Posted on 10/20/2005 8:00:33 PM PDT by Rudder
one of those tools that are required is faith. science is based on realistic models observed by humans. science has already taught us that we are only capable of observing a tiny fraction of the real universe. because of this, science will always be an imperfect observation tool rather than a de facto statement of reality. Thus, faith will always be a requirement in some form or fashion from our limited vantage point.
Of course Heisenberg's Principle only works in the field of Quantum Mechanics. In the macro world of reality, everything's certain....
I think genetics proves evolution. Humans are genetically related to all other life forms. Like Darwin argued against the intellectuals of his time, why would God in all his glory and infinite qualities would make his creation from such a small reserve of elements?
And now we know that hydrogen is the source of everything in universe. Nuclear reaction of hydrogen eventually created everything from stars in distant galaxies to gold under the rocks to my nails.
Perhaps God created hydrogen.
"war on peace" Is this related to the WOT?
Absolutely!
There's a possibility than anything you can conjure might be true.
That's why scientists express their findings in terms of probablities (which is ignored by the MSM because their reporters cannot fathom the concept).
Well, well..., I'm so glad to know that I need to be force fed bad science becuase more "data" supports it. Right now, more "data" supports global warming than not. I suppose I'll just have to shut up and believe it to be the truth.....
Complex systems analysis in general will share many of the same means and outcomes. ID tries to address something that evolutionary theory doesn't, and that is a pattern in the rules of the Universe themselves (e.g. math, physics) are appear human like to a human.
Complex systems ID doesn't say much about what to do with the information once it's demonstrated. The human historical context often immediately clothes ID, but ID doesn't require it.
"I think genetics proves evolution." You had me at "I". /sarc
Glad to hear you say this. I've a friend with 40+ patents in the fields of RF & Microwave Technology. He's often told me that anything imaginable is possible. In his words-- "If you can imagine it, God (or the Universe) will supply you with the tools to manifest it in the real world."
Who am I to argue with someone whose IQ is 100 points higher than mine...?
We use science(i.e. observing nature and how it works -- not why or deeper meanings) to know things that were supernatural before.
A lot of those things that were supernatural 200 years ago are not credited to God anymore(atleast in the educated west, lol). In fact, today nothing in the natural(universe) is credited to the supernatural divinity. I would prefer it to remain that way than to have knowledge and emotion tied up.
But that's just me.
And i can safely say that this is one theory that will remain untested...lol I agree with you. My point was that what if the diversity was greater than that .16% as it would have to be to go along with your quantum leap theory. if not, we are back to the incremental gradual changes theory that doesn't appear to be supported according to that article. so if one in a million produce viable offspring, what would happen if the common genetic material was less than 99.84%? The instance of viable offspring would be far less and at a certain point impossible, right?
I think it was James Rosenthal and his book, The Experimenter Effect, that showed despite herculean efforts, experiments could still be biased.
But still, blind faith, as in creationism or ID, without empirical observation is a slippery slope toward the end of inquiry.
Yeah, a zipper in my jeans that doesn't pinch my...
A collection of totally random events produces a predictable distribution. The human interpreter automatically seeks patterns which are understandable to human terms, even if they are known to be inaccurate. That, to me, is the beauty of science because it seeks accuracy despite the bias of the observer.
As it seems to have to be pointed out on every bloody thread. No, evolution is not a theory "like" gravity. Gravity is an observation seeking an explanation. Everyone lives with gravity. Everyone does not live with macro-evolution. Evolution is an explanation looking for an observation - quite backwards of the typical model. And evidences are viewed in the light of that explanation, not the other way around. When you proceed from your conclusions as evolutionists have done, anything is possible. Evolution is a sham that has to hide behind legitimate science because it cannot stand on it's own.
That's why these twerps need the ACLU and government intervention to protect them. Without that, they wouldn't stand a chance.
Absolutely, 100% incorrect.
The planets in orbit around the sun we observe, and the theory we have to explain the motion of the planets is called the theory of general relativity. Layers of rock and sediments and the mid-Atlantic ridge we observe, and the theory of plate tectonics we have to explain how our planet changes over time. Likewise, the fossil evidence and comparitive genetics we observe, and the theory we have to explain how life changes over time is the modern synthesis theory of evolution, comprised of Darwin's theory of natural selection, Mendel's theory of inheritence, and modern theories of molecular genetics that have come about since the discovery and description of the DNA molecule in the 1950s by Watson, Crick, Wilkins, and others.
You are obviously an objectivist and you assume your own argument. I'm not of the von Mises school of probability.
There's no more beauty to science than to a leaf, each demonstrating some variant of complexity conservation.
Science is nothing more than compressing the bias for humans to understand anyway. Most of 'real science' that exists can't fit inside a human's brain case, and only poorly approximated by add multitudes of them.
To even stipulate that sufficient rules regarding the Universe can be intuited by an average human is a facet of ID.
One has to love how these straw men evolve from the thoughts of those who are supposed to be the brightest among us. They want us to believe based upon faith that biological systems arose from lifeless sludge and acquired the huge information content by accident. Probability and mathmatics must be wrong, so wrong that they edit together phoney progressions of the development of horses and elephants and embryology so that it presents a picture that is not just misleading but one that has yet to be discovered in nature.
I am a strong believer in directed evolution, I just believe that there is a mechanism which allows clear direction and response to the environment. I theorized that the junk DNA wasn't junk and that it probably stored behavioral data something which is being confirmed in studies of voles and I think that we will find the web of life far more awesome the more we decode what is actually going on but one thing we are finding is that beyond basic mutations that macroevolution is not just rare but a highly unlikely event yet from the fossil record we see not gradualism but fireworks. The I.D. proponents even though some are clearly biblioreductionists are at least honest in pointing out the fireworks and stand in awe where as too many "mainstream scientists" treat the fireworks as if they are ufos and seem to have an unecessary fetish with minimalizing humanity through their ultrasimplification of the so called descent from apes.
Some amazing things happenned in a matter of a few million years to produce humanity a series of complex changes in an array of genes occurred, two chromosomes merged, hormonal levels went off the charts. One naturally has to ask why it is so hard to teach the reality of the uniqueness of the human race on this planet? They teach children they are monkeys so are we surprised they act like them? These same type of changes can be found in domesticate animals in similiar time periods. Domesticated plants are even more interesting when compared to their wild counterparts. It is almost as if something special did happen beyond simple breeding techniques by early man.
Science is no closer to figuring out how life arose in the beginning than they were when Stanley Miller first performed his famous experiment showing that some basic amino acids could be produced in a controlled experiment which is only a degree different than heating a special combination of sand and being able to produce cpu grade silicon. No one would ever reach the "commonsense" conclusion that microchips could arise by themselves because of such an experiment. Subsequent experiments have shown a huge number of problems, the racemic nature of chemical reactions, the tendancy of sugars and amino acides to form tars, the irreducible complexity of enzymic reactions and cell nanomachinery.
Michael Denton and W.R. Bird are a couple of my favorite authors which detail many of the questions yet unsolved concerning evolution and will help deprogram many who grew up with a cartoon impressions of evolution much as many grow up with cartoon impressions of God. Darwin was an honest man it is too bad his defenders forget he was just a man who was the first to admit the limits of his theory. Stephen Jay Gould was another such honest man who provided me my introduction to evolution and his ideas about punctuated equilibrium though I believe flawed make his worked well worth reading and I still admire him and his bravery for daring to suggest other mechanisms than pure natural selection for evolution. May he rest in peace and may we all be humbled and regardless of our disagreements at least enjoy the fireworks.
http://www.iscid.org/michael-denton.php
http://charles-darwin.classic-literature.co.uk/book-store/0840768818/The-Origin-of-Species-Revisited-The-Theories-of-Evolution-and-of-Abrupt-Appearance.html
http://www.annonline.com/interviews/961009/biography.html
http://science.monstersandcritics.com/news/article_1018752.php/Junk_DNA_makes_voles_better_dads
Well I think Einstein might disagree with you regarding the natural universe and divinity. When you make the statement that science and faith (emotion) can somehow be separated, you are undermining some prominent scientific theories...ie how do quarks appear to exist in two places at once? Well, they just do. This is the answer that science gives us right now. Now if that isn't faith, I don't know what is. If you are really being fair about it, there are a lot of things that were considered scientific fact 200 years ago that are obviously not so today. I think you would agree that this in no way reflects on the ability of science to explain the universe do you?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.