Harsh Truth: If Intelligent Design is Untestable . . .

[Bunyip]

we have no other instance of the majority phyla, kinds, whatever word we prefer, appearing, just the Cambrian explosion and with 'no direct evidence of smooth transitions' as Dawkins put it.

It is all to easy for these debates to become polarized, this does not mean God did it, it simply means we have no evidence for evolution doing it, remove all the 'suspicion' 'invention' 'derision of the alternative' academics like Dawkins refer to, and look at the cold hard unemotional science, it's still an area that deserves investigation, application of the scientific method, not shutting down all dissent from academic consensus, as some still promote, as Hoyle did with Lemaitre.


I agree with you that this should be the case, if evolution were a purely scientific field, it would be, but not all agree with us.

“Evolution is a fact. [] beyond doubt evolution is a fact" Dawkins

Correct. Evolution is indeed a fact. That was established more than 150 years ago. The only resistance left is from propogandists.

 

[Guy Threepwood]

I believe that was Steven J Gould:

All paleontologists know that the fossil record contains precious little in the way of intermediate forms; transitions between major groups are characteristically abrupt. Gradualists usually extract themselves from this dilemma by invoking the extreme imperfection of the fossil record--if only one step in a thousand survives as a fossil, geology will not record continuous change. Although I reject this argument (for reasons discussed in "The Episodic Nature of Evolutionary Change"), let us grant the traditional escape and ask a different question. Even though we have no direct evidence for smooth transitions, can we invent a reasonable sequence of intermediate forms--that is, viable, functioning organisms--between ancestors and descendants in major structural transitions? Of what possible use are the imperfect incipient stages of useful structures? What good is half a jaw or half a wing? The concept of preadaptation provides the conventional answer by permitting us to argue that incipient stages performed different functions. The half jaw worked perfectly well as a series of gill-supporting bones; the half wing may have trapped prey or controlled body temperature. I regard preadaptation as an important, even an indispensable, concept. But a plausible story is not necessarily true. I do not doubt that preadaptation can save gradualism in some cases, but does it permit us to invent a tale of continuity in most or all cases? I submit, although it may only reflect my lack of imagination, that the answer is no. "The Return of Hopeful Monsters" Natural History June 1977 p.24

Correct, apologies for crediting Dawkins with that quote, though it certainly reflects the evolutionist position including Dawkins', not intended to mislead.

 

[Guy Threepwood]

Correct. Evolution is indeed a fact. That was established more than 150 years ago. The only resistance left is from propogandists.

another few generations and it might even beat classical physics for remaining a scientific fact even longer..

 

[Bunyip]

another few generations and it might even beat classical physics for remaining a scientific fact even longer..

Guy, you are a poor propogandist. Sadly creationists tend to be their own worse enemies. It is hard to imagine how anybody could make themselves, and by extension their ideology look less honest and rational.

Your activities here would make more sense if you hated creationists and were trying to make them look like charlatans by pretending to be one.

Oh and not that you care for the truth, but classical physics remains factual mate. And always will, it is applied by engineers and scientists every day. Just as is evolution.

 

[Guy Threepwood]

Guy, you are a poor propogandist. Sadly creationists tend to be their own worse enemies. It is hard to imagine how anybody could make themselves, and by extension their ideology look less honest and rational.

Your activities here would make more sense if you hated creationists and were trying to make them look like charlatans by pretending to be one.

Oh and not that you care for the truth, but classical physics remains factual mate. And always will, it is applied by engineers and scientists every day. Just as is evolution.

Bunyip, I think you are honest and seek the truth, the vast majority here are, ad hominem attacks are the most graceless form of conceding defeat in any debate-
and I don't think you need to do that, you have some good arguments.

back to substance, classical physics fundamentally failed to account for the physical world around us as once claimed. Everything around you, and yourself, would collapse under classical physics, as would life I believe. I could be wrong, andso could you. we're all taking our best guess here

 

[Bunyip]

Bunyip, I think you are honest and seek the truth, the vast majority here are, ad hominem attacks are the most graceless form of conceding defeat in any debate-
and I don't think you need to do that, you have some good arguments.

I,made no ad hominem attack. It is an observation drawn from interacting with you. I do not believe you are honest or seeking the truth, nor do I believe that you care at all for honesty or truth. Repeating what you know are falsehoods on behalf of your god is gracelessness personified.

back to substance, classical physics fundamentally failed to account for the physical world around us as once claimed.

Classical physics made no such claims Guy. Classical physics doesn't 'account for' anything, it also is known to be only applicable on the non-quantum scale.

Everything around you, and yourself, would collapse under classical physics, as would life I believe. I could be wrong, and so could you¿

Yes, you are wrong, that is just nonsense.

we're all taking our best guess here

No, science talks about data, your 'guesses' are propoganda.

 

[Unification]

Guy, you are a poor propogandist. Sadly creationists tend to be their own worse enemies. It is hard to imagine how anybody could make themselves, and by extension their ideology look less honest and rational.

Your activities here would make more sense if you hated creationists and were trying to make them look like charlatans by pretending to be one.

Oh and not that you care for the truth, but classical physics remains factual mate. And always will, it is applied by engineers and scientists every day. Just as is evolution.

Classical physics will always remain and are responsible for many good things, but it does fail at some integral areas and is very evident.

The first problem is the brain, and our bodies... If they are all matter they are not exempt from classical mechanics. Any physical/materialistic argument against anything delusional or imaginative would be hypocritical. The brain would only be able to duplicate what already exists in the universe somewhere. Anything else would be creating something from nothing. Even something as small as one thought. A delusive and wrong mind would be an impossibility using classical mechanics .

Another problem is there would be no such thing as choice and any freedom. Chemicals are deterministic by nature and every split second of every breath that every human has ever took, would have been, is, and will be under complete control and pre-destined. It would be illogical and hypocritical to make fun of, demand sources, use delusion and imagination to any other human because all of their beliefs would be true and predestined under the very physical laws and classical mechanics clung to.

 

[Bunyip]

Classical physics will always remain and are responsible for many good things, but it does fail at some integral areas and is very evident.

The first problem is the brain, and our bodies... If they are all matter they are not exempt from classical mechanics. Any physical/materialistic argument against anything delusional or imaginative would be hypocritical.

What? I honestly have no idea what you are trying to say there. Classical physics doesn't 'fail' it simply doesn't apply at the quantum scale.

The brain would only be able to duplicate what already exists in the universe somewhere. Anything else would be creating something from nothing. Even something as small as one thought. A delusive and wrong mind would be an impossibility using classical mechanics .

What? Word salad?

Another problem is there would no such thing as choice and any freedom. Chemicals are deterministic by nature and every split second of every breath that every human has ever took, would have been, is, and will be under complete control and pre-destined. It would be illogical and hypocritical to make fun of, demand sources, use delusion and imagination to any other human because all of their beliefs would be true and predestined under the very physical laws and classical mechanics clung to.

Sorry, that made no sense to me whatsoever.

 

[Guy Threepwood]

it also is known to be only applicable on the non-quantum scale..

It is now, it used to absolutely be considered a complete immutable explanation of the physical universe which made god redundant according to many academics

but similarly I don't believe classical evolution is entirely without application, just that, like physics, it only describes a superficial observation of reality, underwritten by specific instructions that guide both towards specific results. We grew up in an age where this is taken entirely for granted for physics, that wasn't always the case, as it isn't the case yet for evolution.

 

[Bunyip]

It is now, it used to absolutely be considered a complete immutable explanation of the physical universe which made god redundant according to many academics

Nonsense. It was only ever a theory.

but similarly I don't believe classical evolution is entirely without application, just that, like physics, it only describes a superficial observation of reality, underwritten by specific instructions that guide both towards specific results. We grew up in an age where this is taken entirely for granted for physics, that wasn't always the case, as it isn't the case yet for evolution.

Guy, whatever I say you will ignore or misrepresent. This exchange can achieve nothing. It can bear no relation to the truth and I can not imagine a bigger waste of time.

 

[Guy Threepwood]

Classical physics will always remain and are responsible for many good things, but it does fail at some integral areas and is very evident.

The first problem is the brain, and our bodies... If they are all matter they are not exempt from classical mechanics. Any physical/materialistic argument against anything delusional or imaginative would be hypocritical. The brain would only be able to duplicate what already exists in the universe somewhere. Anything else would be creating something from nothing. Even something as small as one thought. A delusive and wrong mind would be an impossibility using classical mechanics .

Another problem is there would no such thing as choice and any freedom. Chemicals are deterministic by nature and every split second of every breath that every human has ever took, would have been, is, and will be under complete control and pre-destined. It would be illogical and hypocritical to make fun of, demand sources, use delusion and imagination to any other human because all of their beliefs would be true and predestined under the very physical laws and classical mechanics clung to.

Very true and this is hardly a controversial observation in modern science. Classical laws of physics fall foul to entropy, decay, simplification. It requires those lengthy instructions encoded in subatomic physics, the universal constants, to specify exactly what life sustaining elements the fusion reactors we call stars were to produce. One can argue that these instructions were 'accidentally created' but the point remains, simple laws create simple results. There has always been an academic tendency to cling to simplicity, the 'quick fix' which has not served science itself well.

 

[Unification]

Classical physics will always remain and are responsible for many good things, but it does fail at some integral areas and is very evident.

The first problem is the brain, and our bodies... If they are all matter they are not exempt from classical mechanics. Any physical/materialistic argument against anything delusional or imaginative would be hypocritical. The brain would only be able to duplicate what already exists in the universe somewhere. Anything else would be creating something from nothing. Even something as small as one thought. A delusive and wrong mind would be an impossibility using classical mechanics .

Another problem is there would no such thing as choice and any freedom. Chemicals are deterministic by nature and every split second of every breath that every human has ever took, would have been, is, and will be under complete control and pre-destined. It would be illogical and hypocritical to make fun of, demand sources, use delusion and imagination to any other human because all of their beliefs would be true and predestined under the very physical laws and classical mechanics clung to.

On to the next, quantum mechanics, getting closer, and studying the smaller... Reaches an unsolvable conclusion.

Strong emergence, the supposition that new properties can emerge from component systems, is a logical impossibility. This means that either subatomic particles must be conscious or consciousness must arise from outside the brain. Given that there is no evidence to suggest subatomic particles are conscious and that attempting to do so by way of QM results in a logical contradiction, it is illogical to conclude consciousness is a product of the brain.

If one is clung to materialism, there must be a molecule (DNA) that functions as the source of speaking, walking, reading, and doing mathematics, but such an assumption falls apart very quickly, since:

It’s impossible to credit that DNA knows math, which would in essence give it a mind.

Can we really believe that anyone, and all other producers of words, ideas, etc get their inspiration from amino acids, enzymes, and proteins, which is what DNA actually produces?

 

[Unification]

What? I honestly have no idea what you are trying to say there. Classical physics doesn't 'fail' it simply doesn't apply at the quantum scale. What? Word salad?
Sorry, that made no sense to me whatsoever.

It fails to provide answers for anything extending beyond itself. You're right also, it doesn't fail at anything remaining in its scope.

Those are all of the basic physical and universal laws of science.

 

[Bunyip]

It fails to provide answers for anything extending beyond itself.

Of course, same goes for every explanatory theory in science. So what?

You're right also, it doesn't fail at anything remaining in its scope.

Those are all of the basic physical and universal laws of science.

Not that I can see.

 

[Bunyip]

On to the next, quantum mechanics, getting closer, and studying the smaller... Reaches an unsolvable conclusion.

Strong emergence, the supposition that new properties can emerge from component systems, is a logical impossibility. This means that either subatomic particles must be conscious or consciousness must arise from outside the brain. Given that there is no evidence to suggest subatomic particles are conscious and that attempting to do so by way of QM results in a logical contradiction, it is illogical to conclude consciousness is a product of the brain.

If one is clung to materialism, there must be a molecule (DNA) that functions as the source of speaking, walking, reading, and doing mathematics, but such an assumption falls apart very quickly, since:

It’s impossible to credit that DNA knows math, which would in essence give it a mind.

Can we really believe that anyone, and all other producers of words, ideas, etc get their inspiration from amino acids, enzymes, and proteins, which is what DNA actually produces?

Why not? Amino acids and such formed Einstein, Shakespeare, Da Vinci. Even simpler molecules form the Mona Lisa. So of course collations of amino acids, enzymes and such can write Romeo and Juliette, invent spacecraft and perform theoretical physics calculations.

 

[Guy Threepwood]

On to the next, quantum mechanics, getting closer, and studying the smaller... Reaches an unsolvable conclusion.

Strong emergence, the supposition that new properties can emerge from component systems, is a logical impossibility. This means that either subatomic particles must be conscious or consciousness must arise from outside the brain. Given that there is no evidence to suggest subatomic particles are conscious and that attempting to do so by way of QM results in a logical contradiction, it is illogical to conclude consciousness is a product of the brain.

If one is clung to materialism, there must be a molecule (DNA) that functions as the source of speaking, walking, reading, and doing mathematics, but such an assumption falls apart very quickly, since:

It’s impossible to credit that DNA knows math, which would in essence give it a mind.

Can we really believe that anyone, and all other producers of words, ideas, etc get their inspiration from amino acids, enzymes, and proteins, which is what DNA actually produces?

I think that gets to the heart of it, purpose, intent, only possible in consciousness, can achieve what nature, a simple mathematical algorithm never can. Natural selection is inevitable, a superior car design will be selected by a process entirely independent of the design itself, that says nothing about the superior design being accidental.

Were the design changes purely random, the vast majority would be detrimental, natural selection, survival of the fittest selects the least impaired replica, and life under classical evolution quickly devolves into it's simplest homogenous form, as would matter under classical physics.

 

[Guy Threepwood]

Why not? Amino acids and such formed Einstein, Shakespeare, Da Vinci. Even simpler molecules form the Mona Lisa. So of course collations of amino acids, enzymes and such can write Romeo and Juliette, invent spacecraft and perform theoretical physics calculations.

and mere tiny fluctuations in voltage, of only two kinds, 'write' the software running this site and all the content on the www. Without organization, purpose intent, it simply can't organize itself.

 

[Guy Threepwood]

Pardon?

A majority of scientists in the relevant fields agree that evolution is a fact of life and all the evidence indicates that evolution is a fact of life. What they argue about are the smaller details and mechanisms of evolution. They don't argue about whether it occurs or not. That's a done deal. So I don't know what you're trying to say.

100% of paranormal investigators believe in ghosts, and they should know, they're the experts, right? The rest of us are not qualified to have an opinion are we?

 

[Bunyip]

and mere tiny fluctuations in voltage, of only two kinds, 'write' the software running this site and all the content on the www. Without organization, purpose intent, it simply can't organize itself.

Guy, what is the point? I care if what I say is the truth and you don't.
Snowflakes, diamonds, rubies, ecosystems, bubbles etc etc etc all self organise. Whilst an irreducibly complex organic structure is yet to be found.

 

[Guy Threepwood]

Guy, what is the point? I care if what I say is the truth and you don't.
Snowflakes, diamonds, rubies, ecosystems, bubbles etc etc etc all self organise. Whilst an irreducibly complex organic structure is yet to be found.

nothing determines how the snowflake forms? I think you'll find there are very specific instructions -

A snowflake is no more self organizing than the pixels that 'self organize' on your tv when you are watching a DVD.

But if you relly don't think I care about truth you are right, there's no point in continuing, but I think you do, everybody does.