Posted on 12/22/2005 7:15:18 AM PST by Michael_Michaelangelo
Here's something that is lost in all these discussions of 'C' vs. 'ID'.
All creatures on the Earth, from the simplest VIRUS to MAN are imbued with an amazing INTELLIGENCE.
Each and every cell has it's own INTELLIGENCE and WILL TO SURVIVE.
Scientists speculate on LIFE's viability on other planets, in other galaxies, and what they have failed to realize is that it is almost IMPOSSIBLE to prevent life from surviving.
Every time we describe a place on Earth that we have determined that LIFE cannot exist, we have found later to be wrong.
Does LIFE exist on other planets?
One must realize that each PLANET is life in and of itself.
So,if one believes that life was just a lucky accident of the evolving of time on the spectral scale, intelligence would also be one of the evolving qualities.
But the truth is that every life form has had the same intelligence, and still does.
The very first life form (whatever you believe it was) was just as intelligent as you and I, and for proof, there is the fact that without it's intelligence for survival, you and I would not exist.
I'm new here, what is placemaker, ping...I think there are other words that mean other actions or responses.....
There are three ways to age the universe. The three easiest involve the expansion of the universe, the burning of the stars, and the abundances of radioactive elements.
From scientific evidence, lots of it...the universe is about 17 billion years old. How?
In billions
Relaxation times of star clusters - more than four
erosion on Mercury, Mars, and the moon - More than four
Star stream interactions in galaxies - more than eight
Expansion of the universe - 15.5 + or - 4.0
color-luminosity fitting - 18. + or - 2.4
nucleochronlogy - 17 + or - 4.0
deuterium abundance and mass density - 19.0 + or -
anthropic principles - 17.0 + or - 7.0
The mean age is about 17 + or - three billion years.
Accepted, but the point is that adairetron8 has defined the question as an epistemological one. That by definition renders all observable evidence moot, because the central question becomes whether or not we can trust observation.
The universe could have been created fifteen minutes ago and all the evidence and our memories planted by unknown parties for unknown reasons. I might actually be a twenty-seven-foot mutant space squid circling the Antares Nebula who has been zapped into thinking he's a five-foot-four male human sitting in a cheap knock-off of an Aeron chair.
You might actually be Angelina Jolie and I might actually be Brad Pitt. So, are you doing anything later?
The short answer is that our senses are the only means we have to comprehend the universe, and the scientific method is the best available method to synthesize those observations, explain past events and predict future events. It does not, and cannot, explain anything to a point of metaphysical certitude. But if I had to guess whether or not the sun would peek over the eastern horizon of my little sliver of Earth tomorrow morning, I know which way I'd bet.
First, peer review merely refers to an accepted process for granting access to publication in reputable literature. There is nothing "scientific" about peer review, and there is nothing requiring peer review in order that a theory be scientific. That is, it is neither a necessary nor sufficient condition for scientific qualification. Just a nice custom which keeps errors low.
Second, evolution is not a provable theory. There are no provable theories, only disprovable ones. Evolution qualifies as a scientific theory because it is disprovable. Creationism in many of its guises does not qualify as disprovable, because of the appearance of supernatural ingredients which lies outside of the realm of science.
Is it possible to produce a Creationist theory which is scientific? Yes. Here is one: living organisms were created by an intelligent designer who came from another planet. This is a scientific, creationist theory of life on earth. It's also disprovable. Just because it's wrong doesn't make it unscientific.
Some theory of creation by an intelligent, supernatural agent may be correct. But even if correct, it still isn't science.
But this one was different.
That chick scientist was so hot.
In some systems of measurement--the one in fact where most high energy theorists operate--h-bar = c = 1, and indeed, E=M.
Thanks. So that means that even measurement is relative. :-)
Interesting response. Then, we have to go with what we know based on our five senses (six in some), discernment what is God given, and have faith that what we experience on our own 4 dimensional capability. God has 9-11 dimensions that we can't even conceive of. Someone with a sixth sense is like a God to the average person.
We were created in the image of God, (our spirit), without the other dimensions what are out there. Basically, what we see is what we get. It's actually very simple.
To actually dive deep into philosophy is like jumping into a dense jungle without the stars, compass, or map. We have the stars and moon at night, the sun in day and thank God for Science a map and compass......:)
Angelina is something wouldn't you say.....
but since you mentioned it....Happy New Year
http://www.crazyclip.ws/movie/889455.html
http://www.crazyclip.ws/movie/870836.html
Tom
Thanks for the info. Any recommended reading?
However, I'm fair to looniness. Go on then, DISprove the theory of evolution. Prove your claim.
Hell, DISprove ANY of the accepted data and test-backed scientific theories. It's a well known and provable theory that the incidence of Lyme disease infected Ixodes dammini (AKA I. scapularus) ticks is directly dependent on the population density of white-footed mice and white tailed deer on ANY research site that contains deer ticks and that in order to negatively affect the tick population density, you need to lower the deer density to fewer than 8 per square mile and to negatively affect the incidence of Lyme disease infected ticks, you need to lower the mouse density to fewer than 5 per hectare. Go on, I've got all the data available to me...disprove that well known and test/observation proven theory (if you CAN disprove it, it's not a "theory", it's a worthless disproven hypothesis). Yeah, there "is no provable theory"....in some strange parallel universe.
I'm not talking peer-review as in the process by which a research paper gets accepted by a research journal, something I'm well versed in having published a few 1st-author papers myself. I'm talking those other scientists in the same field that can and will prove you wrong if your theory is wrong. You DO know that there are scientists out there who feel that their entire existence is to prove other scientists' theories wrong, don't you?
As for your creationist "theory", back it up with a single piece of testable data and MAYBE it can grow into a theory. What you've provided is nothing but a "hypothesis" which has no logical or empirical or measurable or testable or reproduceable basis, not a theory.....a statement that is not based in nor follows "science" in any manner. Once again, you must be using some other definition of "theory" than the scientific method definition. You need to make a prediction(s) based on your baseless hypothesis and THEN test those predictions by experiments or further observations...none of which has been done with your hypothesis, thus...no theory. Welcome to the world of science.
However, you CLAIM that your "theory" (hypothesis) of creationism is DISprovable.....DISprove it then.
Yes......"The Fingerprint of God" by Hugh Ross... "Creation and Time" by Hugh Ross. I have searched long and hard to find the right stuff. You get the Bible Fundamentalist on one side and the Satanist on the other..and somewhere in the middle is the truth.
I questioned most all the religions when I was growing up.....world religions in college (required course..) and really didn't take any serious. Then started the questioning...."Show me da Money" as they say. The truth came out......
One either believes in God or they don't. This is the basic premise of our existance. If we don't, then so be it, I can't judge that. The person just has to accept their fate and deal with life on their own. Never try to explain their existance just accept it and move on. Death will always become an unknown and the fear of death is certain.
If one does believe in God, then which God do they believe in. There is only one. Unless you believe in Greek Mythology...then you have 12 to pick from....:))) It kills me to hear, "My God wouldn't do that"!! Since when has any of us created a universe or created our own God? Johovah Witnesses believe that when they die they will inherit a planet and live happily ever after. Muslims believe or are taught to believe that if they Kill the infidels they will get to screw virgins....?? so which do you want...a planet or virgins. Me? Maybe the planet has virgins all over it....then I want to be a J. Witness. :) Just because we believe or want to believe doesn't make it true. We can't put God in a box and mold the very being that created the entire Universe into what we want.........doesn't work that way...We have to find the truth and live up to his standards the best we can. That is the hard part.
The other reading material.......let you spirit be your guide....you will know what the truth is with an open heart.
Convincing to who? Darwin thought a cell was a blob of protoplasm. Whatever you may think about evolution now, Darwin's 'account' was simply a pie in the sky idea of what he thinks may have occurred. He didn't have enough information to be all that 'convincing'.
These events are observed and interpreted by human minds using a "code" called language.
What code? The brain processes the input through electro-chemical cascades. No codes are involved.
There are NO proven theories in science. Your failure to comprehend this completely elementary point leads me to think you haven't even passed a junior high class on the scientific method. Please don't disgrace those of us who actually are scientists with your infantile rants.
Go on...prove any theory wrong. What you've failed to understand in your obviously uber-intellectual state of mind is that Popper was a PHILOSOPHER and his notions only made it so that a theory has to be OPEN to disproval, not that it has to be disproven. From your own source:
Falsifiability is an important concept in the philosophy of science that amounts to the apparently paradoxical idea that a proposition or theory cannot be scientific if it does not admit the possibility of being shown false.
Do you undetstand that with your uber-intelligence, or do I have to smarten it up for your obviously superior intellect to understand? Go on...prove the theory of evolution or any other theory wrong. Or is pathetic attempts at denigration all you have?
Funny, while you're so focused on your pathetic personal attacks, you don't even read your own sources:
In various sciences, a theory is a logically self-consistent model or framework for describing the behavior of a certain natural or social phenomenon, thus either originating from or supported by experimental evidence (see scientific method). In this sense, a theory is a systematic and formalized expression of all previous observations made that is predictive, logical, testable, and has never been falsified.
Left in bold for your uber-intellectual pleasure. Now, what is it about "has never been falsified" do you not understand? AND, they're not talking about "making things up", they're talking about Popper's notion of falsifiability.
No codes involved? What do you think language is but either spoken or written symbols representing things or concepts, i.e., a code. Language is not merely electro-magnetic blips in the brain anymore than the Mona Lisa is merely an image conveyed to the retina via photons assembled by cerebral activity into a recognizable oject d'art.
I doubt J disputes that language is a code. I think he is responding to your claim that cognition is effected through language - this is not the case. Nearly all of our cognition is unconscious. Other animals lack language yet are conscious and often capable of interesting cognitive feats although obviously far lesser than our own.
Wise men still seek Him... ><> +++
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.