Critique of Intelligent Design

[cwes99_03]

P.S. The message of scripture was never designed to be forced, only offered freely to those who would accept it. Any logical or physical persuasiveness tends to bypass the prerequisite humility and openness.

 

How does one offer freely, without adding some sort of persuasiveness or bias?

 

Is everyone capable of understanding religious thought, considering everyone is a product of their environment and the most crucial part of that environment is what they learn as a very young child?

 

Is it wrong for someone to offer to teach someone else their beliefs and use persuasive arguments?

[GAHD]

Isn't ID reminisant of the Scientology group? then again the good old boys at strand beast are using an intelligent design.

[Southtown]

Is it wrong for someone to offer to teach someone else their beliefs and use persuasive arguments?

I prefer the term "fruitless"... :)

“

But the natural man does not receive the things of the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him; nor can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned.”

— 1 Corinthians 2:14 (New King James Version)

Perhaps I should clarify: I meant "persuasive" in a more brutal fashion, as seen often concerning religion. You can't make peace by going to war, so-to-speak.

[damocles]

i'm under the impression that the universe is 8-14 billion years old. the initials ID stand for intelligent design. intelligent design of what ? of the universe!! if the universe was created 10 billion years ago, wasn't this long before man made up the theory of ID ? and whatever theories man has to offer about anything, does that have any bearing on whether or not

intelligent design occurred ? the answer is NO in case someone doesn't get it.

 

The answer to that question is yes.

 

a. Best guess is that the universe is closer to 1.3*10^13 years in existence.

b, If we can observe it, analyze it, model it, what is the problem with our modelling the universe?

c. Why do IDers insisat that humans are limited observers? Information is a byproduct or rather a direct attribute of an event- a word which could be defined as the distribution of information across an interval or a discrete set boundary.

d. Here is a hint. The telescope is a time machine. The speed of light limits the velocity of information distribution via electro-magnetism which is the reason why we would like to experimentally determine the rate of information distribution by that other long range binding force-gravity. If it too is c limited then we have a GR confirmation that will re-inforce a lot of what we understand with complete confidence about this universe cosmologically speaking.

-that means that the supposition that the light that comes at us from objects we estimate from red shift to be eleven billion years distant is actually eleven billion years old absoliutely if we have two experimental checks for the doppler shift independent of each other.. That is a snapshot of a piece of sky eleven billion years ago.

-so to claim that observing conditions of the early universe is impossible for humans and using those conditions as the basis for analysis shows again a FUNDAMENTAL misunderstanding of the reality we model.

[Southtown]

The answer to that question is yes.

 

a. Best guess is that the universe is closer to 1.3*10^13 years in existence.

LOL "yes... probably." What if the 3123 turned out to have nothing to do with motion? :) Can you say, "house of cards?" And he huffed and he puffed...

[cwes99_03]

13,000,000,000,000? I believe you mean 1.3x10^10 which is 13 billion years ago. Otherwise post your source for that number.

 

http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/age_universe_030103.html

 

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/1158419.stm

 

http://www.lhup.edu/~dsimanek/cutting/ageuniv.htm

 

By time machine, you mean window to times past, not machine. It allows you to see something 13 billion light years away, whose light left that system and has been traveling for 13 billion years now before it reached your eye, but time has marched on for it.

 

whatever theories man has to offer about anything, does that have any bearing on whether or not intelligent design occurred ? the answer is NO

 

He's right, our theories today do not change what has happened, only our understanding of how it happened, and our future, as those theories might affect our actions toward future goals.

[C1ay]

I have read evidence for the flood that surpasses rhetorical reasoning against evolution, even though I find abiogenesis/common descent theory hysterically adept.

One of the problems with acceptance of evolution is thinking that it is more than it is. Evolution does not claim any particular origins of life so it does not specify abiogenesis. Although some theorists think abiogenesis is resposible for life does not mean it is true or that it has a bearing on the legitimacy of evolution. There is plenty of evidence to support the theory that evolution is responsible for some speciation and common descent. There are clearly some gaps that are unexplained and no one can conclude that evolution will ultimately explain all of them. I think it is possible for instance that some life may have begun via abiogenesis and other life may have been transferred here from places afar in the universe, IOW, maybe there is more than one origin of species on this planet. Mind you, I'm not claiming that this is so, only that it is possible since I cannot rule it out.

 

In summary, people should not rush to throw out evolution because of what a few claim it to be because some will claim that it is more than it is.

[damocles]

13,000,000,000,000? I believe you mean 1.3x10^10 which is 13 billion years ago. Otherwise post your source for that number.

 

http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/age_universe_030103.html

 

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/1158419.stm

 

http://www.lhup.edu/~dsimanek/cutting/ageuniv.htm

 

By time machine, you mean window to times past, not machine. It allows you to see something 13 billion light years away, whose light left that system and has been traveling for 13 billion years now before it reached your eye, but time has marched on for it.

 

He's right, our theories today do not change what has happened, only our understanding of how it happened, and our future, as those theories might affect our actions toward future goals.

 

1. I made a mistake in exponent. Thank you for the correction.

2. A telescope is a manmade object to gather old light. Light from the past. Thast makes the telescope a time machine defacto since you use it to extend the distance range you can see out and backwards in time.

3. He's wrong in that he denies that we have anything meaningful to model as to the past when we do have the means to observe past conditions DIRECTLY in the process of information distribution itself.

 

Southtown;

 

I addressed your house of cards argument already.

 

d. Here is a hint. The telescope is a time machine. The speed of light limits the velocity of information distribution via electro-magnetism which is the reason why we would like to experimentally determine the rate of information distribution by that other long range binding force-gravity. If it too is c limited then we have a GR confirmation that will re-inforce a lot of what we understand with complete confidence about this universe cosmologically speaking.

-that means that the supposition that the light that comes at us from objects we estimate from red shift to be eleven billion years distant is actually eleven billion years old absoliutely if we have two experimental checks for the doppler shift independent of each other.. That is a snapshot of a piece of sky eleven billion years ago.

 

Best wishes.

[TRoutMac]

I think it is possible for instance that some life may have begun via abiogenesis and other life may have been transferred here from places afar in the universe, IOW, maybe there is more than one origin of species on this planet. Mind you, I'm not claiming that this is so, only that it is possible since I cannot rule it out.

 

Well, here's how you can rule out the possibility that there was more than one origin of species: Every living organism on this planet shares the exact same DNA structure. Think of DNA as a particular type of information structure and conveyance (no one denies that much) similar to a particular electronic file format, i.e., DWG, EPS, TIF, etc. Every living organism uses the same "file format" to describe and specify the organism and how it functions. This necessarily means that whatever the origin, there is ONE origin. Not two, not five, not twelve. Just ONE.

[Southtown]

Southtown;

 

I addressed your house of cards argument already.

I don't see what that has to do with redshift's reliability as a metering rod? I'm probably out of context though, considering what you're responding to.

[cwes99_03]

Well, here's how you can rule out the possibility that there was more than one origin of species: Every living organism on this planet shares the exact same DNA structure

I believe he was saying origin of life on earth, not in the universe.

3. He's wrong in that he denies that we have anything meaningful to model as to the past when we do have the means to observe past conditions

I don't believe that's what he was saying.

and whatever theories man has to offer about anything, does that have any bearing on whether or not intelligent design occurred

My understanding of this, whatever we hypothesize, the past has already occured.

[questor]

cwess, you are correct. the logician seems to have misplaced his logic. how can man, with his obsolescent technology be anything more than an interested observer at events that ocurred billions of years ago? as i have said repeatedly, if the earth and man blew up today, the universe would continue on with scarcely a ruffle. we have no evidence at all that the universe is earth centric.

[C1ay]

Well, here's how you can rule out the possibility that there was more than one origin of species: Every living organism on this planet shares the exact same DNA structure. Think of DNA as a particular type of information structure and conveyance (no one denies that much) similar to a particular electronic file format, i.e., DWG, EPS, TIF, etc. Every living organism uses the same "file format" to describe and specify the organism and how it functions. This necessarily means that whatever the origin, there is ONE origin. Not two, not five, not twelve. Just ONE.

So, there is only life as we know it? No other life is possible like some undiscovered silicon based life that only lives 10 miles down? You know for sure that it's not even possible that life could form in multiple locations via abiogenesis and that some of it that originated elsewhere could have been transferred here? Maybe life itself was transferred here from elsewhere and once the building blocks were here, other species developed via abiogenesis from mutated DNA. One thing you could fill us in on TM, how is it that you can rule out possibilities without evidence to conclusively rule them out? Are you a scientist or not?

[damocles]

Well, here's how you can rule out the possibility that there was more than one origin of species: Every living organism on this planet shares the exact same DNA structure. Think of DNA as a particular type of information structure and conveyance (no one denies that much) similar to a particular electronic file format, i.e., DWG, EPS, TIF, etc. Every living organism uses the same "file format" to describe and specify the organism and how it functions. This necessarily means that whatever the origin, there is ONE origin. Not two, not five, not twelve. Just ONE.

 

Misread of the evidence. It simply indicates that there is a common biochemistry at work on this planet. Nothing more, nothing less.

 

There could have been multiple CHON polymerization sites. Cross fertilization could merge out local ecological differences quite quickly(And this would be expected!)

[damocles]

cwess, you are correct. the logician seems to have misplaced his logic. how can man, with his obsolescent technology be anything more than an interested observer at events that ocurred billions of years ago? as i have said repeatedly, if the earth and man blew up today, the universe would continue on with scarcely a ruffle. we have no evidence at all that the universe is earth centric.

 

My logic is quite intact thank you. The light we observe came to us from the past, due to the limiter of its measured velocity c; or are you claiming that light is instantaneous?

 

You may argue(with futility) that we have some problems with red shift measurement; but that is why I argued that we would be looking at gravity with great interest. If we can measure gravity waves and get a doppler shift off that binding force; we can pair the two binding forces electromagnetism and geravitation to the same event. Compare range gate data and see if there is a mismatch. If the EM redshift computations are erroneous, then the doppler results for gravitation wave ripple will show a gross mismatch.

 

One more time about current theories dealing with origins., Entropy people! Conservation of information. Causality. Run the process ongoing backwards and make predictions.

 

Entanglement, cosmic microwave background radiation, observed spatial inflation, information distribution, QM math that suggets that the four known binding forces have energies at which the forces unify.......

 

You can make predictions from the present observed conditions in the universe of what you think happened in the past and then you can LOOK out as far as you can into the past as you can to see if your predictions match what you see.

 

So far we have experimental verification of cooling.

Same for binding the electromagnetic influence with the weak nuclear influence in the lab.

Information distribution seems to behave according to quantization with a certian discreteness whatever the system we look at in this universe.

There is CMBR.

 

Run that clock backwards.

 

Hot

 

Dense

 

Singular Boundary HOMOGENOUS Particle/information Set(Has to be to explain Bell Theorem/entanglement.)

 

Now some flat earthers may argue that this isn't so.

 

But in this thread and in others, I've presented the evidence. (And I've been criticized for overburdening posts in the process. You can't win in nthis game :) )

 

But here is one prediction confirmed that indicates the universe was hotter and denser and this was expected!

 

http://www.bookrags.com/sciences/physics/electroweak-force-wop.html

 

(From the article;)

 

The final, useful form of the electroweak theory was constructed by physicists Sheldon Glashow, Abdus Salam, and Steven Weinberg in the early 1970s, for which they eventually recieved the Nobel Prize. This theory contained one extra ingredient that overcame an important difficulty. As stated above, only massless particles can be completely left- or right-handed, but the electroweak force makes a distinction between left and right, so particles cannot be mixtures of left- and right-handed states. Also, the W and Z bosons were not discovered experimentally until long after the theory was finished, meaning that they also had to be very massive. Explicit mass terms cannot be included into the theory without spoiling its good points. Another solution, therefore, had to be found.''

 

That solution is the Higgs Boson which has been predicted;

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Higgs_boson

 

(From the article;)

The Higgs boson itself has a characteristic mass. As of 2005, the best estimate for this mass is 91 GeV, with a theoretical upper limit of 186 GeV. Particle accelerators have probed energies up to about 115 GeV, and have recorded a small number of events that could be interpreted as resulting from Higgs bosons, but the evidence is as yet inconclusive. It is expected among physicists that the Large Hadron Collider, currently under construction at CERN, will be able to confirm or disprove the existence of Higgs bosons.

 

Expect negation testing to resolve this in five years.

 

Nevertheless; electroweak unification within the Standard Model predicted W and Z bosons. Those popped up in the colliders as predicted, and that is significant to inflation cosmology if you IDers would pay attention to how EVERYTHING has to mesh to work for the cosmology model to work.

 

Entropy. Learn it along with everything else.

[Southtown]

So far we have experimental verification of cooling.

Same for binding the electromagnetic influence with the weak nuclear influence in the lab.

Information distribution seems to behave according to quantization with a certian discreteness whatever the system we look at in this universe.

There is CMBR.

1. What cooling verification are you referrencing?
   
2. What implications would come with binding EM/weak forces that could upset ID or creationism? The excepted models are not conflicting biblical creation... all that is needed is a concept of time relative to the universe's mass-density, and a kick-start for life. A BB/Inflation event actually sounds like the way a "creation" event would occur.
   
3. By "quantization" are you referring to redshift? And wouldn't that make it an atomic effect rather than a Hubble effect?

 

About CMBR... Scientific American, in an August '05 article named "Is the Universe Out of Tune?", cites a few quandaries regarding new satellite data.

1. The angular power spectrum, or total intensities of the CMB's spectrum of modal fluctuations, observed by the WMAP satellite confirm COBE satellite's findings of a low-power deficiency. Multipoles C2 (quadropole) and C3 (octopole) are "considerably lower than the predictions [inflationary lambda cold dark matter model]" with regard to their amplitudes as compared to other multipoles. (See attached image file.)
   
2. The angular temperature correlation, or measure of temperature differences at given angles, flat-line or "zero out" above 60 degrees, contrary to theory. SA says the discrepencies stem from the failure of either observation equipment, data analysis, or inflationary theory.

   _ _ ... Experimentally, we find that C(θ) for our universe is nearly zero at angles greater than about 60 degrees, which means that the fluctuation in directions separated by more than 60 degrees are completely uncorrelated. This result is another sign that the low notes of the universe that inflation promised are missing.
   _ _ ... This lack of large-angle correlations was first revealed by COBE, and WMAP has now confirmed it. The smallness of C(θ) at large angles means not only that C2 and C3 are small but that the ratio of the values of the first few total intensities—up to at least C4—are also unusual. The absence of large-angle power is in striking disagreement with all generic inflationary models. [emphasis in original]

3. Additionally, these two low-power multipoles, C2 and C3, should exhibit erratic alignment of temperature differences if the data were merely corrupted. The two are aligned, however, against the odds of 1 in 10,000.

   _ _ ... [Researchers] noticed that the preferred axes of the quadrupole modes, on the one hand, and of the octopole modes, on the other, were remarkably closely aligned. These modes are the same ones that seemed to be deficient in power. The generic inflationary model predicts that each of these modes should be completely independent—one would not expect any alignments.

4. And now comes the shocker that wasn't very hyped. Dissecting the universe into all possible hemispheres and measuring variations in temperature, researchers at the University of Oslo have uncovered an "ecliptic" signal in the CMB. The hemisphere with the largest difference shares its equator with the earth's orbit. This contradicts the assumption that observed microwaves are truly "background" in origin. Also, following up with more contradictions to inflation, these variations were erratic among the hemispheres, as opposed to an even randomness.

   _ _ ... They [Hans Kristian Erikson of UiO and coworkers] divided the sky into all possible pairs of hemispheres and looked at the relative intensity of the fluctuation on the opposite halves of the sky. What they found contradicted the standard inflationary cosmology—the hemispheres often had very different amounts of power. But what was most surprising was that the pair of hemispheres that were the most different were the ones lying above and below the eliptic, the plane of the earth's orbit around the sun. This result was the first sign that the CMB fluctuations, which were supposed to be cosmological in origin, with some contamination by emission in our own galaxy, have a solar system signal in them—that is, a type of observational artifact.

http://www.sciamdigital.com/browse.cfm?sequencenameCHAR=item2&methodnameCHAR=resource_getitembrowse&interfacenameCHAR=browse.cfm&ISSUEID_CHAR=F7292B8D-2B35-221B-6723C09A2A2EF7A5&ARTICLEID_CHAR=F7587709-2B35-221B-60C864EC3B7EC017&sc=I100322

 

To say that science favors non-creation is both premature and obtuse. We would all be wise to let creation remain in consideration when analyzing observational data. Only by the most exquisitely delicate progression can we avoid trampling on these opportunities to find a better theory.

 

Now some flat earthers may argue that this isn't so.

I understand your rightful frustration, but this slander is anti-productive. (By the way, "devil" means slanderer, and "satan" means accuser. Not to mention the twisting of truth as a candle wick, the root word of the English "wicked". Check Wiki.)

 

Entropy. Learn it along with everything else.

Like the decaying speed of light? Wouldn't that explain a "quantized" redshift?

 

http://hypography.com/forums/physical-sciences-forums/astronomy-cosmology/3123-redshift-z-5.html

http://www.setterfield.org/recent.htm#zperedshiftandexpansion

http://members.aol.com/arpgalaxy/

 

Edit (attachment) —> http://www.mostuff.net/images/sa_cmb.jpg

[Southtown]

Sorry, double post... :naughty:

 

P.S. Attachments aren't working for me. :hammer: