Guardian – Dawkins and Coyne – Why I.D. doesn’t belong in science classrooms.

[Lothian]

Article (http://www.guardian.co.uk/life/feature/story/0,13026,1559743,00.html) Dawkins and Coyne argue that there are enough worthwhile debates within evolution without mudding the issue with the nonsense of I.D.

[bjornart]

Brilliant article! I think I'll slack off at work and instead work on my new theory that human skin colour is caused by sexual selection. People simply prefer mates with maximum contrast with their environment. :D (And if such theories have already been published, I'd appreciate a link.)

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

Excellent article. I like this paragraph:
In all cases there is a hidden (actually they scarcely even bother to hide it) "default" assumption that if Theory A has some difficulty in explaining Phenomenon X, we must automatically prefer Theory B without even asking whether Theory B (creationism in this case) is any better at explaining it. Note how unbalanced this is, and how it gives the lie to the apparent reasonableness of "let's teach both sides". One side is required to produce evidence, every step of the way. The other side is never required to produce one iota of evidence, but is deemed to have won automatically, the moment the first side encounters a difficulty - the sort of difficulty that all sciences encounter every day, and go to work to solve, with relish.

I also like the idea of a "cinematic record."

~~ Paul

[Mercutio]

Paul, regarding the paragraph you quoted...a prof of mine used to refer to that as the "if it's not the 4th of July, it must be Christmas" fallacy.

Makes the point, for those who don't see the problem at first.

[BillyJoe]

Quote from the article:

Intelligent design...no more belongs in a biology class than stork theory in a sex education class.That puts it in perspective. :)

BJ

[CFLarsen]

But it no more belongs in a biology class than alchemy belongs in a chemistry class, phlogiston in a physics class or the stork theory in a sex education class. In those cases, the demand for equal time for "both theories" would be ludicrous. Similarly, in a class on 20th-century European history, who would demand equal time for the theory that the Holocaust never happened?

Bingo.

[Iacchus]

Does a rose evolve? Or, does it simply unfold, according to its design?

[cyborg]

Originally posted by Iacchus
Does a rose evolve? Or, does it simply unfold, according to its design?

OOOOOHHhhhhhh, aaaahhhhhh.

No.

It evolves.

Unless you've got some evidence for your unfolding design of course.

[Iacchus]

Originally posted by cyborg
OOOOOHHhhhhhh, aaaahhhhhh.

No.

It evolves.

Unless you've got some evidence for your unfolding design of course. Why do gardners plant rose bushes if not to grow roses? The experiment is repeatable, you see.

[cyborg]

Originally posted by Iacchus
Why do gardners plant rose bushes if not to grow roses?

A gardener plants rose bushed to grow roses.

Therefore roses do not evolve but unfold.

Brilliant.

The experiment is repeatable, you see.

If the experiment is seeing how much crap you can come up with then it certainly is.

[Iacchus]

Originally posted by cyborg
A gardener plants rose bushed to grow roses.

Therefore roses do not evolve but unfold.

Brilliant.If you don't expect anything other than a rose to unfold, how does it evolve?

If the experiment is seeing how much crap you can come up with then it certainly is. No, the experiment here is to see how "blind" people can be.

[cyborg]

Originally posted by Iacchus
If you don't expect anything other than a rose to unfold, how does it evolve?

If a tree falls in the forest will the LA Lakers win the championship?

Oh, sorry, I thought this was just about asking meaningless questions.

No, the experiment here is to see how "blind" people can be.

Blind to what? That roses unfold not evolve because gardeners plant roses? That if I don't expect an unfolding rose it doesn't evolve?

I feel like I'm talking to someone who speaks a foreign language here.

[Iacchus]

From beginning to end, a rose appears to evolve as it unfolds. But, such is not the case. How so? Because the outcome (give or take a few stray variables) is almost always predictable. A rose simply unfolds as a rose, because it's inherent with its design. Given that, why shouldn't the unfolding of the Universe be any less predictable? ... according to its design that is.

[cyborg]

Originally posted by Iacchus
From beginning to end, a rose appears to evolve as it unfolds.

So it doesn't evolve only appears to do so...

Much like gravity appears to pull objects towards the ground whereas infact it is god pushing down upon them.

But, such is not the case. How so? Because the outcome (give or take a few stray variables) is almost always predictable. A rose simply unfolds as a rose, because it's inherent with its design. Given that, why shouldn't the unfolding of the Universe be any less predictable? ... according to its design that is.

Call me when you've got the deterministic equations that will allow you to predict the precise unfolding of the universe then get back to me. Until then you're just spouting psuedo-philosophical babble - tomorrow's weather isn't predictable let alone the outcome of the universe. Determinism isn't a given.

[Morwen]

Originally posted by Iacchus
From beginning to end, a rose appears to evolve as it unfolds.
You are using the word "evolve" in a completely wrong way for a discussion about evolution.

[Iacchus]

Originally posted by cyborg
... tomorrow's weather isn't predictable let alone the outcome of the universe. Determinism isn't a given. Predictable in what sense? In that we won't have any weather, period? Or, that we can't predict all the patterns, simply because we don't understand (there's the key) all the variables involved?

[Iacchus]

Originally posted by Morwen
You are using the word "evolve" in a completely wrong way for a discussion about evolution. If something unfolds according to its design, how can you speak of it in terms of something new or novel? In fact all you have is evidence of "timing," in a chain of events.

[Iacchus]

Originally posted by cyborg
Determinism isn't a given. Can you change the past? ... Determinism is a given.

[Mercutio]

Originally posted by Iacchus
No, the experiment here is to see how "blind" people can be. Blind? There are none so blind as those who will not see. You, Iacchus, actively avoid the scientific literature on these topics which you claim interest you so much. You are the blind one here.


As an aside, your "unfolding rose" analogy, having now been posted almost identically in 3 different threads (perhaps more that I have not seen) is bordering on spam. If your example has been slapped down in one thread, please do not use it in another. This is a small neighborhood; we bump into each other a lot here. You cannot expect that your readers will not have seen your example soundly refuted.

If, on the other hand, you can read your criticism and demonstrate that you are taking that into account when posting your same example again, that is an entirely different story. If you can demonstrate why it is that you do not think your example has been refuted, by all means go to it. But your habit of posting nearly the exact same post on several threads is more than merely annoying, it is spamming. And it is not the first time you have done this.

[drkitten]

Originally posted by Iacchus
If something unfolds according to its design, how can you speak of it in terms of something new or novel?

By using words with their conventional and correct meanings.

You should try it sometime. It's quite fascinating and would represent a refreshing change for you.

[Iacchus]

Oh I see, the only spamming we will have here is "collective spamming," correct? What a bunch of hypocrites! Oh, and the next time I post a thread and the dogs begin to line up around the block -- thinking the bitch is heat that is -- I'll be sure and let you know.

[hgc]

Originally posted by Iacchus
From beginning to end, a rose appears to evolve as it unfolds. But, such is not the case. How so? Because the outcome (give or take a few stray variables) is almost always predictable. A rose simply unfolds as a rose, because it's inherent with its design. Given that, why shouldn't the unfolding of the Universe be any less predictable? ... according to its design that is. A rose doesn't appear to me to evolve. It buds, grows, withers and dies. Rose bushes evolve from generation to generation. You can't possibly be this obtuse, but by design.

[Iacchus]

Originally posted by new drkitten
By using words with their conventional and correct meanings.

You should try it sometime. It's quite fascinating and would represent a refreshing change for you. In other words by "convention," you're saying you prefer to keep things the way they are? That in fact, you're not willing to look at anything new?

[c4ts]

Originally posted by Iacchus
Does a rose evolve? Or, does it simply unfold, according to its design?

False dichotomy. The rose's ancestors evolved the ability to unfold long before it was grown.

[Iacchus]

Originally posted by hgc
Rose bushes evolve from generation to generation. Yes, but what did they evolve from? Something that came prior to their development? Or, something that came after their development? At what point do you say it's not part of the overall design that things should evolve in the way that they do?

[drkitten]

Originally posted by Iacchus
In other words by "convention," you're saying you prefer to keep things the way they are?

Not in the slightest, but it's certainly in keeping with the rest of your verbal skills that that's how you misinterpret my writing.

That in fact, you're not willing to look at anything new?

On the contrary. I welcome anything new. However, willful ignorance, utter stupidity, the inability to address issues, or a vapid lack of critical thinking are, from you, nothing new.

[drkitten]

Originally posted by Iacchus
Yes, but what did they evolve from?

Their parents, which were other strains of roses. Before that, other, earlier, rose-like flowering plants. Before that, other, slightly less roselike flowering plants. Et cetera.

Something that came prior to their development?

Parents usually "come prior" to their children, yes.

At what point do you say it's not part of the overall design that things should evolve in the way that they do?

At the point where I begin to understand what the words "evolve" and "design" mean. For myself, this was quite a number of years ago. I eagerly and anxiously await a similar breakthrough in your level of understanding.

[Iacchus]

Originally posted by c4ts
False dichotomy. The rose's ancestors evolved the ability to unfold long before it was grown. Does time evolve? Or, does it unfold? Isn't this in fact what we're referring to what a rose does ... extended over time?

[Beleth]

Originally posted by Iacchus
Does time evolve? Or, does it unfold? Isn't this in fact what we're referring to what a rose does ... extended over time? You tell us.

[AK-Dave]

Originally posted by Iacchus
Does a rose evolve? Or, does it simply unfold, according to its design?

Why do you have to come along and defecate in almost every thread that I find interesting? This thread had nothing to do with evolution vs. whatever you keep spouting off about. It was a discussion about an article in the Guardian. If you don't want to talk about that article, go start your own thread or post in one that already addresses what you want to discuss. Don't hijack every thread that has anything to do with evolution just to post the same tired philosophy that you post in every other thread. I was enjoying reading what people had to say about that article. Since you posted this [Rule 8], no one has discussed the article. In my opinion, you are just another annoying troll, and I wish people would stop responding to your attempts to derail threads. At one time, I found your opinion interesting, if only because it was so different from mine, but you keep derailing threads I had been enjoying, and now I can't stand to see you post.

[Iacchus]

Originally posted by Beleth
You tell us. Time in and of itself does not change ... albeit it does transpire.

[Iacchus]

Originally posted by AK-Dave
Why do you have to come along and defecate in almost every thread that I find interesting? This thread had nothing to do with evolution vs. whatever you keep spouting off about. It was a discussion about an article in the Guardian. If you don't want to talk about that article, go start your own thread or post in one that already addresses what you want to discuss. Don't hijack every thread that has anything to do with evolution just to post the same tired philosophy that you post in every other thread. I was enjoying reading what people had to say about that article. Since you posted this [Rule 8], no one has discussed the article. In my opinion, you are just another annoying troll, and I wish people would stop responding to your attempts to derail threads. At one time, I found your opinion interesting, if only because it was so different from mine, but you keep derailing threads I had been enjoying, and now I can't stand to see you post. If I am not mistaken, this thread is a clear attempt to defecate upon the notions -- i.e., "nonsense" -- of ID. Which I, obviously, am a genuine skeptic of ... i.e., those who wish to defecate on ID. And yes, believe it or not, my ideas do stem from the notion of Intelligent Design, whether it's in league with the "Creationist's" version or not.

[Beleth]

Originally posted by Iacchus
Time in and of itself does not change ... albeit it does transpire. How do you know?

[Jon.]

The article was excellent! Well thought-out, well-argued and well-supported. Thanks Lothian for posting it. Now if we can just get it into some newspapers in the Excited States of America ...

[Oregon_Skeptic]

I thought roses bloomed, not unfolded. Maybe rose petals unfold?

Ya know, I was next going to post something witty and help take apart Iacchus’s argument, but then I realized and I don’t want to give that much time and energy to him or her. Right now, I’m just mostly disappointed that Iacchus is a fellow Oregonian.

[Upchurch]

Originally posted by Iacchus
If I am not mistaken, this thread is a clear attempt to defecate upon the notions -- i.e., "nonsense" -- of ID. Which I, obviously, am a genuine skeptic of ... i.e., those who wish to defecate on ID. And yes, believe it or not, my ideas do stem from the notion of Intelligent Design, whether it's in league with the "Creationist's" version or not. This post makes my head hurt. In the future, please make an effort to finish one thought before beginning another. Sticking to at least some of the rules of grammer wouldn't hurt much, either.

Intelligent Design has absolutely no scientific merit because it doesn't have any of the components of a scientific hypothesis, theory, or idea. Whether or not the notions of ID are nonsense is irrelevent. The topic of the thread is whether or not they belong in the science classroom.

If you want to stick up for ID, do you have any reasons to present as to why it belongs in the science classroom? Can you refute any of the arguments given either by the article or other posters in this thread?

[Lothian]

Originally posted by Iacchus
If I am not mistaken, this thread is a clear attempt to defecate upon the notions -- i.e., "nonsense" -- of ID. Which I, obviously, am a genuine skeptic of ... i.e., those who wish to defecate on ID. And yes, believe it or not, my ideas do stem from the notion of Intelligent Design, whether it's in league with the "Creationist's" version or not. Iacchus,

Thanks a lot for posting in the thread. I thought the article made an excellent point when it said that creationists provide no evidence merely try to find fault with evolution and come up with an unproven alternative with no scientific backing. You then come along and prove the point. Thanks, I think you make their point very well.

[Iacchus]

Originally posted by Upchurch
Intelligent Design has absolutely no scientific merit because it doesn't have any of the components of a scientific hypothesis, theory, or idea. Whether or not the notions of ID are nonsense is irrelevent. The topic of the thread is whether or not they belong in the science classroom.Irrelevant? ... Then why post it?

Originally posted by Lothian
Article (http://www.guardian.co.uk/life/feature/story/0,13026,1559743,00.html) Dawkins and Coyne argue that there are enough worthwhile debates within evolution without mudding the issue with the nonsense of I.D. Indeed ...

If you want to stick up for ID, do you have any reasons to present as to why it belongs in the science classroom? Can you refute any of the arguments given either by the article or other posters in this thread? As I have said, and continue to say, I am a firm believer in Intelligent Design. In fact, just about everyone of my posts allude to this, in one way or another. As for the Creationist's version of ID, I admit to not being fully up on it. However, here is an article (http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/index.php?command=view&id=2177&program=CSC&callingPage=discoMainPage) I found just recently, that seems to suggest my ideas are right at the top of the list.

[Iacchus]

Originally posted by Lothian
Iacchus,

Thanks a lot for posting in the thread. I thought the article made an excellent point when it said that creationists provide no evidence merely try to find fault with evolution and come up with an unproven alternative with no scientific backing. You then come along and prove the point. Thanks, I think you make their point very well. Oh, I have no problem with evolution per se', it's just that it's not what you think it is. It's an appearance, much in the way the earth was understood to be flat, when in fact it was round (or spherical).

[Mercutio]

Originally posted by Iacchus
As I have said, and continue to say, I am a firm believer in Intelligent Design. In fact, just about everyone of my posts allude to this, in one way or another. As for the Creationist's version of ID, I admit to not being fully up on it. However, here is an article (http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/index.php?command=view&id=2177&program=CSC&callingPage=discoMainPage) I found just recently, that seems to suggest my ideas are right at the top of the list. Did you finish reading it yet?

Iacchus, I find it amusing to hear you call yourself a "firm believer in intelligent design", when you know almost as little about ID as you do about natural selection! You merely believe that ID agrees with the fantasy you have cooked up in decades of ignoring libraries.

If you wish to call yourself a "firm believer", I challenge you to finish reading the article you linked to here, and to read the article I posted in the other thread which challenges yours. Otherwise, what basis do you have to call yourself a "firm believer"? You simply do not know enough about it (or its competition) to know that you believe in it.

[Lothian]

Originally posted by Iacchus
Oh, I have no problem with evolution per se', it's just that it's not what you think it is. It's an appearance, much in the way the earth was understood to be flat, when in fact it was round (or spherical). I beg to differ. You do have a problem with evolution.

[Upchurch]

Originally posted by Iacchus
However, here is an article (http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/index.php?command=view&id=2177&program=CSC&callingPage=discoMainPage) I found just recently, that seems to suggest my ideas are right at the top of the list. So, what specifically about this article do you feel uses any scientific process or research methodology to back the idea that ID is a scientific theory?

[Mojo]

Originally posted by Iacchus
Oh, I have no problem with evolution per se', it's just that it's not what you think it is. Well, since you have posted something in this thread about an individual rose flower evolving, I think it's safe to say that evolution, as the term is understood by anyone even remotely qualified to talk about it, is certainly not what you think it is.

Lets get this straight, shall we? Individual organisms do not evolve. Populations of organisms evolve. It's an appearance, much in the way the earth was understood to be flat, when in fact it was round (or spherical). No, it's a scientific theory, backed up by an enormous amount of evidence.

[Iacchus]

Originally posted by Mojo
Lets get this straight, shall we? Individual organisms do not evolve. Populations of organisms evolve. Do you mean like a population of living cells within a living a body?

Have you ever noticed how many "phases" of development a single organism can go through? Indeed, look at all the phases of development our "single" universe has gone through.

No, it's a scientific theory, backed up by an enormous amount of evidence. And do you realize that each moment -- not time itself, but that which is observed over time -- is a "hybrid" of each moment which preceded it?

[Iacchus]

If "change" is something which occurs within the parameters of time and space, there is nothing you can do to convince me that it wasn't "planned" that way. ;)

[Upchurch]

Originally posted by Iacchus
If "change" is something which occurs within the parameters of time and space, there is nothing you can do to convince me that it wasn't "planned" that way. ;) And this, very succinctly put, is why you are neither open minded nor a skeptic.

[c4ts]

Of course ID doesn't belong in science classrooms, it's not a science, it's a political statement!

[Soapy Sam]

Troll biscuits Ten cents a pound. Get ' em while they're hot...

[Iacchus]

So, how does a hair follicle evolve to be different from a single blood cell, when both are related to a single living ancestor?

[Upchurch]

Originally posted by Iacchus
So, how does a hair follicle evolve to be different from a single blood cell, when both are related to a single living ancestor? "evolve"? From the context, I think you mean "develop". And it's "organism", not "ancestor".

[Iacchus]

Originally posted by Upchurch
And this, very succinctly put, is why you are neither open minded nor a skeptic. Well, how would you account for change then?

[Lothian]

Originally posted by Iacchus
So, how does a hair follicle evolve to be different from a single blood cell, when both are related to a single living ancestor? Iacchus,

Thanks a lot for posting in the thread. I thought the article made an excellent point when it said that creationists provide no evidence merely try to find fault with evolution and come up with an unproven alternative with no scientific backing. You then come along and prove the point. Thanks, I think you make their point very well.

[Mercutio]

Originally posted by Iacchus
So, how does a hair follicle evolve to be different from a single blood cell, when both are related to a single living ancestor? Iacchus, do you really want an answer to this question? I mean, phrased differently, there really actually is an answer, involving the evolution of multicellular life forms, then the specialization of cells...You are absolutely right, each of those cells does have a single common ancestor (not a "living ancestor", because there you are not talking about evolution, but development. Of course, if you want to talk about embryology and cell differentiation from stem cells, that is also a question that does have an answer, although it is a completely different question than anything thus far in this thread.)

If you are truly interested in the questions you ask, you will be happy to find out that there are actually answers available to anyone willing to look for them. Start in any decent library, in the science section. Which area will, of course, depend on which of the questions you are trying to ask. In fact, it might take you quite some time in the library before you actually find out that you are currently asking parts of two different questions, and a bit longer to become familiar with the vocabulary to enable you to properly ask the questions. But, again, if you are truly interested in these questions, and not merely trolling, you should be able to find more in a month or two of reading than you have found in 2 decades of dreaming.

If you are asking these questions merely to try to poke holes in evolutionary theory, you might still benefit from some reading. Right now, as I said, your question confuses two very different topics, and as such does not so much poke holes in evolutionary theory as make you look like an idiot. I doubt very much you intended to look like an idiot, so if you wish to poke better holes in evolutionary theory, it is best if you learn something about it.

[c4ts]

Originally posted by Iacchus
Does time evolve? Or, does it unfold? Isn't this in fact what we're referring to what a rose does ... extended over time?

Errr... I know you're trying to sound poetic, but you seem to be saying that a species can change to an entirely different species throughout the course of its own lifetime, which isn't how evolution works! Living things don't "evolve" like Pikachu, okay? Real evolution is more like breeding dogs over millions of years, only the "breeder" is a set of natural conditions. Of course that's just the natural selection aspect of the theory, but at least it gives you somewhere to start.

The rose is going to grow into something that's recognizable a rose. The projected path of its evolution depends on what happens to roses over millions of years. A rose, when it grows from a seed, isn't reacting so much as developing.

[Morwen]

I like very much the article's stress on the fact that ID is only defined as objections to evolution and has absolutely no basis on, well, anything but religion. It truly poses no real alternative. I think I'll use that approach for now on.

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

Iacchus, it takes more work to be profound than merely changing the meanings of words and then uttering sentences with those words.

~~ Paul

[Oregon_Skeptic]

I finished reading the original article that started this thread—great stuff. My local newspaper has run two opinion letters in the same week trashing evolution and spouting ID/creationism as the alternative. One letter was from a reverend of a local Christian fundamentalist church, the other, though, was from a veterinarian. I had already started a reply to these, but now wish I could just reprint Dawkins and Coyne’s fine little work. In the least, I want to quote the line about stork theory in sex ed. Thanks, Lothian.

[Upchurch]

Originally posted by c4ts
Living things don't "evolve" like Pikachu, okay? Nice use of obscure pop-culture reference. :clap:

[c4ts]

Originally posted by Upchurch
Nice use of obscure pop-culture reference. :clap:

At least I didn't mention Star Trek.

[Iacchus]

Originally posted by Upchurch
"evolve"? From the context, I think you mean "develop". And it's "organism", not "ancestor". No, I mean "ancestor," as in an original cell.

[Iacchus]

Originally posted by c4ts
Errr... I know you're trying to sound poetic, but you seem to be saying that a species can change to an entirely different species throughout the course of its own lifetime, which isn't how evolution works! Living things don't "evolve" like Pikachu, okay? Real evolution is more like breeding dogs over millions of years, only the "breeder" is a set of natural conditions. Of course that's just the natural selection aspect of the theory, but at least it gives you somewhere to start.Remember, the Universe seems to have manifested itself from a single source. Why should it be so impossible then, to conceive of it as if it were a single seed which, is sown and ultimately grows (develops) into a tree? Of course one would then be faced with having to admit that everything that went into the creation of that tree must have existed prior to its creation. Now, for those who claim this is merely an attempt to trash evolution, without offering a possible alternative (the notion of a Creator), then it's entirely your loss.

The rose is going to grow into something that's recognizable a rose. The projected path of its evolution depends on what happens to roses over millions of years. A rose, when it grows from a seed, isn't reacting so much as developing. And the Universe is not going to grow/develop into something which is recognizable as a Universe? Why should the "mechanism" for change be any different in either case?

[Lothian]

Originally posted by Iacchus
Remember, the Universe seems to have manifested itself from a single source. Why should it be so impossible then, to conceive of it as if it were a single seed which, is sown and ultimately grows (develops) into a tree? Of course one would then be faced with having to admit that everything that went into the creation of that tree must have existed prior to its creation. Now, for those who claim this is merely an attempt to trash evolution, without offering any possible alternative (to a creator), then it's entirely your loss.

Why should the "mechanism" for change be any different in either case? Iacchus,

Have you read the article ?

The point being made is that I.D. does not belong in the science classroom. It (and you) prove no evidence that there has been design. It is a default that relies on faith as opposed to evidence.

There is I believe a place for ID is schools. It should be taught along with other beliefs within a historical context not a scientific one.

Imagine for a moment. That evolution had not been discovered. Explain I.D. and how it can be proved in the science labs. How it can predict future living creations ?

[Iacchus]

Originally posted by Lothian
Iacchus,

Have you read the article ?

The point being made is that I.D. does not belong in the science classroom. It (and you) prove no evidence that there has been design. It is a default that relies on faith as opposed to evidence. How much "faith" is necessary in order to plant a seed and watch it grow? It's an experiment which is quite repeatable.

[Lothian]

Originally posted by Iacchus
How much "faith" is necessary in order to plant a seed and watch it grow? It's an experiment which is quite repeatable. That is nothing to do with I.D..

Imagine for a moment. That evolution had not been discovered. Explain I.D. and how it can be proved in the science labs. How it can predict future living creations ?

[Iacchus]

Originally posted by Lothian
That is nothing to do with I.D..

Imagine for a moment. That evolution had not been discovered. Explain I.D. and how it can be proved in the science labs. How it can predict future living creations ? I'm not disavowing that the world around us exists (regarding the notion of evolution), I'm just saying it's round instead of flat. ;)

[Lothian]

Originally posted by Iacchus
I'm not disavowing that the world around us exists (regarding the notion of evolution), I'm just saying it's round instead of flat. ;) So does ID belong in the science classroom ?

[Mojo]

Originally posted by Iacchus
Do you mean like a population of living cells within a living a body? No, I meant populations of organisms, as I stated in the post.

[Iacchus]

Originally posted by Lothian
So does ID belong in the science classroom ? If it can be presented in a plausible and acceptable manner, then yes it does.

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by Iacchus
If it can be presented in a plausible and acceptable manner, then yes it does.

......so.........do you think it can?

[Lothian]

Originally posted by Iacchus
If it can be presented in a plausible and acceptable manner, then yes it does. Explain the I.D. hypothesis without reference to evolution.

How can it be tested ?

Explain how it can predict the future ?

[Iacchus]

Originally posted by Lothian
Explain the I.D. hypothesis without reference to evolution. Whose ID hypothesis are you referring to here? The one that the article refers to -- which, I admit I know little about -- or mine?

How can it be tested ?What, the theory? How do you account for the fact that most scientists believe in determinism? ... if I'm not mistaken that is. ;)

Explain how it can predict the future ? Basically you have the same tools at your disposal as you do now. It's just a matter of realizing that things don't happen by chance and, that the only reason why things appear to occur at random, is because we don't have the ability to understand all the variables involved. Which is to say, we are not omniscient.

[Lothian]

Originally posted by Iacchus
[B]Whose ID hypothesis are you referring to here? The one that the article refers to -- which, I admit I know little about -- or mine?I.D. as it is commonly understood, about which the article was written and about which this thread is concerned.
What, the theory? How do you test "God did it"

Basically you have the same tools at your disposal as you do now. It's just a matter of realizing that things don't happen by chance and, that the only reason why things appear to occur at random, is because we don't have the ability to understand all the variables involved. Which is to say, we are not omniscient. Tools like knowledge of evolution ? I.D. is incompatable with evolution. To accept 'evolution tools' denies creationism.

[Iacchus]

Originally posted by c4ts
Of course ID doesn't belong in science classrooms, it's not a science, it's a political statement! Yes, I agree, such a scenario is quite possible.

[Iacchus]

Originally posted by Lothian
I.D. as it is commonly understood, about which the article was written and about which this thread is concerned. It's not become quite clear that I'm a proponent of Intelligent Design?

How do you test "God did it" How else would you explain it if the whole thing -- in every single last detail -- was conceived beforehand?

Tools like knowledge of evolution ? I.D. is incompatable with evolution. To accept 'evolution tools' denies creationism. I think the key word here is "change," and the mechanism by which change occurs.

[Iacchus]

Originally posted by Lothian
Tools like knowledge of evolution ? I.D. is incompatable with evolution. To accept 'evolution tools' denies creationism. I never said I was a creationist ... albeit I do believe in a Creator.

[cyborg]

I think the key word here is "change," and the mechanism by which change occurs.

You're not proposing a mechanism - you're proposing a philosophy. You've basically proposed something that cannot be verified - i.e. that evolution is merely an illusion of a deterministic universe that had it's function call setup by an intelligent being that wanted something that looked like evolution to occur. You can't ****ing prove that and don't pretend otherwise.

[Iacchus]

Originally posted by cyborg
You're not proposing a mechanism - you're proposing a philosophy. You've basically proposed something that cannot be verified - i.e. that evolution is merely an illusion of a deterministic universe that had it's function call setup by an intelligent being that wanted something that looked like evolution to occur. You can't ****ing prove that and don't pretend otherwise. I think it would be fair to say that most people believe in cause-and-effect. Don't you?

[Mojo]

Originally posted by Iacchus
How else would you explain it if the whole thing -- in every single last detail -- was conceived beforehand? Before using this statement as part of your argument, you need to demonstrate that "the whole thing -- in every single last detail -- was conceived beforehand."

[Iacchus]

Originally posted by cyborg
You've basically proposed something that cannot be verified - i.e. that evolution is merely an illusion of a deterministic universe that had it's function call setup by an intelligent being that wanted something that looked like evolution to occur. Things occur as a matter of course ... and there is nothing random about it.

[Lothian]

Iacchus, We might be getting somewhere. Even to the stage where you can give a straightforward answer to a simple question.

I appreciate that you have your own notion of I.D.

I called the ‘official licensed patented copyrighted version� nonsense. The version you admit to knowing very little about.

So.

Do you think that the version of I.D. advanced by creationists which you know very little about should be taught in science lessons or do you not know enough about it to have an opinion.

[cyborg]

Originally posted by Iacchus
Things occur as a matter of course ... and there is nothing random about it.

Quatnum mechanics disagrees. Unless you'd like to win the Nobel by showing otherwise of course... random emphasis

[Mojo]

Originally posted by cyborg
You're not proposing a mechanism - you're proposing a philosophy. You've basically proposed something that cannot be verified - i.e. that evolution is merely an illusion of a deterministic universe that had it's function call setup by an intelligent being that wanted something that looked like evolution to occur. You can't ****ing prove that and don't pretend otherwise. Iacchus, read what Cyborg posted again. Note the phrase "You've basically proposed something that cannot be verified." This is precisely why ID has no place in science lessons. Waffling on about cause and effect does not address this issue.

[Iacchus]

Originally posted by Mojo
Before using this statement as part of your argument, you need to demonstrate that "the whole thing -- in every single last detail -- was conceived beforehand." Perhaps you can begin by looking at it and tell me how it wouldn't?

[Mojo]

Originally posted by Iacchus
Perhaps you can begin by looking at it and tell me how it wouldn't? There you go again. You're asking me to disprove your proposal because you know damn well that you have proposed something that cannot be verified (or falsified, for that matter). This kind of nonsense is not science. It has no place in science lessons.

[Lothian]

Originally posted by Iacchus
Perhaps you can begin by looking at it and tell me how it wouldn't? Does the whole thing as in "the whole thing -- in every single last detail -- was conceived beforehand." Include the thing that conceived everything ?

[Iacchus]

Originally posted by cyborg
Quatnum mechanics disagrees. Unless you'd like to win the Nobel by showing otherwise of course... random emphasis Well guess what, even if free will were the basis of everything -- which, I believe it is -- you still can't pull it off without determinism. What is free will, more specifically the will to live, without any rules to constrain it and give it definition? How would it manifest itself, if there was no cause-and-effect?

[Iacchus]

Originally posted by Lothian
Does the whole thing as in "the whole thing -- in every single last detail -- was conceived beforehand." Include the thing that conceived everything ? No, because then there would nothing by which anything is conceived. That which I'm referring to as being conceived by the way, is the "physical" universe.

[Iacchus]

Originally posted by Mojo
There you go again. You're asking me to disprove your proposal because you know damn well that you have proposed something that cannot be verified (or falsified, for that matter). This kind of nonsense is not science. It has no place in science lessons. There is nothing nonsensical about a seed which is planted in the soil and grows into a tree. And do you know what's funny, according to the article (http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/index.php?command=view&id=2177&program=CSC&callingPage=discoMainPage) I linked to, even Darwin maintained a similar belief about God and evolution. So why should they refrain from mentioning this in the classroom?

[Lothian]

Originally posted by Iacchus
No, because then there would nothing by which anything is conceived. That which I'm referring to as being conceived by the way, is the "physical" universe. What created the thing that conceived the physical universe ?

[Iacchus]

Here's an interesting book review from Amazon.com ...

Finding Darwin's God: A Scientist's Search for Common Ground Between God and Evolution (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0060930497/104-1006733-9389550?v=glance)

From Publishers Weekly

Though he takes a different tack than Wyller (above), Miller tries to draw a straight line between two apparently opposing ideas: the theory of evolution and belief in a creator. In a more humanistic account than Wyller's, Miller, a professor of biology at Brown University, explains the difference between evolution as validated scientific fact and as an evolving theory. He illustrates his contentions with examples from astronomy, geology, physics and molecular biology, confronting the illogic of creationists with persuasive reasons based on the known physical properties of the universe and the demonstrable effects of time on the radioactivity of various elements. Then standing firmly on Darwinian ground, he turns to take on, with equal vigor, his outspoken colleagues in science who espouse a materialistic, agnostic or atheistic vision of reality. Along the way, he addresses such important questions as free will in a planned universe. Miller is particularly incisive when he discusses the emotional reasons why many people oppose evolution and the scientific community's befuddled, often hostile, reaction to sincere religious belief. Throughout, he displays an impressive fairness, which he communicates in friendly, conversational prose. This is a book that will stir readers of both science and theology, perhaps satisfying neither, but challenging both to open their minds.And no, I haven't read the book!

[Mojo]

Originally posted by Iacchus
There is nothing nonsensical about a seed which is planted in the soil and grows into a tree. No, but that's not what you were proposing. You were proposing that Originally posted by Iacchus
the whole thing -- in every single last detail -- was conceived beforehand ... and ... Originally posted by Iacchus
That which I'm referring to as being conceived by the way, is the "physical" universe. You are proposing an entity which, before the universe existed, conceived the universe. Believe it or not, this is not the same thing as a tree growing from a seed.

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

Iacchus said:
Well guess what, even if free will were the basis of everything -- which, I believe it is -- you still can't pull it off without determinism. What is free will, more specifically the will to live, without any rules to constrain it and give it definition? How would it manifest itself, if there was no cause-and-effect?
Could you define free will, please?

~~ Paul

[Upchurch]

Originally posted by Iacchus
And do you know what's funny, according to the article (http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/index.php?command=view&id=2177&program=CSC&callingPage=discoMainPage) I linked to, even Darwin maintained a similar belief about God and evolution. So why should they refrain from mentioning this in the classroom? First, what you refer to as "evolution" is not the same as Darwin's definition of "evolution", so you and Darwin don't have a similar belief about God and evolution.

Second, you have yet to clarify what it is about that article that you feel shows the merit of ID as a scientific theory in its own right.

Third, Darwin's own religious beliefs, whatever they may be, are irrelevent to his scientific theories. I'm sure Darwin had his favorite foods to eat and books to read, too. Should all his non-science related opinions also be taught in the science classroom?

[Iacchus]

What are you all a bunch of playback machines? Define ... define ... define ... Something tells me I'll never be able to tell you what you want to hear. Oh well, only goes to show that you've fully bought into this deterministic notion of things. Does a machine in and of itself experience free will? No, of course not. Only the operator experiences free will.

[drkitten]

Originally posted by Iacchus
What are you all a bunch of playback machines? Define ... define ... define ... Something tells me I'll never be able to tell you what you want to hear.

That may in fact be correct, but I will give you a hint anyway.

What we want to see is a logical argument, backed up by evidence and accepted interpretations of words, strung together in a valid and rational form.

Can you provide this?

[Iacchus]

Originally posted by Mojo
You are proposing an entity which, before the universe existed, conceived the universe. Believe it or not, this is not the same thing as a tree growing from a seed. It's the same principle. The knowledge of the tree was conceived/existed beforehand. The knowledge which brought about the fulfillment of the Universe, already existed in its Universal shell.

[Mercutio]

Originally posted by Iacchus
There is nothing nonsensical about a seed which is planted in the soil and grows into a tree. And do you know what's funny, according to the article (http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/index.php?command=view&id=2177&program=CSC&callingPage=discoMainPage) I linked to, even Darwin maintained a similar belief about God and evolution. So why should they refrain from mentioning this in the classroom? Ok, so you don't want to define. Could you at least point to where in the article it says that "Darwin maintained a similar belief about God and evolution"? I did not see it anywhere. If you are speaking of the sentence you highlighted in blue once, please re-read it, because it does not say what you thought it did. Of course, you could be refering to some other part, but since you said you only read the first few paragraphs, I doubt it.

Where, in your linked paper, does it say anything about Darwin's beliefs about God and evolution?


eta: I am afraid this is what happens when the people you argue with read your paper, and you don't read it yourself.

[Iacchus]

Originally posted by new drkitten
That may in fact be correct, but I will give you a hint anyway.

What we want to see is a logical argument, backed up by evidence and accepted interpretations of words, strung together in a valid and rational form.

Can you provide this? Do you wish to contend that the Universal seed sprouted from nothing?

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

Iacchus said:
What are you all a bunch of playback machines? Define ... define ... define ... Something tells me I'll never be able to tell you what you want to hear. Oh well, only goes to show that you've fully bought into this deterministic notion of things. Does a machine in and of itself experience free will? No, of course not. Only the operator experiences free will.
Oh yeah, we wouldn't want any of that pesky definition crap. Then you couldn't spew about terms like free will with abandon, and you would be forced to clarify your own thinking.

~~ Paul

[c4ts]

Originally posted by Iacchus
Remember, the Universe seems to have manifested itself from a single source. Why should it be so impossible then, to conceive of it as if it were a single seed which, is sown and ultimately grows (develops) into a tree?
I'm not the one who says the universe is an organism. It makes no sense. The universe does not eat or reproduce. Its energy would have to come from somewhere outside itself, and that violates thermodynamics as we know it! When someone talks about cosmic "evolution," they mean that the universe has changed over time. It's a different definition of the word and it is not the same as Darwin's theory of evolution. You're making a bad comparison and you are confusing yourself in the process.

Of course one would then be faced with having to admit that everything that went into the creation of that tree must have existed prior to its creation. Now, for those who claim this is merely an attempt to trash evolution, without offering a possible alternative (the notion of a Creator), then it's entirely your loss.
You don't even know what you're talking about anymore. Organic growth requires cell division and specialization. What the universe does (and has been doing) is expand and cool. It's a completely different process.

And the Universe is not going to grow/develop into something which is recognizable as a Universe? Why should the "mechanism" for change be any different in either case?

You don't need any kind of intelligence to plan exactly where and in what exact pattern all the shrapnel is going to land if you detonate a grenade. According to you, all the fragments are "growing" into their specific places and the final resting points were marked out from the beginning. Your "theory" is a mere teleological fallacy.

[Iacchus]

Originally posted by Mercutio
Where, in your linked paper, does it say anything about Darwin's beliefs about God and evolution? Actually, this was my interjection. It was of my understanding that Darwin had still maintained his belief in God (in some documentary I saw way back when) while developing the theory of evolution. While I guess, according to some other article (http://shiftjournal.com/spirituality-02-suevolutio.html) I just read, he died as an agnostic.

[Iacchus]

Originally posted by Paul C. Anagnostopoulos
Oh yeah, we wouldn't want any of that pesky definition crap. Then you couldn't spew about terms like free will with abandon, and you would be forced to clarify your own thinking.

~~ Paul I don't force myself to do anything, not even when it comes to taking a crap ... well, at least for the most part. :p

[drkitten]

Originally posted by Iacchus
Do you wish to contend that the Universal seed sprouted from nothing?

No, because I do not believe that there is or ever was a "Universal seed."

And, I note, that what you presented is not a logical argument, nor is it backed by any sort of evidence. So evidently, the answer to your earlier rhetoric might be "no, you can't."

[Iacchus]

Originally posted by c4ts
I'm not the one who says the universe is an organism. It makes no sense. The universe does not eat or reproduce. Its energy would have to come from somewhere outside itself, and that violates thermodynamics as we know it! When someone talks about cosmic "evolution," they mean that the universe has changed over time. It's a different definition of the word and it is not the same as Darwin's theory of evolution. You're making a bad comparison and you are confusing yourself in the process.Did you know that the Universe -- or, at least a specific part of it -- was sentient?

You don't even know what you're talking about anymore. Organic growth requires cell division and specialization. What the universe does (and has been doing) is expand and cool. It's a completely different process. As if to say none of it originated from the same place?

You don't need any kind of intelligence to plan exactly where and in what exact pattern all the shrapnel is going to land if you detonate a grenade. According to you, all the fragments are "growing" into their specific places and the final resting points were marked out from the beginning. Your "theory" is a mere teleological fallacy. So, what's the difference between a seed taking root and the Universe taking root? None. Because it all has the same beginning!

[drkitten]

Originally posted by Iacchus
Did you know that the Universe -- or, at least a specific part of it -- was sentient?


Well, I'm sentient, and I'm part of the Universe.

So I would say yes, I knew that.

Did you know that the Universe -- or at least part of it -- likes pepperoni and olive pizzas?

Did you know that the entire planet -- or at least part of it -- is under more than a mile of water?

Did you know that the Universe -- or at least part of it -- is hotter than ten thousand degrees Celsius?

Did you know that my car -- or at least part of it -- weights less than ten grams?

Did you know that there is a difference between the statements that "X has property Y" and "part of X has property Y"?

[Iacchus]

Originally posted by c4ts
Its energy would have to come from somewhere outside itself, and that violates thermodynamics as we know it!Ever hear of the term induction?

You don't need any kind of intelligence to plan exactly where and in what exact pattern all the shrapnel is going to land if you detonate a grenade. According to you, all the fragments are "growing" into their specific places and the final resting points were marked out from the beginning. Yeah, it sure sounds like determinism to me.

[Iacchus]

Originally posted by new drkitten
Did you know that there is a difference between the statements that "X has property Y" and "part of X has property Y"? When c4ts mentioned that the Universe doesn't eat or reproduce, it brought up the notion that something is produced and maintained. Meaning it's not just sitting there, "collecting dust" so to speak.

[drkitten]

Originally posted by Iacchus
When c4ts mentioned that the Universe doesn't eat or reproduce, it brought up the notion that something is produced and maintained. Meaning it's not just sitting there, "collecting dust" so to speak.

I see. So the fact that something in the universe eats means that the universe itself eats?

And the fact that something in the universe watches TV means that the universe itself watches TV?

What channel?

[Iacchus]

Originally posted by new drkitten
And the fact that something in the universe watches TV means that the universe itself watches TV?

What channel? The Discovery Channel, no doubt. Ever get a chance to see American Choppers? (http://dsc.discovery.com/fansites/amchopper/amchopper.html) It's one of my favorites. ;)

[Lothian]

Iacchus

I know you have been busy and may have overlooked a couple of questions. Perhaps you could answer them now,


Do you think that the version of I.D. advanced by creationists which you know very little about should be taught in science lessons or do you not know enough about it to have an opinion.


What created the thing that conceived the physical universe ?

[Iacchus]

Originally posted by Lothian
Do you think that the version of I.D. advanced by creationists which you know very little about should be taught in science lessons or do you not know enough about it to have an opinion.No, I don't know enough about it to have an opinion. However, if it goes so far as to support the Creastionist notion that the world was created in six days -- literally -- then I would have to say no.

What created the thing that conceived the physical universe ? If you can't accept what I've attempted to advance so far, then that answer would have to be nothing. Which, of course puts us right back to where we started from. Or, does it?

[Lothian]

Originally posted by Iacchus
No, I don't know enough about it to have an opinion. However, if it goes so far as to support the Creastionist notion that the world was created in six days -- literally -- then I would have to say no.So, as far as the topic of thread goes, you have no opinion. Thanks for the non-opinion you have presented thus far.

If you can't accept what I've attempted to advance so far, then that answer would have to be nothing. Which, of course puts us right back to where we started from. Or, does it?
Us ? It has no effect on us. However, it give you a big inconsistency problem with your argument.

[Iacchus]

Originally posted by Lothian
So, as far as the topic of thread goes, you have no opinion. Thanks for the non-opinion you have presented thus far. And need I remind you that you're the one who said ID was nonsense?

Originally posted by Lothian
Article (http://www.guardian.co.uk/life/feature/story/0,13026,1559743,00.html) Dawkins and Coyne argue that there are enough worthwhile debates within evolution without mudding the issue with the nonsense of I.D. What an ass!

[Phrenolo]

As a more frequent lurker rather than poster, I am pleased to so often encounter expertise, insight, and even wit within this forum…


And then there is lacchus …

[Lothian]

Originally posted by Iacchus
And need I remind you that you're the one who said ID was nonsense?

What an ass! No need. I stand by my statement, but am prepared to be persuaded if you can show otherwise. And thanks, my ass is my best feature.

BTW the I.D. to which I refer is the commonly known I.D. as referred to in the article.
Not that I think for a moment that your ID is not nonsense it is just I have not seen your theory in all its glory (or perhaps I have !).

[Mojo]

Originally posted by Iacchus
No, I don't know enough about it to have an opinion. So why are you posting in a thread about it?

Oh.

I see.

'Nuff said.

[Mojo]

Originally posted by Iacchus
It's the same principle. The knowledge of the tree was conceived/existed beforehand. The knowledge which brought about the fulfillment of the Universe, already existed in its Universal shell. No, it isn't. The seed and the tree that might grow from it both exist within the universe. The alleged entity that "concieved" the universe before it existed could not possibly have existed within the universe before the universe existed, because the universe didn't exist before the universe existed.

Note for most of the posters here: Sorry if this is a bit repetetive and obvious, but I'm trying to put it in terms that Iacchus can't fail to understand, whether he likes it or not.

[Mercutio]

Originally posted by Iacchus
So, what's the difference between a seed taking root and the Universe taking root? None. Because it all has the same beginning! Are you saying there is no difference between organisms at all? They all have the same beginning, do they not? So Algae and Redwoods, Whales and Lichens, in your scheme of things, they are all the same thing?

This is not a rhetorical question; I would actually like an answer. Do you think these things are the same, or are they different? If they are different, how so?

[Iacchus]

Originally posted by Mercutio
Are you saying there is no difference between organisms at all? They all have the same beginning, do they not? So Algae and Redwoods, Whales and Lichens, in your scheme of things, they are all the same thing?

This is not a rhetorical question; I would actually like an answer. Do you think these things are the same, or are they different? If they are different, how so? No, I'm saying that the "mechanism" for change is the same, not that all things are the same. However, since all things are interconnected and come from the same place, it does help to illustrate how similarly composed things really are. Especially when we begin to speak in terms of their atomic and molecular structure.

[Iacchus]

Originally posted by Mojo
No, it isn't. The seed and the tree that might grow from it both exist within the universe. The alleged entity that "concieved" the universe before it existed could not possibly have existed within the universe before the universe existed, because the universe didn't exist before the universe existed.

Note for most of the posters here: Sorry if this is a bit repetetive and obvious, but I'm trying to put it in terms that Iacchus can't fail to understand, whether he likes it or not. Do you believe that the Universe we live in is finite? If so, then how does this compare to infinity? Is it possible that the finite is but a "subset" of the infinite?

[Mojo]

Originally posted by Iacchus
Do you believe that the Universe we live in is finite? I don't know. I do know that it is, by definition, universal. Proposing entities existing outside the universe is neither verifiable nor falsifiable and therefore has no place in science classrooms. That's what this thread is about.If so, then how does this compare to infinity? Is it possible that the finite is but a "subset" of the infinite? It is also possible to have an infinite subset of the infinite (try dividing infinity by 2 and see what you get). But this has no bearing on what's being discussed here.

[Iacchus]

Originally posted by Mojo
I don't know. I do know that it is, by definition, universal. Proposing entities existing outside the universe is neither verifiable nor falsifiable and therefore has no place in science classrooms. That's what this thread is about.So what was there before the advent of time and space? Are you saying this can't be "preached" in the classroom either?

It is also possible to have an infinite subset of the infinite (try dividing infinity by 2 and see what you get). But this has no bearing on what's being discussed here. Except where do you draw the line? Because at the moment you do it becomes finite.

[Mojo]

Originally posted by Iacchus
So what was there before the advent of time and space? I don't know. Things that (hypothetically) exist outside the universe are not observable. Are you saying this can't be "preached" in the classroom either? And there you have it. "Preaching" has no place in science classrooms. Science deals with the observable universe.

Originally posted by Iacchus
Originally posted by Mojo
It is also possible to have an infinite subset of the infinite (try dividing infinity by 2 and see what you get). But this has no bearing on what's being discussed here.

Except where do you draw the line? Because at the moment you do it becomes finite. Are you trying to suggest that an infinite set can't have an infinite subset?

[cyborg]

Are you trying to suggest that an infinite set can't have an infinite subset?

Don't expect a sensible answer - I think 1+1=2 is as far as his maths education ever got. Throwing set theory at him is just going to get you non-sensical responses.

[Iacchus]

Originally posted by Mojo
I don't know. Things that (hypothetically) exist outside the universe are not observable. Albeit there must be "something" there. Are you suggesting that the origin of the Universe should not be discussed then? That would be like saying, "Well, we have all this empirical evidence before us, but it doesn't mean anything, because we don't know where it came from." Wow, what a revelation!

And there you have it. "Preaching" has no place in science classrooms. Science deals with the observable universe.Which, in fact is based upon no-thing. Yep, you're right, it does "smack" of religion. :D

Are you trying to suggest that an infinite set can't have an infinite subset? I'm just saying it's not an easy concept to grasp, because once you try to define it, you've placed boundaries on it, and it no longer becomes infinite. This is why I kind of leave it as an open question in my mind.

[Mercutio]

Originally posted by Iacchus
Albeit there must be "something" there. Why do you think so? Neither evidence nor logic suggests it. You certainly have given no reason; do you have one you could share?
Are you suggesting that the origin of the Universe should not be discussed then? What exactly leads you to this interpretation of what was said? Of course the origin of the Universe is something to examine. But such an examination is not merely a license to make **** up.
That would be like saying, "Well, we have all this empirical evidence before us, but it doesn't mean anything, because we don't know where it came from." Wow, what a revelation!Please explain the logic that leads to this conclusion. Or, if you prefer, quit speaking of scientific topics until you have done the legwork to be able to understand the words you are using.


Which, in fact is based upon no-thing. Yep, you're right, it does "smack" of religion. :D
Once again, Iacchus, the only one using the "nothing" (or no-thing) strawman is you. If you are going to misrepresent science, don't be surprised if your misrepresentation looks like religion.

I'm just saying it's not an easy concept to grasp, because once you try to define it, you've placed boundaries on it, and it no longer becomes infinite. This is why I kind of leave it as an open question in my mind. No, understanding it does not somehow make it no longer infinite. But perhaps this explains why you go out of your way to not understand so many things. It's ok, Iacchus--understanding something is actually a good thing...

[Iacchus]

Originally posted by Mercutio
Why do you think so? Neither evidence nor logic suggests it. You certainly have given no reason; do you have one you could share?The Universe makes too much sense not to have an origin dude. ;) In fact it almost begs us to question it as if it were some kind of entity, because it has supplied us with all the answers to just about everything else. Don't you feel like the Universe is talking to you personally when you examine it?

What exactly leads you to this interpretation of what was said? Of course the origin of the Universe is something to examine. Which of course becomes a problem when we bring up the notion of a Creator, correct? I'm beginning to smell a rat.

But such an examination is not merely a license to make **** up.Never said it was, dude.

Please explain the logic that leads to this conclusion. Or, if you prefer, quit speaking of scientific topics until you have done the legwork to be able to understand the words you are using.Only when you're prepared to quit speaking of the metaphysical, when you have no idea what you're talking about.

Once again, Iacchus, the only one using the "nothing" (or no-thing) strawman is you. If you are going to misrepresent science, don't be surprised if your misrepresentation looks like religion.Well, if you're going to misrepresent religion, don't be surprised if your misrepresentation looks a lot like science ... I guess?

No, understanding it does not somehow make it no longer infinite. But perhaps this explains why you go out of your way to not understand so many things. It's ok, Iacchus--understanding something is actually a good thing... I understand that you don't understand what the word transcendant means.

[Jekyll]

Originally posted by Iacchus
I understand that you don't understand what the word transcendant means.
NietzscheI teach you the overman. Man is something that shall be overcome [surpassed]. What have you done to overcome [surpass] him? All beings so far have created something beyond themselves; and do you want to be the ebb of this great flood and even go back to the beasts rather than overcome man? What is the ape to man? A laughingstock or a painful embarrassment. And man shall be just that for the overman: a laughingstock or a painful embarrassment.
Tell me Iacchus, do you ever feel intellectually stagnated in this world you've created for yourself? Isn't it time to move on to something more interesting?

[Iacchus]

Originally posted by Jekyll
Tell me Iacchus, do you ever feel intellectually stagnated in this world you've created for yourself? Isn't it time to move on to something more interesting? Oh, I agree with Nietzsche. Especially when we pass on and become spirits which, are far more superior to anything we can conceive of in this world. If you're asking me if I'm ready to die, however, I don't believe that time has come yet. ;)

[Jekyll]

Originally posted by Iacchus
Oh, I agree with Nietzsche.
I assure you, you don't. Maybe you would like to read some of his work before saying that?

[Iacchus]

Originally posted by Jekyll
I assure you, you don't. Maybe you would like to read some of his work before saying that? Why, was he some kind of a god or something? Or, why do you find the need to immortalize his words? One doesn't have to have faith in Nietzsche -- or, anything else for that matter -- in order to have faith in oneself.

[Jekyll]

Originally posted by Iacchus
Why, was he some kind of a god or something? Or, why do you find the need to immortalize his words?
Oh, I respect intellegence.

[Iacchus]

Originally posted by Jekyll
Oh, I respect intellegence. So, do you believe we should ascribe a sense of immortality to intelligence? Immortal words to live by, correct?

[Jekyll]

Originally posted by Iacchus
So, do you believe we should ascribe a sense of immortality to intelligence? Immortal words to live by, correct?
No.

[Iacchus]

Originally posted by Mercutio
Are you saying there is no difference between organisms at all? They all have the same beginning, do they not? So Algae and Redwoods, Whales and Lichens, in your scheme of things, they are all the same thing?

This is not a rhetorical question; I would actually like an answer. Do you think these things are the same, or are they different? If they are different, how so? You know what they say, "There's a time and place for everything." How so? Because it all came from the same place. In which case it's just a matter of "timing" before "things" pop up. Of course you know what I'm referring to here is holism. And, why shouldn't holism -- in line with what holism means -- manifest itself from that which is whole? ... God that is. Can you find any fault with what I'm saying here? I don't see how you could, notwithstanding your aversion towards the word "God."

[c4ts]

For someone who says he seeks knowledge, Iacchus works very hard at not learning about evolution.

[Mojo]

Originally posted by Iacchus
Originally posted by Jekyll
I assure you, you don't. Maybe you would like to read some of his work before saying that?
Why, was he some kind of a god or something? Iacchus, do you really have to believe that someone is "some kind of a god" before you're prepared to read their work?

I guess that explains a lot. :rolleyes:

[Deetee]

Scene: Science Class, Primary year 5A.

Lacchus: “Good morning class. Today we will elaborate on Intelligent Design theory. Now, imagine a rose-bud, and visualise it evolving into full bloom. Sorry, you over there, do you have a question?�

Johnny: “Yes Sir. Rose blooms don't evolve. That's nonsense - and I know 'cos my dad’s a horticulturalist who specialises in flowers.�

Lacchus: “Well, you admit it appears to change – so I say evolve. Same difference. I mean, change happens within the parameters of time and space. This is only a primary science class- I don’t think we need to get too caught up in the niceties of precise scientifically-accurate definitions of things now, do we? Better keep things general, OK? Things change because their creator meant them to change.�

Johnny: "Are you a creationists then?�

Lacchus: "You never heard me say that! I merely believe the universe was planned and created by a creator - that is quite different.�

Johnny: “You “believe�? – does that mean there is no evidence for creation?�

Lacchus: “Now there you go getting all specific-scientific on me again. Don’t take words I say so literally, then I can make out they mean whatever I subsequently want them to mean at the time I said them. You should try it – it’s a good strategy for discussions on anything that sounds remotely scientific.�

Susie: “Sir, do you always talk in riddles?�

Lacchus: “Well, I am not saying the world does not exist, I’m just saying it’s round instead of flat.�

Sally-Anne: "Do we have to all do this Unintelligible Designer stuff – it’s so boring!�

Lacchus: “Providing it can be presented in a plausible and acceptable manner, then yes you do.�

Sally-Anne: “What’s plausible mean?�

Johhny: “That’s one of those weasel words that means they are lying to you.�

Lacchus: “Now now, children! I don’t think you understand the concepts of the changing universe, and cause and effect. Imagine a seed growing into a tree…�

Susie: “You mean like we did in Mrs Jones’ gardening project?�

Johhny: “Are you here just to talk about roses and trees and stuff? I have enough of that from my dad – Can’t you explain or define what you mean- This is a science class......where is the SCIENCE??�

Lacchus: “A seed growing is an experiment. It is quite repeatable – and I think that’s one of those science-thingy requirements. Is that not good enough for you? What are you, a bunch of playback machines? ...."Science, science, science�, “Define this…Define that.� Puhlease, I ask you!"

Johnny: “I’m going to fetch the Principal.�

Lacchus: “Did you know that the Universe -- or, at least a specific part of it -- was sentient?�

Sally-Anne: “I want some pepperoni pizza!�

Kids: “Yay!�

Lacchus: “Part of the Universe is watching the Discovery Channel as I speak! All things are interconnected and come from the same place! I don’t know enough about aliens to offer an opinion!

Principal: “There he is! I’m sorry officer, I haven’t a clue how he got into the school. We’ll order an internal security review immediately.�

Doctor: “Just relax and hold your arm still. No-one is going to hurt you.�

Lacchus: "There is a time and a place for everything! This is my time and place.....I can fly! I’ve evolved!!�

[Iacchus]

Originally posted by Mojo
Iacchus, do you really have to believe that someone is "some kind of a god" before you're prepared to read their work?

I guess that explains a lot. :rolleyes: No, it just shows that I don't believe in the same gods that you do. Mine is ever-present, and speaks to me in the moment. So it isn't necessary to learn Him in that sense.

[Mojo]

Originally posted by Iacchus
No, it just shows that I don't believe in the same gods that you do. Mine is ever-present, and speaks to me in the moment. So it isn't necessary to learn Him in that sense. Nobody (apart from you, of course) has suggested that Nietzsche is a god. Once again, you are misrepresenting other people.

To repeat my question, are you ever prepared to read works written by non-deities? Or do you just rely on what you imagine your "god" tell you?

[Iacchus]

Originally posted by Mojo
Nobody (apart from you, of course) has suggested that Nietzsche is a god. Once again, you are misrepresenting other people.

To repeat my question, are you ever prepared to read works written by non-deities? Or do you just rely on what you imagine your "god" tell you? Now, I do read things as a matter of course, but I rarely read things for the sake of reading. Perhaps because I already "have" an active imagination? ... In other words why else do people read, if not to "stir" the imagination?

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

Iacchus said:
Now, I do read things as a matter of course, but I rarely read things for the sake of reading. Perhaps because I "already" have an active imagination?
I think people are suggesting you try some nonfiction.

~~ Paul

[Iacchus]

Originally posted by Paul C. Anagnostopoulos
I think people are suggesting you try some nonfiction.

~~ Paul When I read -- whether it's reading the ingredients on a can of soup or, a "how-to" manual -- this is just about all I read. Rarely do I read for the sake of "entertainment," however.

[Mercutio]

Originally posted by Iacchus
When I read -- whether it's reading the ingredients on a can of soup or, a "how-to" manual -- this is just about all I read. Rarely do I read for the sake of "entertainment," however. Nor for education, nor enlightenment.

Do you still claim to be actually interested in finding the answers to the big questions you ask?

[Mojo]

Originally posted by Iacchus
In other words why else do people read, if not to "stir" the imagination? To educate themselves; to acquire reliable information.

[Iacchus]

Originally posted by Mercutio
Nor for education, nor enlightenment.

Do you still claim to be actually interested in finding the answers to the big questions you ask? I am educated, and I am enlightened ... and one of these days I will die and pass on to the life which I have been enlightened to.

[drkitten]

Originally posted by Iacchus
I am educated, and I am enlightened

But demonstrably not in philosophy, science, or mathematics.

[Iacchus]

Originally posted by new drkitten
But demonstrably not in philosophy, science, or mathematics. It's all in the mind afraid, and you have to understand this before you can pass on to science and mathematics. This in fact is what makes the whole thing philosophical. ;)

Or, was this something you didn't understand for yourself?

[Mercutio]

Originally posted by Iacchus
It's all in the mind afraid, and you have to understand this before you can pass on to science and mathematics. This in fact is what makes the whole thing philosophical. ;)
So you assert. Again. While all evidence points to the conclusion that you simply do not understand. Occam's Razor, you know.

Or, was this something you didn't understand for yourself? Yes, I am sure that must be what is the case...





:dl:

[Iacchus]

Originally posted by Mercutio
So you assert. Again. While all evidence points to the conclusion that you simply do not understand. Occam's Razor, you know. Of course, whatever suits you. ;) However, for those of us who know better, it doesn't suit us at all now does it?

[Mojo]

Originally posted by Iacchus
Of course, whatever suits you. ;) However, for those of us who know better, it doesn't suit us at all now does it? Unfortunately, reality doesn't necessarily comply with what suits you. If the way things are doesn't suit you, that's your problem.

[Iacchus]

Originally posted by Mojo
Unfortunately, reality doesn't necessarily comply with what suits you. If the way things are doesn't suit you, that's your problem. Reality suits me just fine.

[Mojo]

Originally posted by Iacchus
Reality suits me just fine. http://news.bbc.co.uk/media/images/38046000/jpg/_38046786_tailors150.jpg

[Iacchus]

Hey I'm not gay, if that's what you think. ;)

[Mojo]

No, I was just thinking of the catch-phrase. ;)

[Beerina]

Originally posted by Iacchus
From beginning to end, a rose appears to evolve as it unfolds. But, such is not the case. How so? Because the outcome (give or take a few stray variables) is almost always predictable. A rose simply unfolds as a rose, because it's inherent with its design. Given that, why shouldn't the unfolding of the Universe be any less predictable? ... according to its design that is.

Growth of an organism from seed to adulthood is not "evolution" in the biological sciences sense.

And, to be sure, it does unfold per the chemical programming language in its DNA. But that language is obviously not programmed by some Designer due to myriad observations of inefficiency, odd decisions, and intermediate structures from earlier stages of evolutionary history that have no purpose in the current organism.

[Renfield]

Originally posted by Iacchus

No, the experiment here is to see how "blind" people can be.

Then I think you have inadvertantly proven your own point, but not in the way you were hoping to.

[c4ts]

Originally posted by Beerina
Growth of an organism from seed to adulthood is not "evolution" in the biological sciences sense.


We've all tried to explain it to him, but he sticks to his metaphor anyway. No wonder Plato's Socrates hated artists, if they acted anything like this!