about it at all.
I have no belief since there's no evidence of anything to believe in.

However, you also asserted that it is unknowable, which is the most logical stance. I'm an agnostic.

 

[Oli]

And since it's unknowable why add speculation
Life's tough enough without the extras...

 

[Norsefire]

And since it's unknowable why add speculation
Life's tough enough without the extras...

Speculation is always important to get some sort of understanding, or at least try

There isn't any empirical evidence for God, and so I don't believe in God (a lack of belief; i.e, I am not saying "God does not exist")

However, I'm worried as well, if there does turn out to be a God....well...:shrug: