 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 1/7/2011 3:03 PM, clipka wrote:
> Or maybe they just don't want to notice. The ID adherents might not want
> their God to use evolutionary design because they don't want him to be
> efficient (why should a God use an efficient method if he has infinite
> knowledge and power at his disposal?), or because they're stuck too deep
> in defensive mode against evolution already, and the other side might
> prefer to outright falsify ID, rather than make a point that ID taken as
> a serious science doesn't contradict evolution anyway so why the heck
> should it be taught as an /alternatve/ to evolution.
This isn't the real problem. The real problem is that those who support
it **do not want a result that contradicts the idea that the first part
of the Bible is literally true**. The Vatican recently mumbled something
about how they believe, "god created the big bang." The answer of one of
the *major* proponents of the, "youngish earth, AiG, ID is real", dear
old Ken Ham, had to this was, roughly, "If the big bang happened, then
genesis would need to be wrong, or allegory, but if it was wrong, then
the first 'marriage' would be false, sin wouldn't be real, etc., and it
would fundamentally destroy everything from Christianity itself, to the
sanctity of heterosexual marriage. Therefor, the Pope is wrong!"
Its the first case of actual logic I have seen from the man. Yes Ken, if
Genesis, which is the basis of virtually every bit of bullshit
moralizing, persecution, and evil your religion has, or continues, to
institute, was wrong, so would your entire religion. Congratulations on
proving you can follow logic, even if you completely fail at accepting
its conclusions. lol
--
void main () {
if version = "Vista" {
call slow_by_half();
call DRM_everything();
}
call functional_code();
}
else
call crash_windows();
}
<A HREF='http://www.daz3d.com/index.php?refid=16130551'>Get 3D Models,
3D Content, and 3D Software at DAZ3D!</A>
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 1/7/2011 3:25 PM, Warp wrote:
> clipka<ano### [at] anonymous org> wrote:
>> Well, in its essential form, the most popular version /does/ predict
>> something. Like, all creatures should have been there from the beginning.
>
>> So yes, it can be regarded a theory. A falsified one, but a theory
>> nonetheless :-P
>
> I think that the proper term is "hypothesis", not "theory" (except if
> we are talking in vernacular terms).
>
>> BTW, my favorite about ID is the banana: Gee, it's /the/ ideal fruit!
>> Ideal size and all... how could this not be by design?
>
>> Well, sure, it /is/ by design, or - to use a slightly better fitting
>> term - by intention: The intention of those people who cultivated the
>> banana in the last 8000 years or so :-P
>
> I think you are confused. The modern banana (that yellow one) is
> only something like 200 years old. It's the product of a mutation of
> a single wild banana plant which suddenly started growing that yellow
> sweet version. The wild banana is much smaller, green, full of seeds
> and almost inedible in raw form.
>
> The mutation in question is actually so severe that the modern banana
> plant is sterile: It cannot reproduce by itself, requiring human
> intervention for cultivation (this happens mainly by transplanting
> underground stems or tissue cultures).
>
> (Ironically, the modern banana is so mutated that it can be considered
> by all practical means "unnatural", as without human intervention it would
> have died right from that very first mutated plant 200 years ago, which
> makes it a perfect example of gene manipulation by humans, yet people who
> strongly oppose gene manipulation have usually no problems in eating
> bananas.)
>
But some of them want to make sure they are not "genetically engineered,
non-organic, bananas!"
--
void main () {
if version = "Vista" {
call slow_by_half();
call DRM_everything();
}
call functional_code();
}
else
call crash_windows();
}
<A HREF='http://www.daz3d.com/index.php?refid=16130551'>Get 3D Models,
3D Content, and 3D Software at DAZ3D!</A>
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:
> Warp wrote:
> > This is a rather fair assumption
> > to make because it's the result of a measurement
> Actually, I believe einstein hypothesized that because Maxwell's equations
> (amongst others) had it down as a constant.
What I meant is that if you were to deduce the Lorentz transformations
now (eg. for an article on relativity), you can refer to experiments such
as the famous Michelson-Morley experiment (which predates special relativity
by almost 20 years). Even if Einstein had never even heard of such an
experiment (which I really find hard to believe, but whatever), it doesn't
really matter. It's still a fair assumption to make because of that and
many other experiments.
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Patrick Elliott <sel### [at] npgcablecom> wrote:
> I think, unfortunately, for something this fundamental to the structure
> of everything, and poorly understood enough that we don't even 100% know
> what we *should* be looking for, its a pure toss up as to if it produces
> something that isn't coincidental. But, I don't know anything close to
> enough about it to know if there is a reason to assume otherwise, or not.
I have been thinking that perhaps trying to find a unifying model is
futile because gravity and quantum mechanics are *not* related to each
other. They are two completely independent and distinct features which
just happen to co-exist in the same universe. They can *affect* each
other, but the laws that govern each one are distinct and independent.
If there are multiple universes, perhaps there are universes where
there is no gravity at all, and others where there is no QM at all.
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Patrick Elliott <sel### [at] npgcablecom> wrote:
> > (Ironically, the modern banana is so mutated that it can be considered
> > by all practical means "unnatural", as without human intervention it would
> > have died right from that very first mutated plant 200 years ago, which
> > makes it a perfect example of gene manipulation by humans, yet people who
> > strongly oppose gene manipulation have usually no problems in eating
> > bananas.)
> >
> But some of them want to make sure they are not "genetically engineered,
> non-organic, bananas!"
Yeah, which is ironic because the modern banana is effectively an
unnatural product of genetic engineering.
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Patrick Elliott <sel### [at] npgcablecom> wrote:
> This isn't the real problem. The real problem is that those who support
> it **do not want a result that contradicts the idea that the first part
> of the Bible is literally true**. The Vatican recently mumbled something
> about how they believe, "god created the big bang." The answer of one of
> the *major* proponents of the, "youngish earth, AiG, ID is real", dear
> old Ken Ham, had to this was, roughly, "If the big bang happened, then
> genesis would need to be wrong, or allegory, but if it was wrong, then
> the first 'marriage' would be false, sin wouldn't be real, etc., and it
> would fundamentally destroy everything from Christianity itself, to the
> sanctity of heterosexual marriage. Therefor, the Pope is wrong!"
> Its the first case of actual logic I have seen from the man. Yes Ken, if
> Genesis, which is the basis of virtually every bit of bullshit
> moralizing, persecution, and evil your religion has, or continues, to
> institute, was wrong, so would your entire religion. Congratulations on
> proving you can follow logic, even if you completely fail at accepting
> its conclusions. lol
I think your view is biased. I don't see how "the story of Genesis is
only an allegory, it did not happen literally" would discredit the entirety
of christianity. For example the "sanctity of marriage" (assuming there is
such a thing) doesn't become any less so if the story of creation is
allegorical.
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 7-1-2011 17:02, Paul Fuller wrote:
> And yet, the uninformed masses have no problem saying that "it is
> obviously too complex to come about by chance and therefore must have
> been created".
It is clearly too complicated to have been created.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 7-1-2011 17:51, Invisible wrote:
> And it's /still/ not science. You know why? No testable predictions. Not
> a single damned one.
So mathematics is not science?
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
andrel <byt### [at] gmailcom> wrote:
> On 7-1-2011 17:51, Invisible wrote:
> > And it's /still/ not science. You know why? No testable predictions. Not
> > a single damned one.
> So mathematics is not science?
Physics is applied math, so in a way math does make predictions (or, at
the very least, it's a useful tool to make such predictions).
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 8-1-2011 13:42, Warp wrote:
> andrel<byt### [at] gmailcom> wrote:
>> On 7-1-2011 17:51, Invisible wrote:
>
>>> And it's /still/ not science. You know why? No testable predictions. Not
>>> a single damned one.
>
>> So mathematics is not science?
>
> Physics is applied math, so in a way math does make predictions (or, at
> the very least, it's a useful tool to make such predictions).
The latter. BTW I don't care if Andrew thinks Maths is science or not. I
just wanted to know.
BTW 2: I don't think I have ever made a prediction in my working life.
That probably implies that I am not a scientist.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
