Intelligent Design case decided - Dover, Pennsylvania, School Board loses [Fox News Alert]

You forgot, "Light a match to see with and open the box to observe the mixing of gasses."

"Your premise... about something that supposedly never ever happens"

Untrue. I assume life has arisen by some mechanism. I think the mechanism is intelligence. It is impossible to verify or falsify a historical event via experimentation. My hypothetical statement is only useful if such an event can happen.

"It contains no useful approximation of anything observable. "

Isn't that the point? If life originating had been observed, it would either support my contention or prove me wrong.

"It can only be evaluated as practically testable."

And in post 2774 you say it is not testable but is falsifiable. Is it testable or not? I don't understand your point here. Are you admitting it may be testable and falsifiable but just not useful? Be more clear.

"Newton, working on his LOG, was uniting Galileo and Kepler's laws, which separately were based on lots of observations... Your law is an attempt...."

The law of gravity has been substantiated. I do not claim my hypothetical statement represents a law or even a theory. If numerous attempts to discover abiogenesis experimentally result in failure and no progress, AND multiple instances of assembling life in a lab occur, then my statement could possibly form the basis of a theory, particularly if the mechanisms used in laboratory experiments could be modeled in some fashion.

"Look up the logical fallacy of tu quoque sometime."

My accusation is easily substantiated. It is you who are like the proverbial frying pan calling the kettle black. You accusations are meritless. I have identified specifically how I have admitted significant error in the past. You fail to do so when it is laid out plainly. I pointed out your error about hypotheses always being assumed. You did not admit your error. I have demonstrated the precise application of the standards of verification and falsification to my statement. You failed to admit the error. It is you who have repeatedly made invalid arguments which, as I said above, are easily documented.

So far you have presented little substance by way of scientific argument but many weak arguments including argument from emotion, religion / morality, tautologies, and mere name calling (words are yours unless in parentheses):

2183 stupid , game, fool only the people dumb enough to prefer superstition
2238 dumb wrong thing, faking it, grow up
2564 Your hypothesis sucks, stop spewing and pretending, Why can't a creationist have the minimal integrity, shucking and jiving and spewing and running and hiding, doesn't mean doodle,
2721 disingenuous performance, You do not have the integrity. You intend to assume your thesis, not test it. (I proved that a thesis is always assumed but you never admitted your error.)
2740 ridiculous, empty blather, abnormal psychology you guys exhibit, Very few of you can admit an error above the typo level in argument with the Heathen Foe.
2746 dance along double-talking, said something stupid. That makes you stupid and transparently dishonest.
2748 you are only spewing words to obfuscate, silly, strawman (I was only defending my own position, so how this is a strawman fails me - just another popular pseudo argument around here that means nothing), I don't believe you don't see it.
2752 Your performance would be disgusting if it weren't for the Lord or whatever. Grow up. endless silly dance (I only accept one silly dance argument per thread, sorry.), Are you too dumb to understand that as well? How dishonest are you willing to be? How dumb do you want to play? Where is the bottom? How low will you go? Is the Lord commanding this?
2753 Are you capable of recognizing this? are you capable of admitting it? bludgeoning with your ignorance, are you smart enough to guess, Let's do an integrity test. You mix real dishonesty with real pig-ignorance. Nothing is as challenging and difficult ... unless it's getting an honest admission of same out of you.
2773 spew, silly dumb-dumb dance (third times the charm for this one I guess), don't want to admit, pretending not to see, dummy dance (fourth dancing analogy), the endless brazen pretense, obvious, More dishonesty, cannot be evaluated, funny, Goddidit (you accuse of straw man. I never said human assembly of life proves anything about God), Forget understanding this (another straw man, since I am advocating understanding the process by experimentation and exploration), You know, You don't have the integrity
2774 bad place to play dumb, If you are that pig-ignorant, I think you are a holy warrior liar for the Lord and are not telling the truth

Continuing from your post in 2774:

"You do not intend to test it other than to periodically yell that it has not been falsified."

Your mind reading trick must make you the life of the party. But I doubt you can divine my intentions as you claim, and they are irrelevant as to whether my statement is scientific. The issue is whether it is testable, not what my motives are.

"you have no business announcing that it will be falsified by some non-test of your devising"

How many times do I have to repeat that abiogenesis is NOT FALSIFIABLE? You keep claiming I am trying to falsify it. Not only is that a straw man argument (which you apparently love to both make accusations of as well as practice yourself), but it is a bad one. IF ABIOGENESIS IS FALSIFIABLE then my statement loses value. If you believe abiogenesis is the best explanation of the origin of life, you should be trying to make a falsifiable assertion based on it.

And another thing. I am not trying to "prove" my statement. Tests will, hopefully, support my statement. Otherwise, they will disprove it.

"You're going to do an experiment to try to form a certain organic from inorganics in the lab."

If you have a point, it would be better to spit it out instead of (as you have accused me four times) dancing around the issue. So abiogenesis has some problems? Of course it does. Not just experimentally. Logically. Scientifically.

I am not opposed to attempting to understand and verify a means by which abiogenesis might have occurred. That's because I recognize supportable ideas are useful even if they are not falsifiable. You just can't call them theories or laws.

Why do you refuse to answer how my hypothesis differs fundamentally from the law of gravity?

PMFJI, but if I may?

unlearner's Law of Gravity: EVERY object in the Universe attracts EVERY other object with a force directed along the line of centers of mass for the two objects.
unlearner's Hypothesis of Life: Life can only originate through intelligent intervention.

With respect to the Law of Gravity, the theoretical possibility exists that one may test the force between two objects and discover that the force is not on a line between the centers of mass. An observation of this nature will conclusively demonstrate that "unlearner's Law of Gravity" is wrong. Every measurement of the force between two objects is a potential falsification attempt.

Now please describe a test, and a potential outcome thereof, that can conclusively demonstrate that your hypothesis of life is wrong.

If you have a point, it would be better to spit it out instead of (as you have accused me four times) dancing around the issue...

I'm giving you the chance to prove me wrong. If you're working on steps in the lab that may lead someday to life, what do you do with your equipment? Answer the question.

You're crying about my pointing out the obvious. Show me that you can say the inconvenient thing, even once, even in a small matter, instead of just reciting the luddite talking points. Since you're such an abiogenesis expert, after all, there's no question the fact at which I drop hints has been mentioned to you many times in your previous discussion with the atheist heathen.

My theory is falsifiable. I'm saying you don't have the integrity to stop dancin' an' shuckin' and jivin'. Say the words and prove me wrong.

The study I saw compared each form of birth control WHEN PERFECTLY PRACTICED. It didn't address the question of when any form was the only method practiced.

My point is typical vs. perfect use. Where the rubber hits the road, to coin a phrase.

Now please describe a test, and a potential outcome thereof, that can conclusively demonstrate that your hypothesis of life is wrong.

Answer: his hypothes is falsified when the dirt in his backyard becomes a penguin.

But what O what will ever lend support to his "never" premise? Especially if he wants to rule out abiogenesis spread over 300-500K years as mainstream science hypothesizes.

So far you have presented little substance by way of scientific argument...

Just noticed this. (I skim you very lightly now. Sorry about all the typing you seem to be doing.)

There is nothing to say about the science of your premise. There is no science to argue except for illustrating that the puddle in your backyard is not an abiogenesis lab and it would be a classic creationist strawman to insist otherwise. I've been leading you along Socratically to admitting what you no doubt already know in that regard. Somehow, you don't seem to want to play.

You are correct sir.

And why stop at twelfth grade? The socialists would have govt. taxing us to pay for a cookie-cutter college education for everyone.

The universe is a closed system.and if you actually believe that somehow the 2nd law does'nt apply to the earth, then why has the law never failed when given application not only to the universe - but to the earth. Yet somehow you claim, that in the area of the naturalist approach to evolution - the 2nd law has no bearing on the theory? I find this absurd. Our sun is winding down and to think this will have no impact on earth as this energy redistributes is also absurd. Atleast you "kinda" admit that "someday the entropic piper will have to be paid."..since "presumably the entire universe is a closed system"? Excuse me, if the 2nd law somehow supported naturalistic evolution, you would not use the word "presumably" nor would you try and give any wiggle room to this unproven splitting of hairs about open or closed systems. You want to carve out some imaginary exception to allow for "entropy running up the hill" and then comparing it to what? eddy currents? How confusing your mind must be when you attempt to juggle such illusions.
The universe is a closed system and the earth is part of that closed system - no exceptions. If you could offer any scientific PROOF where the earth is exempt from the 2nd law, please tell me. Otherwise this is another invented strawman that has no basis in reality. Again, the 2nd law HAS NEVER FAILED when tested -

I believe the Big Bang, the 1st and 2nd law of Therm and Paley's Theory are the best that science has accomplished in terms of creation. I don't need to make excuses for what is obviously true. Independently, they say nothing about the supernatural, but taken together they have unshakable implications. This conclusion is a logical consequence of a collection of explanatory, scientific theories. Its legitimacy could be refuted by falsifying any of these theories. It is actually explanatory, logically self-consistent and testable.

I did not quote any creationist site earlier but I will below.
You are the one who distorts not me. You may, for example state that you have given me adequate responses but you have'nt. They are not at all scientific but "catch phrases" and philosophy.

Most evolutionists expect that life probably exists in outer space and they eagerly look for it. If they found it, they would use it as evidence in their favor. If they do not, they can claim we have not looked hard enough. Or there's always the claim that their theory did not actually predict it. Your position is invulnerable. You have nothing to risk from future observations.

Your illusions extend from biology or physics to cosmology. The universe has extraordinarily improbable properties necessary to support life. Yet such design contradicts naturalism. So, cosmologists created the beloved anthropic principle to explain away this design.
They also created the illusion that the anthropic principle is scientific. The illusion was produced by equivocation and misdirecting our attention onto "man as an observer" The idea actually focuses in another direction entirely, it requires the existence of an infinitude of other universes unlike our own. the anthropic principle is unscientific because we cannot possibly test other universes.
But The Big Bang, the Conservation of Mass-Energy and the Second Law of T. our among mosst firmly established science. But evolutionary cosmologists discard these because in combination these are inconsistent with naturalism. You throw out our best science for no other reason that to protect a philosophical commitment to naturalism.
Yet you call creationists unscientific........I feel sorry for you.
Because if you did understand the 2nd law rather than rely on cosmologists word-plays , you would understand how impossible it really is to defend .

Oh here's some information from those "unscientific creationists sites"
The Second Law in Classical Thermodynamics
The First Law is itself a strong witness against evolution, since it implies a basic condition of stability in the universe. The fundamental structure of the cosmos is one of conservation, not innovation. However, this fact in itself is not impressive to the evolutionist, as he merely assumes that the process of evolution takes place within the framework of energy conservation, never stopping to wonder where all the energy came from in the first place nor how it came to pass that the total energy was constant from then on.

It is the Second law, however, that wipes out the theory of evolution. There is a universal process of change, and it is a directional change, but it is not an upward change.

In so-called classical thermodynamics, the Second Law, like the First, is formulated in terms of energy.

"It is in the transformation process that Nature appears to exact a penalty and this is where the second principle makes its appearance. For every naturally occurring transformation of energy is accompanied, somewhere, by a loss in the availability of energy for the future performance of work."5
In this case, entropy can be expressed mathematically in terms of the total irreversible flow of heat. It expresses quantitatively the amount of energy in an energy conversion process which becomes unavailable for further work. In order for work to be done, the available energy has to "flow" from a higher level to a lower level. When it reaches the lower level, the energy is still in existence, but no longer capable of doing work. Heat will naturally flow from a hot body to a cold body, but not from a cold body to a hot body.

For this reason, no process can be 100% efficient, with all of the available energy converted into work. Some must be deployed to overcome friction and will be degraded to non-recoverable heat energy, which will finally be radiated into space and dispersed. For the same reason a self-contained perpetual motion machine is an impossibility.

Since, as we have noted, everything in the physical universe is energy in some form and, since in every process some energy becomes unavailable, it is obvious that ultimately all energy in the universe will be unavailable energy, if present processes go on long enough. When that happens, presumably all the various forms of energy in the universe will have been gradually converted through a multiplicity of processes into uniformly (that is, randomly) dispersed heat energy. Everything will be at the same low temperature. There will be no "differential" of energy levels, therefore no "gradient" of energy to induce its flow. No more work can be done and the universe will reach what the physicists call its ultimate "heat death."

Thus, the Second Law proves, as certainly as science can prove anything whatever, that the universe had a beginning. Similarly, the First Law shows that the universe could not have begun itself. The total quantity of energy in the universe is a constant, but the quantity of available energy is decreasing. Therefore, as we go backward in time, the available energy would have been progressively greater until, finally, we would reach the beginning point, where available energy equaled total energy. Time could go back no further than this. At this point both energy and time must have come into existence. Since energy could not create itself, the most scientific and logical conclusion to which we could possibly come is that: "In the beginning, God created the heaven and the earth."

The evolutionist will not accept this conclusion, however. He hypothesizes that either: (1) some natural law canceling out the Second Law prevailed far back in time, or (2) some. natural law canceling out the Second Law prevails far out in space.

When he makes such assumptions, however, he is denying his own theory, which says that all things can be explained in terms of presently observable laws and processes. He is really resorting to creationism, but refuses to acknowledge a Creator.

Entropy and Disorder
A second way of stating the entropy law is in terms of statistical thermodynamics. It is recognized today that not only are all scientific laws empirical but also that they are statistical. A great number of individual molecules, in a gas for example, may behave in such a way that the over-all aspects of that gas produce predictable patterns in the aggregate, even though individual molecules may deviate from the norm. Laws describing such behavior must be formulated statistically, or probabilistically, rather than strictly dynamically. The dynamical laws then can theoretically be deduced as limiting cases of the probabilistic statements.

In this context entropy is a probability function related to the degree of disorder in a system. The more disordered a system may be, the more likely it is.

"All real processes go with an increase of entropy. The entropy also measures the randomness, or lack of orderliness of the system; the greater the randomness, the greater the entropy."6
Note again the universality expressed here—all real processes. Isaac Asimov expresses this concept interestingly as follows:

"Another way of stating the Second Law then is: ‘The universe is constantly getting more disorderly!’ Viewed that way, we can see the Second Law all about us. We have to work hard to straighten a room, but left to itself it becomes a mess again very quickly and very easily. Even if we never enter it, it becomes dusty and musty. How difficult to maintain houses, and machinery, and our own bodies in perfect working order; how easy to let them deteriorate. In fact, all we have to do is nothing, and everything deteriorates, collapses, breaks down, wears out, all by itself and that is what the Second Law is all about."7
Remember this tendency from order to disorder applies to all real processes. Real processes include, of course, biological and geological processes, as well as chemical and physical processes. The interesting question is: "How does a real biological process, which goes from order to disorder, result in evolution. which goes from disorder to order?" Perhaps the evolutionist can ultimately find an answer to this question, but he at least should not ignore it, as most evolutionists do.

Especially is such a question vital, when we are thinking of evolution as a growth process on the grand scale from atom to Adam and from particle to people. This represents in absolutely gigantic increase in order and complexity, and is clearly out of place altogether in the context of the Second Law.

Footnotes
1 . R. B. Lindsay: "Physics—To What Extent Is It Deterministic?" American Scientist, Vol. 56, Summer 1968, p. 100.
2. Julian Huxley: "Evolution and Genetics" in What is Man? (Ed. by J. R. Newman, New York, Simon and Schuster, 1955), p.278.
3. Isaac Asimov: "In the Game of Energy and Thermodynamics You Can’t Break Even," Smithsonian Institute Journal, June, 1970, p. 6.
4. Ibid.
5. R. B. Lindsay: "Entropy Consumption and Values in Physical Science," American Scientist, Vol. 47, September, 1959, p. 378.
6. Harold Blum: "Perspectives in Evolution," American Scientist, October, 1955, p. 595.
7. Isaac Asimov: op cit, p.10

The universe is a closed system.and if you actually believe that somehow the 2nd law does'nt apply to the earth, then why has the law never failed when given application not only to the universe - but to the earth.

The second law applies to closed systems. The earth isn't such an animal. It is constantly fed energy from the sun. ENTROPY does indeed always get lost in energy transactions, as you have noted, and which confuses you, and is always intrinsically increasing where energy is doing work, as you have surmised, however, that is not the whole story. The second law is about closed systems--look it up (which I strongly recommend, at this point), if you don't believe me. Because the earth-sun system isn't closed, the local entropy losses from energy transactions on the earth are swamped by tons of free energy pouring in all the time from the sun, more than offsetting potential energy losses.

Yet somehow you claim, that in the area of the naturalist approach to evolution - the 2nd law has no bearing on the theory? I find this absurd. Our sun is winding down and to think this will have no impact on earth as this energy redistributes is also absurd.

The sun doesn't somehow radiate it's entropy losses to the earth, only energy. Our sun will wind down in about 8 billion years, or so, and only long after that will the entropy books have to be balanced. That's too long from now to care about.

Atleast you "kinda" admit that "someday the entropic piper will have to be paid."..since "presumably the entire universe is a closed system"? Excuse me, if the 2nd law somehow supported naturalistic evolution, you would not use the word "presumably" nor would you try and give any wiggle room to this unproven splitting of hairs about open or closed systems.

I am not "splitting hairs"--I am reporting to you what the 2nd law states. You really need to look it up before you embarass yourself further on this subject. I use the word "presumably" because it is not yet clear to me that the universe is a closed system, though the arguments from big bang cosmology seem pretty strong--it's a notion that came up before we started entertaining half-serious ideas about extra dimensions and multi-verses.

You want to carve out some imaginary exception to allow for "entropy running up the hill" and then comparing it to what? eddy currents? How confusing your mind must be when you attempt to juggle such illusions.

You have not understood the issues in question, I am telling you nothing different than you could get from any chem professor. This is not a minor issue about which I might be mistaken, it is fundamental to a chemical education.

The universe is a closed system and the earth is part of that closed system - no exceptions.

A subset of a closed system is NOT a closed system, unless it is very carefully chosen to have no energy transfers outside of itself. The earth is no such system, it receives energy transferred from the sun, and will not give it back until everything that might have evolved on the earth is finished evolving.

If you could offer any scientific PROOF where the earth is exempt from the 2nd law, please tell me. Otherwise this is another invented strawman that has no basis in reality. Again, the 2nd law HAS NEVER FAILED when tested -

You don't understand the argument, apparently because you aren't clear that entropy, and the second law, are not the same thing. Get an introductory chem textbook and look at the definitions you are talking about for goodness sakes.

I believe the Big Bang, the 1st and 2nd law of Therm and Paley's Theory are the best that science has accomplished in terms of creation. I don't need to make excuses for what is obviously true. Independently, they say nothing about the supernatural, but taken together they have unshakable implications. This conclusion is a logical consequence of a collection of explanatory, scientific theories. Its legitimacy could be refuted by falsifying any of these theories. It is actually explanatory, logically self-consistent and testable.

Huh. Cosmic.

I did not quote any creationist site earlier but I will below. You are the one who distorts not me. You may, for example state that you have given me adequate responses but you haven't.

Please, show me where in this long, drawn-out article, where it is shown that the evolution of life causes an increase in entropy that is incommensurate with the localized entropy increase allowed by the energy contributed by the sun. I don't see it. I only see an attempt to obfuscate this very basic issue by dragging nebulous references to space aliens and the anthropic principle into the picture. I'm sorry you don't find my explanations adequate.

I'm going to try to explain this again. The biosphere is a very, very small part of the earth-sun thermodynamic system. A decrease in entropy in this constituent subsystem is very possible as long as the entropy of the whole system increases. That's all the 2nd law can tell us in this broad sense. If I'm wrong please show me one, just one, instant or discrete step where the 2nd law would have to be violated in a theorized evolutionary process.

The interesting question is "How does a real biological process, which goes from order to disorder, result in evolution. which goes from disorder to order?"

Apparently this is possible, because when you plant a seed, it transforms water and air (and a bit of soil) into a grown plant. No doubt that there's a localized increase in "order" here. One could just as well ask, : "How does a real biological process, which goes from order to disorder, result in growth and reproduction, which goes from disorder to order?" Certainly you don't suggest that God intervenes directly to break the laws of nature every time a seed sprouts. Growth, change and hence evolution in the biosphere doesn't break any thermodynamic laws either.

Because if you did understand the 2nd law rather than rely on cosmologists word-plays, you would understand how impossible it really is to defend.

Cosmology is another subject entirely. I thought we were talking evolution here? I do guess it's possible I don't understand the 2nd Law after several undergraduate and graduate courses studying statistical mechanics and thermodynamics. I guess the virtually the entire physics community on Earth doesn't understand it either, then, because they don't seem to draw the same conclusion that creationists do about the 2nd Law, either. Either way, I'm still waiting for that elusive explanation of exactly how evolution works against the 2nd law of thermodynamics - to be sure, the whole world awaits it.

The ID label has many disinterested and disagreeing proponents.

No doubt, however, the part where ID proposes that life was invented by something smart is what it's named after, and what we are arguing about in a Dover courtroom, and is the subject of this thread.

There is no cohesive, singular ID proposition other than that design of a particular object is recognizable by distinguishing attributes.

Namely, that it couldn't have occured naturally, I presume. Insufferable complexity is not ID, it is a supposed, but remarkably shy, piece of evidence in support of ID.

My hypothetical statement is "due to complexity and interdependence new living things can only arise from nonliving matter via intentional (i.e. intelligent) assembly."

right. insufferable complexity. Or close enough. A close kissing cousin to the brain-dead theory attributed to scientists by creationists, that lightning assembled protists instantaneously in a prehistoric mud puddle. Insufferable complexity is a mirage. At no point in life's history is it likely that anything evolved instantaneously, such as to make these phony insurmountable odds calculations about them meaningful.

Not every view in the ID camp is verifiable or falsifiable. But my assertion is both.

Yea, well, in theory. most any not-obviously self-contradictory hypothesis whatsoever is, in some sense, verifiable or falsifiable. That's insufficient by miles to quality as a science theory to be trumpeted on the cover of a science book.

When scientists are finally able to find any way of creating life, they will be putting my hypothesis to the test, whether intentionally or not. If they discover a mechanism of self assembly, it will falsify my statement. If they intelligently assemble a living organism, it will support (not prove) my hypothesis.

Which, along with a buck and a half, will buy you a cup of coffee.

Abiogenesis is not falsifiable. It might be verifiable. The difficulty of verification is unpredictable. Either way, abiogenesis does not qualify as a scientific hypothesis by the most commonly accepted standard of demarcation.

Abiogenesis is potentially falsifiable much in the same way that propositions such as "Therapsids are the direct ancestors of dinosaurs" are. Woese is sneaking up on life's origin in exactly this manner, by treating the mutational clocks of our smallest ancestors in a manner similar to that employed by paleontologists to investigate the ancestry of dinosaurs: by treating DNA as fossil evidence, of a sort, and making predictions about what will be be discovered that isn't presently discovered, and seeing these predictions either succeed or fail.

None of which, makes abiogenesis a science to presently take terribly seriously, much as is the case with your anti-biogenesis theory. Except that the biogenesis theory might have tangible odds of producing evidence. The theory that biogenesis could not ever occur by any means whatsoever will never produce reasonable evidence, because "any means whatsoever" is an infinite set.

Now wasn't THIS an odd post...
I can't figure out if you are questioning the historical fact of Jesus, or wondering why He hasn't come back yet...?

We share certain DNA molecules with every other plant and animal on the planet...I don't see how Vit C is somehow more indicative than any others you might name. I cannot argue on this basis- I am a historian, not an expert in DNA science. I have yet to see how the fact that I share DNA with kitties and daisies has offered ANY proof of evolution and far greater experts than any posting here don't see it either.

I beg to differ. Certain aspects of science are nothing MORE than matters of faith. Belief in evolution is certainly one of those. It takes faith to continue to believe in that which is, to date, unprovable.

You have missed the point- adaptation is NOT evolution. Neither is mutation. And neither of these "prove" that evolution is a fact.

And here are some more:
http://discovery.org/csc/topQuestions.php
http://actionbioscience.org/evolution/nhmag.html
There ARE NO FACTS SUPPORTING EVOLUTION..none, nanda, nein, not ONE.
And just for the cheap seats- I am not new to this site. I have been in here off and on for several years now under different names. Being in college- again- eats up my time.

There are no supporting facts in the fossil records- WHY won't you people do a little research? The fossil record was a great disappointment to the evolution crowd. There is NO missing link in ANY species, the latest bones found cannot be proven to have ANY connection to anything remotely human and the very best they can come up with is speculation and hopeful maybes.

THIS is your "proof"? Gee- I didn't spot Piltdown Man there- I guess you just forgot about him...