Intelligent Design
POSTED BY: rue
UPDATED: Tuesday, August 16, 2005 17:04
VIEWED: 14833
PAGE 10 of 14
I remember when we were told to eat margerine, 'cause butter was 'scientifically proven' to raise your cholesterol, therefore BAD for you. As a kid it made no sense to me that something people ate for centuries was 'suddenly' bad for you. I continued with the butter.
Now it is known that margerine is lacking in Qmega-3's, and it's crappy oils used in the cell walls of your body directly help to cause aortic anurisms and such...
Seems to me everything is pretty much theory. ID, Evolution,...the healthyness of margerine...
You pretty much have to go with your gut instinct on matters of faith, 'cause theories are always changin'.
Hey didn't the T-Rex used to stand perfectly upright Chrisisall
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Finn:
The cat has a 1 in 3 chance.
Chance 1 = the cat dies
Chance 2 = the cat lives
Chance 3 = the system is never observed, and the state of the cat is never known.
And I completely agree with your initial statement = "...just because we don’t or can’t know fully the velocity and position of a particle doesn’t mean that it is random."
About the coin toss. When I was in high school some friends (5) and I decided to flip coins and record thier results. We did this to gather data for a computer program. The test was to see how close the computer could come to matching real world randomness... if such a thing exists. Anyway, we did this for five days during lunch period near the band hall. On the fourth day we rolled 80+% of one state. We were all a little confused since each took a turn at 'rolling' the die. Friday returned the results to normal, being around 50% +/- about 2% in tolerance. Either way, the computer program (written in Pascal at the time) never came close to matching the oddity that happened on Thursday.
Atomkey
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
How about the subconscious factor? When a variance occured couldn't one or more in the group have tossed the coins (dice?) in just the way to produce even more variance just 'cause it was interesting, but without consciously attempting to? I know that at my job I have to bundle one dollar bills into groups of twenty, and when I try to grab exactly twenty off the pile, I can never quite do it; but when I'm in automatic mode, not thinking too much, I 'accidently' grab exactly twenty, most times!
Amazing what you can do when you don't think so hard Chrisisall
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Perfessergee:
ID is not a science? There are many archeologist that would seriously disagree with you. But if you insist that a non-science should not be taught in school, then we should also rule out the following:
Football. Basketball. Anything ending with BALL.
Better yet = all sports. For they have no scientific bearing on anything except = who has the freaking ball...
How about band? Cheerleading. Drivers ed. Shop class. Home ec? Beauty school. Special ed?
Theatre arts. Or better anything that is considered an art. Painting, drawing, composing, be it prose, poetry, etc. I could go on for quite some time. You have generalized without using the scientific method itself. In fact, any decent scientists worth his/her salt would NEVER disregard ANYTHING even if it seems impossible.
I suggest to you that without the warm embrace of a possible reason and intelligent purpose that no one would create anything that could ever evoke an emotion. And with the cold line of science alone, we are no more than insects with the ability to build.
My apologies to all insect life in the event they do have emotions.
Atomkey.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
CHRISISALL:
You make a fiar point. And it was considered at the time. But there is no way to prove it in a precise way. I do agree, the mind has a way of generating desired effects (in some cases) that are not explainable. Not to get metamind on you, but maybe the 'coins' themselves wanted a change of state. Anyway - die = dice = anything with 2 or more states. Hince a coin is a two sided dice. Anyone for D&D?
Actually you can have a zero sided dice in logic.
JJ.
Atomkey.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by perfessergee:
...ID should be taught as science in science classes...
ProffesserGee was talking about science class. The folks that believe in ID don't tend to come by it through scientific investigation, right? Scientifically, isn't ID kind of a "throw up your hands" theory; we can't thoroughly explain the diversity of species, so it must be God?
HKCavalier
Hey, hey, hey, don't be mean. We don't have to be mean, because, remember, no matter where you go, there you are.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
HKCavalier:
Well - yeah. But ID and Religion are two different things. Consider an excerpt =
Religion = An organized method of faith or belief practice.
Belief = Specific guidelines; An operand of religion. That is, what the religion teaches; A method of operation (such as company policy).
Faith = Knowing that what you believe is true without direct evidence. Furthermore, seeing it could actually diminish it, even though it would still be true.
Science = Knowing what you observe is true and persistent as far as nature or your perception allows (usually through the Scientific Method). Something subject to precedent. Proof by observation.
Denomination = Divisions of anything, usually money(s) or religion(s).
Politics = Any defined system for manipulating society in regards to: religion, science, belief, and faith. The word ‘manipulating’ is often substituted with any of the following: Directing, Guiding, Controlling, Regulating, Overseeing, Developing, Nurturing, etc… The function of most political engines is to obfuscate the obvious by diluting it in a trained-truth ‘en mass.
Politicians = seed planters. Their spiritual counterpart can be the pastor, the deacon, the bishop, the cardinal, the guru… The just-about-anything.
Government = A paid-for system that uses politics like ‘believers’ subscribe to religion.
Truth = What everyone wants, no one has, all are looking for, and none can buy. By definition of itself, it is what it is. As a result, the Truth must therefore exist.
ID is not Religion.
Religion is a BELIEF based on FAITH.
Evolution is a BELIEF based on THEORY.
Intelligent Design is a METHOD of bringing the TWO together.
Just my opinion.
Atomkey
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Why not teach all theories in science class, no matter what the degree of proveability (as long as they have SOME scientific refrence, I don't mean we should teach Quantum Tooth Fairy Mechanics, or anything...)?
Broad minded Chrisisall
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Citizen:
I half agree with you. And the quote from Einstien has always been with me. "God does not play dice with the universe." When I imagine an atom, I see it like a micro-solar system. I believe the sub-atomic paricles are on a particular course, and that they are NOT in some random position. I believe this because things I observe on a maco level (over time) seem to perform the same way. If I could take a snapshot of the solar system, each planet (particle) would be in a specific position. But since I can observe the whole thing by model, I can project the past and future positions with good accuracy.
I would like to postulate the ideal of how an atom behaves was (is) based on what we can observe with our naked eye. Think of how many things have a nucleus; a center around which all else revolves. The atom is in constant motion. This motion allows it to bind with other atomic 'things.' Would it not make sense to say they would have to behave in a cooperative motion (way) that would cause them to be stable? If one solar system looses a particular motive (a body moves out of position), then does it not effect others? So if one atom, next to another, suddenly has a sub-atomic change in position, do they not de-stabilize? Is this not how nuclear reactions are instigated? I honestly may be completly wrong here. I don't know much about Nuclear Physics.
Either way, the stange attractors model is what I am basing this all on...
Also - do you know anything about those huge tanks of purified water that are deep underground - they are attempting to catch a decaying particle on record.
Atomkey.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Concerning the issue of randomness, have any of you read Stephen Wolfram's "A New Kind of Science"? Or any of his papers on complexity? Fascinating stuff, and a fair bit over my head, but I remember his conception of randomness that related directly to his studies of cellular automata.
His notion was that a process is random if it is completely without pattern. In as much as a recognizable pattern is what allows us to employ short cuts, like mathematically applying the laws of physics for example, the lack of any discernable pattern is what makes a given process unpredictable and therefore, random. Another way to put it is that randomness exists when there is no 'shorter description' of an event than the event itself.
But what he discovered (well, he thinks it was his discovery, anyway) with his studies was that very simple, deterministic, reaction rules can produce what appears to be completely random behaviour. Those simple deterministic rules of interaction, along with the initial state, constitute a shorter description.
Anyway, you end up with the question - is something random when a pattern or 'shorter description' is not discernable, or only if one truly does not exist? Basically he sides with the first answer, as the second is really far too restrictive to relate to our intuitive notion or randomness and impractical to use in any case.
Hope that wasn't too much of a tangent, but the topic intrigues me. 
SergeantX
"Dream a little dream or you can live a little dream. I'd rather live it, cause dreamers always chase but never get it." Aesop Rock
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME