T
TheWarriorMonk
Guest
It really depends on what definition of “theory” one is using. Modern science tends to use “theory” is a more specific nature.
- Status
T
TheWarriorMonk
Guest
People tend to put an exactness on things where an exactness may not exist, resulting in the wrong conclusions. If those interpretations of chance don’t match reality, it’s time to modify the theory. Personally, I seek truth, not attachment.
A
april32010
Guest
OUCH,THATS GOING TO LEAVE A MARK!!! :blackeye:I am a scientist.
Not only that, but one of my jobs right out of college was editing scientific journals. Try again, this time with new assumptions.
T
TheWarriorMonk
Guest
BTW, that is a very interesting observation. Another item of note is that during the Neolithic Era only one species of human existed, unlike prior ages. However, there is the issue of certain peoples still existing that can be classified as Paleolithic, and appear to have been separated from the rest of mankind until recently (note: there were many more, but have become extinct due to interaction with modern man). Also interesting to note that many are “naked and know no shame.”
B
buffalo
Guest
Exactly, pursue truth wherever it leads.
How much truth can science alone deliver?
J
Judas_Thaddeus
Guest
Maybe you could rephrase, but the point I’m making is that “Theory” does not mean
“Hypothesis”, “Guess”, “Supposition”, etc, as SOME Creationists fervently insist on.
F
Farsight001
Guest
Then I would still call them idiots for thinking the cars actually crystallize. And that some metal plates float around about 6ft off the ground for no reason, or that some hunks of metal just sit there year after year, never having moved.Oh, they reproduce in large incubators by a process the aliens call “amalgamation.” It is a kind of complex crystallization process. Instead of molecules collecting to form crystals, individual parts crystallize to form more and more complex parts which then “colonize” to form the final life stage. Kind of like jellyfish, to us, I guess. It is well documented because the alien scientists have seen it occur over and over again on the different land masses we know as United States, Japan, Korea, Germany, Italy.
Remember that science is strictly “observe and describe” and Occam’s Razor strictly forbids the alien scientists from speculating about anything beyond what simple observation and testing tells them about these metallic life forms. It would be ridiculous to posit some other “supernatural” soft body form actually designing and building these creatures. That would entail Intelligent Design. Ugh!
F
Farsight001
Guest
Because half a defense mechanism is better defense than no defense mechanism. If we gave half the police officers in a city no bullet proof vests and the other half half a bullet proof vest, which group do you think is going to survive longer?
F
Farsight001
Guest
Nothing about the definition of “empirical” means “within our lifetimes”.
C
Crossbones
Guest
Then someone asks you about a theory. You have doubts about some aspect of it and ask how they arrived at a particular number. They give you a citation that doesn’t match their assumptions and can’t really explain it to your satisfaction.I am a scientist.
Not only that, but one of my jobs right out of college was editing scientific journals. Try again, this time with new assumptions.
At that point, what do you do, Mr. Scientist and Journal Editor?
E
estesbob
Guest
Where did the crystals come from? Or is that off topic?Oh, they reproduce in large incubators by a process the aliens call “amalgamation.” It is a kind of complex crystallization process. Instead of molecules collecting to form crystals, individual parts crystallize to form more and more complex parts which then “colonize” to form the final life stage. Kind of like jellyfish, to us, I guess. It is well documented because the alien scientists have seen it occur over and over again on the different land masses we know as United States, Japan, Korea, Germany, Italy.
Remember that science is strictly “observe and describe” and Occam’s Razor strictly forbids the alien scientists from speculating about anything beyond what simple observation and testing tells them about these metallic life forms. It would be ridiculous to posit some other “supernatural” soft body form actually designing and building these creatures. That would entail Intelligent Design. Ugh!
P
Peter_Plato
Guest
Those are all unexplained by their science because they don’t have the means to work out what is involved. They are not idiots, they know they haven’t figured it out yet. Are Earth scientists “idiots” because they admit they don’t know how or why gravity works?
P
Peter_Plato
Guest
I’ve been struggling to find a paradigm that parallels the quandary an ID proponent finds him/herself in regarding how they might better present the case for design.
We have witnessed over the past fifty years or so an explosion in the power of operating systems and the development of a plethora of software apps that allow humans to do virtually anything we can imagine - gaming, socializing, learning, art, image manipulation, information storage, image archiving, etc.
All of this brought to you courtesy of software engineers and coders. We know that to be true.
Looking back at the development of information technology since its inception, a superficial glance at the process might lead a less than thoughtful person to an inference that somehow the coding that runs computers evolves, perhaps even insisting that the alterations to code that improve programs and operating systems is “user selected.” Changes that are good are retained, changes that are less than optimal are discarded.
The market environment puts selective “pressure” on software and systems so that the “fitter” ones have longevity and provide the basis for the next generation of software.
It seems to me that we would not so easily accept this superficial explanation that changes to the code that runs systems and programs MUST have been random or that “user selection” suffices to refine the process such that we can completely RID ourselves of the notion that a “program designer” exists somewhere who actually designs and improves the code that runs computers. Such a proposed “explanation” for the evolution of computers would rightly be considered to be a daft one.
Yet, that is precisely the line we have purchased regarding the development of life on Earth. All life - its form, development and functionality - is based upon code, the DNA and RNA found in individual cells that directs all living processes. It is very like the code that runs computer systems and software. Far beyond that, in fact, because this “genetic” code also informs and directs the “construction” of the hardware itself. That would be like a computer building itself using the “software” code found buried somewhere deep in its bowels. That is, if computers had bowels.
Anyone who suggests that computer software somehow propagates and improves itself according to a process of “user selection” would not be given the time of day, yet anyone who suggests that living systems, where, not only their function (software,) but in addition the very nature of their physical construction, could have been “designed” because natural selection acting on random changes seems insufficient for the task, is laughed at and ridiculed.
Yet, we don’t ridicule each other for “knowing” that computer software is designed and that random changes subject to user selection would be a woefully inadequate means of improving computer systems.
Well, no, the ID opponent claims that an important difference is time. The process in nature lasted billions of years. Perhaps, that is enough to make a difference… … perhaps. But is it enough of a difference to ensure that design was definitely not a factor? Why assume design was not? Well, because that would necessarily invoke God and invoking God changes the very nature of science. Yes, of course.
But that position seems very like the computer historian who, a priori and unilaterally, decides that “designers” had nothing to do with the development of computer coding because his “user selection” model can, along with random “glitch” changes to code, explain its development and he refuses to even consider the possibility of “program designers” since his “theory,” along with a deft stroke of Occam’s Razor makes programmers unnecessary. Thank you very much.
This question of whether merely random changes in genetic coding are sufficient to improve and innovate it over time is a very important one. Some scientists insist the process must be random and yet refuse to truly assess the question of what “random” really entails. Random appears, in fact, to be the materialist version of “God did it.”
The criticism by some materialists that invoking God nullifies a need to explain can be just as heartily applied to those who invoke “random.” This word operates in precisely the same way as “God” does to make further investigation unnecessary. “It’s random, that’s all we need to know!” they insist.
Yet, how do we know it truly is random? What if the current iterations of genetic code were not, on the whole, “random” at all, but were the result of an intricate series of pre-existing segments of the code embedded in the originally constructed code set? We don’t know. Why SHOULD we assume random is the only possible mechanism? It seems to me that ID proponents have a point.
…continued next post.
We have witnessed over the past fifty years or so an explosion in the power of operating systems and the development of a plethora of software apps that allow humans to do virtually anything we can imagine - gaming, socializing, learning, art, image manipulation, information storage, image archiving, etc.
All of this brought to you courtesy of software engineers and coders. We know that to be true.
Looking back at the development of information technology since its inception, a superficial glance at the process might lead a less than thoughtful person to an inference that somehow the coding that runs computers evolves, perhaps even insisting that the alterations to code that improve programs and operating systems is “user selected.” Changes that are good are retained, changes that are less than optimal are discarded.
The market environment puts selective “pressure” on software and systems so that the “fitter” ones have longevity and provide the basis for the next generation of software.
It seems to me that we would not so easily accept this superficial explanation that changes to the code that runs systems and programs MUST have been random or that “user selection” suffices to refine the process such that we can completely RID ourselves of the notion that a “program designer” exists somewhere who actually designs and improves the code that runs computers. Such a proposed “explanation” for the evolution of computers would rightly be considered to be a daft one.
Yet, that is precisely the line we have purchased regarding the development of life on Earth. All life - its form, development and functionality - is based upon code, the DNA and RNA found in individual cells that directs all living processes. It is very like the code that runs computer systems and software. Far beyond that, in fact, because this “genetic” code also informs and directs the “construction” of the hardware itself. That would be like a computer building itself using the “software” code found buried somewhere deep in its bowels. That is, if computers had bowels.
Anyone who suggests that computer software somehow propagates and improves itself according to a process of “user selection” would not be given the time of day, yet anyone who suggests that living systems, where, not only their function (software,) but in addition the very nature of their physical construction, could have been “designed” because natural selection acting on random changes seems insufficient for the task, is laughed at and ridiculed.
Yet, we don’t ridicule each other for “knowing” that computer software is designed and that random changes subject to user selection would be a woefully inadequate means of improving computer systems.
Well, no, the ID opponent claims that an important difference is time. The process in nature lasted billions of years. Perhaps, that is enough to make a difference… … perhaps. But is it enough of a difference to ensure that design was definitely not a factor? Why assume design was not? Well, because that would necessarily invoke God and invoking God changes the very nature of science. Yes, of course.
But that position seems very like the computer historian who, a priori and unilaterally, decides that “designers” had nothing to do with the development of computer coding because his “user selection” model can, along with random “glitch” changes to code, explain its development and he refuses to even consider the possibility of “program designers” since his “theory,” along with a deft stroke of Occam’s Razor makes programmers unnecessary. Thank you very much.
This question of whether merely random changes in genetic coding are sufficient to improve and innovate it over time is a very important one. Some scientists insist the process must be random and yet refuse to truly assess the question of what “random” really entails. Random appears, in fact, to be the materialist version of “God did it.”
The criticism by some materialists that invoking God nullifies a need to explain can be just as heartily applied to those who invoke “random.” This word operates in precisely the same way as “God” does to make further investigation unnecessary. “It’s random, that’s all we need to know!” they insist.
Yet, how do we know it truly is random? What if the current iterations of genetic code were not, on the whole, “random” at all, but were the result of an intricate series of pre-existing segments of the code embedded in the originally constructed code set? We don’t know. Why SHOULD we assume random is the only possible mechanism? It seems to me that ID proponents have a point.
…continued next post.
P
Peter_Plato
Guest
…from last.
The proponent of “random” modification has to solidify their case that a mechanism such as “random mutation” has the power to innovate and adapt under the auspices of natural selection, just as the person who proposes that random glitches in computer software filtered for continuity by user selection is sufficient to explain the advancement of computer software.
What if the science of genetics does find a kind of “built-in” capacity - traceable back through time - within DNA and RNA itself to bring about “designed” improvements so that most changes are not random at all but, rather, “pre-installed?”
This is not such a far-fetched idea since genetic code does, indeed, have the power to direct the extremely complex growth and development of each organism from egg or seed to maturity. The code directs when and how stem cells become differentiated. Likewise, why could the “super-code” of DNA not have had the power integral to it to direct when and how changes in speciation occurred through physical time? That would involve some pre-planning, i.e., Deity, which is why materialist scientists are determined to die on the hill called “Random.”
It would seem to me that someone who dogmatically insists that the code could not be designed is not going to look for this possibility but will continue down a wrong path. ID proponents ought to be listened to precisely because they offer an alternative scenario that COULD be true and ought not be dismissed merely because of metaphysical presumptions that nature must only be physical. We can’t conclude that just because we know nature has a physical essence that it can ONLY have a physical essence. Good science would keep an open mind about such things.
The proponent of “random” modification has to solidify their case that a mechanism such as “random mutation” has the power to innovate and adapt under the auspices of natural selection, just as the person who proposes that random glitches in computer software filtered for continuity by user selection is sufficient to explain the advancement of computer software.
What if the science of genetics does find a kind of “built-in” capacity - traceable back through time - within DNA and RNA itself to bring about “designed” improvements so that most changes are not random at all but, rather, “pre-installed?”
This is not such a far-fetched idea since genetic code does, indeed, have the power to direct the extremely complex growth and development of each organism from egg or seed to maturity. The code directs when and how stem cells become differentiated. Likewise, why could the “super-code” of DNA not have had the power integral to it to direct when and how changes in speciation occurred through physical time? That would involve some pre-planning, i.e., Deity, which is why materialist scientists are determined to die on the hill called “Random.”
It would seem to me that someone who dogmatically insists that the code could not be designed is not going to look for this possibility but will continue down a wrong path. ID proponents ought to be listened to precisely because they offer an alternative scenario that COULD be true and ought not be dismissed merely because of metaphysical presumptions that nature must only be physical. We can’t conclude that just because we know nature has a physical essence that it can ONLY have a physical essence. Good science would keep an open mind about such things.
P
Peter_Plato
Guest
That would be an area of research that the alien scientists are also engaged in, but do not have answers for. They have their plausible theories (amalgamation) similar to those of Earth scientists, who, neither, have all the answers, but not having a complete picture is no reason to dismiss plausible explanations.Where did the crystals come from? Or is that off topic?
They see what they see and try to explain it without invoking “garden fairies” to build the metallic creatures. To the aliens, the creatures on Earth assemble themselves. That is no different from Earth scientists who claim life on Earth has assembled itself. No?
At least, that is what the alien scientists would claim.
I don’t think it’s off-topic because these are scenarios that demonstrate it is not so irrational to question evolution. In fact, there are very plausible reasons for doing so.
T
TheWarriorMonk
Guest
Exactly. The elephant example I provided earlier is such an example.
Closer to home, examples exist in humans. Sickle-cell anemia is on such example. The adaption might not be ideal from our perspective, but it is ideal from their perspective. In the malaria-infested environment in which it evolved, it lengthens lifetimes on the whole. Outside of that environment, we see it as shortening lifetimes.
P
Peter_Plato
Guest
And you can fully explain how maglev trains are supported by magnetic repulsion? We see what we see, are impressed by it and try to explain it. They are not idiots because they witness something inexplicable. They see what they see and try to make sense of it.
Let’s try to be a little more charitable.
Obviously, you are much more capable of understanding and explaining all of reality than these aliens are, but that’s no reason to be harsh. Remember these aliens are made of much “denser” materials than we are.
L
Lochias
Guest
No. What’s your point?
All that we are required to believe by the tenets of the Faith is that God created the first Man and Woman, whom we know as Adam and Eve, and that at some point they disobeyed God through the wiles of the Devil and thereby introduced original sin into the world.
We know from Genesis that God desires to have a real relationship with us, that He created us, and that He desires only good for us despite our disobedience.
Things like the science behind the how of it all are interesting, but ultimately irrelevant to the bigger picture that God represents. We don’t know for certain How He did it, because we aren’t God. Given what we know through the auspices of science, I find it very likely that human beings came about through the gifting of an immortal soul from God to some creature that theretofore did not have one, but that’s still ultimately irrelevant to the point of who we are and why we’re here.
F
Farsight001
Guest
Gravity is the field of physics, not earth science for one. And for another, floating metal plates is a huge freaking deal because it apparently contradicts the laws of physics. A smart society would be focusing on this and developing detection tools to look for the cause, where they would rather quickly discover humans with a sensor that picks up a wider range of densities than they are used to. (just like we can pick up a much wider range of sounds than we can hear with our ears)
F
Farsight001
Guest
Computers don’t reproduce.
- Status