Intelligent Design by rue

Quote:
Originally posted by chrisisall:
A movie that touches on this topic: anyone see Supernova? It had a cool ending, but in the extras it had an even more amazing ending that should have been used! It's not a 'GREAT' movie, but worth a look for the concepts (and the deleted ending) alone.

Sci-fi Chrisisall

Supernova? Aint seen it, whats it about?
You Science loving pagan you

Q: What do you have when you are holding two little green balls in your hand.
A: Kermit's undivided attention.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, August 10, 2005 10:16 AM

CHRISISALL:

Books...

In Search of Schrodinger's Cat: Quantum Physics And Reality is a good start. The author is John Gribbin. Then try out Infinity and the Mind by Rudy Rucker - also check out The Fourth Dimension by the same author. It is a laymans view of multi-dimensional theory. But if you like that stuff you would probably love Flatland. Humans live in a three dimensional world, but we 'think' in the fourth. Flatland looks at how flat 'people' or beings would see the world in a planar scape, but think in 'three' dimensional terms. If you want to get really heavy into all this, then DEFINATELY read the Tao if Physics by Fritjof Capra and the Dancing Wu Li Masters by Gary Zukav. And if you want to apply any of this in the real world then read everything by Richard Feynman.

Ending in 1994 there was a project in Waxahachie Texas called the Superconducting Super Collider. The DOE was building the worlds largest atom smasher. It was to be 54 milies in circumference, and would literally encircle the entire town. Anyway, I worked on that project for a while during my college days. That's where I picked up on alot of this junk. Unfortunately, the project was killed by uncle sam for reasons unknown, esp since we were ahead of schedule and behind on costs - maybe it had to do with an accidental cure for cancer they didn't want to acknowledge. Hummmm... Things like that emerge in high energy physics...

And yeah, I have written several books but I have never attempted to publish them. They all began as notes - then to notebooks, and then into my own personal references.

And finally - No. The thing about the battery terminals wasn't about love per se. But if you like it, then feel free I guess. But it was more in reference to your Buddhism comment.

Atomkey

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, August 10, 2005 10:34 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by citizen:
In fact modern thinking is that an electron does not orbit an atom, but forms an electron cloud around it because it can literally exist in all places within its orbit at once.

Ya - electrons form a shell, or cloud if you like. When the atom is not observed = the status of the electron (or any given sub atomic particle) is not known. That doesn't mean it is in some random position. If it were, then it would not get along with other atomic buddies of his same type. And yes, good old Schrodinger makes the point = cat in box with cyanide vial, hammer and servo - attached to geiger counter reading radium. Consider the status of the counter as the unknown state of the electron shell (the radium's emission). The question is, what is the current status of the electron. The only way to find out is to OBSERVE THE SYSTEM. Suddenly, the current position (or state) is found out, but nothing worthwhile can be said about it's previous status or the next one to come. Thus, the cat is both dead and alive, the vial is both broken and not, and so on. So actually, the Schridinger mind game about the cat isn't subscribing to anything being random. In fact it is suggesting that YOU (and I) are the only thing that can remotely inject anything truly random into the universe. The jacked up thing about the cat is: Once you look at the geiger counter you have now become part of the quantum system that's involves the cat. Once you do look at it, you are part of the system forever... and better yet if someone else observes you 'observing' the system, then they TOO become part of it. Once you are part of any quantum mechanical system, you cannot be removed from it unless you have the faith and mind power to un-observe something you already know of. This would be like Jesus power or something - like in the Matrix = where the spoon doesn't bend. You do. Personally, I do not believe in random. I mean look, humans cannot even create true random numbers in an automated way.

Atomkey

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, August 10, 2005 10:35 AM

OOps - forgot to close quote... :(

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, August 10, 2005 10:50 AM

FIVVER

Quote:

Unfortunately, the project was killed by uncle sam for reasons unknown, esp since we were ahead of schedule and behind on costs

There's your answer Atomkey. You were setting a bad precident for every other government project. I do feel for you. I still get steamed whenever I visit the cape and see all of that Apollo flight hardware turned into lawn ornaments.

Personally, I can't look at a globular cluster or a leaf or the miracle of a child and believe it just happened...

science loving, religious fanatic Fivver

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, August 10, 2005 10:59 AM

Citizen:

Everything we (think) we know about the universe is postulated on our single base of operations - that is = Earth. With the size and complexity of, well... everything = there is no way we can truly rely on things like E=MC^2 to work every where. This is the mass-energy conversion that used in many places, and has a appropriate use in physics, astrophysics, and theoretical physics. Both E (Energy) and M (Mass) can have a delta either way. But C cannot. That's becuase C was assumed to be a constant speed of 186000 miles a second. But it doesn't. Light moves at various velocities depending on it's wavelength (is it coherent light [laser]), what is it moving through, water, gas, vacuum? Scientists recently passed coherent light through a cesium atom suspended at absolute zero (Kelvin). This interfered with the photons in such a way that the scientists could actually watch the beam of light emerge from the emitter, travel through the atom (it is suspended so it is very large), and then to the destination plate. It was moving at around 5 mph.

So - you can't really use E=MC^2 anymore, since the primary thing that made it work was C. And C is no longer a constant. Of course, in the realm of controlled physics (where we make sure [determine] how we want things to behave) then it still comes in handy. Esp for building bombs.

Once more thing. Velocity relies heavily on time. Why = becuase we can't determine velocity without knowing a distance and 'how long' it took for some given projectile to travel the distance. But here's the catch. Technically speaking, there is no time at all. Time is a human invention so we may measure the passage of our self awareness. In all ways that humans attempt to re-invent what is aware = we fail. Our lives do not jut about in quick tic-tok like movements. Instead we move through time... moment to moment. Smoothly. In fact. Time travel IS possible becuase you are traveling through it at this very moment. You are your own machine, the mind is the navigator and now is the present. Time is kinda like the cat. IF you don't observe it = it becomes mute to your particular view of everything.

If anyone ever asks you what time it is = either say, just then. Or right now. But never in a moment.

Atomkey

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, August 10, 2005 11:00 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by citizen:
Supernova? Aint seen it, whats it about?

It's a movie by Walter Hill, but he took his name off it for various studio-meddeling reasons.
It plays a little like an Alien movie, 'cept no aliens, sort of a thriller about a medical ship that accidently goes off course in deep space-
I shouldn't really say more, just rent it (I liked it enough to buy it, $10 at Circuit City), it's a neat little flick. It's got about a half hour of deleted scenes (mostly studio mandates for time and to dumb it down just a bit), but the one to watch is the alternate ending (the studio didn't 'get' it).

Ebert & Chrisisall

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, August 10, 2005 11:06 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Atomkey:
Unfortunately, the project was killed by uncle sam for reasons unknown, esp since we were ahead of schedule and behind on costs - maybe it had to do with an accidental cure for cancer they didn't want to acknowledge.

Thanks for the booklist, Atomkey. And if I didn't know better, I'd say, extrapolating from the quote above, that you were some kind of Conspiracy Theorist....

Now you're talkin' my language Chrisisall

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, August 10, 2005 11:09 AM

Fivver:

I say you're right. We needed $640M in 1994 to continue the project. The oversight people approved the money. It was ours, but the the govt (since they were running the project) said, oh - nevermind. We'll just let Cern and FermiLab handle all the physics. Then they told us to use the moeny to shut down instead... Poof. Sucks too, we were slated to be the first to find the Top Quark.

If you are remotely interested, check out the link: SSC = Superconducting Super Collider.

http://www.hep.net/ssc/

Atomkey

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, August 10, 2005 11:16 AM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Atom- you're going to have to be a LOT more discursive! I get headaches just reading one sentence.

Time.... the past doesn't exist, the future doesn't exist, the moment when one paases to the other is infinitesimally small... therefore WE don't exist!

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, August 10, 2005 11:18 AM

CHRISISALL:

No nonspiracy...

No at all. It is real science and it does work. I heard about the test runs while I was on the SSC project. But about a year.5 after the project was shut down I saw an article in Newsweek (If memory serves). And they had actually saved someone with it (and yes, the someone was a ranking politician). The article included a two page layout with good graphics to illustrate how it worked. Actually, I know quite a bit about the machine myself. And if you really want to hear it I tell you. But it doesn't really bear on ID (this group). Want proof?

http://www.hep.net/ssc/new/history/factsheet.html

Then click on Cancer Therapy. Of course, the full tech data is not there. But they do have a working machine. And it does work without fail.

Far out huh?

Check out the picts too - start from the home page, then the first link, then the last one "Archives". Enjoy.

Atomkey.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, August 10, 2005 11:20 AM

FIVVER

Yeah, as I understand it y'all weren't even allowed to mothball the facility so that it could be restarted in the future. It was just turn off the lights and leave. What a waste.

Fivver

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, August 10, 2005 11:26 AM

SignyM:

ROFL - I haven't had someone call me discursive since yesterday!!! Point taken. Past = NOT exist, Future = NOT exist, We = NOT exist...

Thus = neither does this text.

CHRISISALL brings out the rambling on...

Atomkey.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, August 10, 2005 11:30 AM

Fivver:

We had miles of tunnel built. In some sections and three story crane could stand... They dynamited every section to ensure someone else would try to pick up where we left off. Pretty sleazy.

We did have fun though. In the summer there were always TONS of crickets. We would get a bunch in a metal vat basket and lower them into liquid helium. They were instantly cryogenically frozen. Then we would throw them out on the hot concrete docks and a few minutes later they were hopping around all happy again. Kinda cruel, but fascinating to watch.

How do you know about the SSC?

Atomkey

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, August 10, 2005 11:36 AM

Erm the C in E=MC² is light through a vacuum, and always has been...
And the speed of light is a constant within a vacuum, baring interaction with gravity wells/matter etc:

Quote:
At the 1983 Conference Generale des Poids et Mesures, the following SI (Systeme International) definition of the metre was adopted:

The metre is the length of the path travelled by light in vacuum during a time interval of 1/299 792 458 of a second.
This defines the speed of light in vacuum to be exactly 299,792,458 m/s. This provides a very short answer to the question "Is c constant": Yes, c is constant by definition!

Quote:
Another assumption on the laws of physics made by the SI definition of the metre is that the theory of relativity is correct. It is a basic postulate of the theory of relativity that the speed of light is constant. This can be broken down into two parts:

The speed of light is independent of the motion of the observer.
The speed of light does not vary with time or place.
To state that the speed of light is independent of the velocity of the observer is very counterintuitive. Some people even refuse to accept this as a logically consistent possibility, but in 1905 Einstein was able to show that it is perfectly consistent if you are prepared to give up assumptions about the absolute nature of space and time.

http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/SpeedOfLight/speed_of
_light.html

The fact that the speed of light changes depending on medium was known before e=mc², and c refers to speed of light in a vacuum, NOT the speed of light...

Time is refered to as a change in state... It is tangible in a much as time is a state change... and extremly hard to explain without quantifying it by itself...
Time travel is perfectly possible, but one way only, if you accelerate a space craft to close to the speed of light its Tau drops closer and closer toward zero. This has the effect, due to special reletivity, of compressing subjective time, thereby making time (the state changes) occur at a slower rate on the ship than outside the ship.
Thus you can travel forward in time, you cannot, however, travel backwards (as far as current thinking allows).

Q: What do you have when you are holding two little green balls in your hand.
A: Kermit's undivided attention.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, August 10, 2005 11:46 AM

Not really familiar with the SSC, but I do remember talk of it tho...
Sounded like an exciting project.
Guess we're stuck with CERN...
Well, as a Brit it makes me happy we're keeping Europe in the forefront...

Q: What do you have when you are holding two little green balls in your hand.
A: Kermit's undivided attention.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, August 10, 2005 11:53 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Atomkey:
No at all. It is real science and it does work.

I meant conspiracy as in 'somebody' *coffFDA* was paid to close down a project that would have saved millions, even billions of dollars that would have ended up in the hands of drug companies...
Sounds like a conspiracy to me. Finn, blast it, where are you? We need an inside word.

Con-nut Chrisisall

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, August 10, 2005 12:04 PM

Citizen:

Dang...

"Einstein was able to show that it is perfectly consistent if you are PREPARED TO GIVE UP assumptions about the absolute nature of space and time."

Prepared to give up... Humm. 'Definitions are adopted according to the most ACCURATELY known measurement techniques of the day, and are constantly REVISED.' According to the web site you sent me to. They HAD TO DO that because E=MC^2 couldn't explain why energy and matter reactions were inconsistent when viewed from different frames of reference. Hince relative...

Constantly revised. I wasn't attempting to prove that E=MC^2 doesn't work. I was attempting to show that at one time they couldn't explain why - so it was determined (in order to reconcile certain difficulties) that everyone said the speed of light is constant, and this is what it is. Then everyone could go back to work.

I'm guessing that most people say photons have no mass. I don't agree. But that is my view. I think one of the things that compells me is that light is pulled into a black hole. Let's say that a photon DOES have mass. How does E=MC^2 work at the event horizon of a collapsed star?

As you said, baring interaction with gravity wells/matter etc... Now we are (were) talking about Intelligent Design. I postulated that all we know is based on where we are from. And if some sort of 'god' created the universe, then bringing up relativity should be in a universal sense when applied to ID for a conclusion either way. Not just limited to a vacuum. What if way out there somewhere somehow it is impossible to form a vacuum.

I don't think I ever heard anyone refer to time as a state change. When I think of states - I think of logic or sets, or sets of sets. I guess I look at time in a more metaphysical way. But I can accept any possibility.

I do have a question though, since you see well versed. If you were to slow a photon down to zero velocity what might it become to the naked eye? If a space ship went by at the speed of light (in a vacuum of course) I would see a infintesimal quick burst of light... right? And if I stop the ship, I see the ship - right? I'm not so clear on that one...

Atomkey.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, August 10, 2005 12:12 PM

CHRISISALL:

I take it you believe the Apollo missions were faked? I've seen some stuff on that both ways. I'm in the US. Did you check out the SSC site?

Atomkey

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, August 10, 2005 12:20 PM

Citizen:

Know anything about Higgs Boson? If ID is real then this so called gluing force was designed to bind matter and energy. Does this hypothesised particle exist in a vacuum in your opinion? If ID is not real then what made it. I maintain that you can't have anything without first not having it. Again I refer to zero. In short where did all of the matter and energy in the universe emerge from?

Atomkey

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, August 10, 2005 12:23 PM

FINN MAC CUMHAL

Quote:
Originally posted by SergeantX:
Hmmm... I don't think I've ever heard this argument put forward. There's tons of evidence. I'm a little confused by what you meant though. How does adapting to their environment differ from transforming due to environmental pressures?

It doesn’t. The question is not whether adaptation occurs. That’s an observable, so we know it occurs. The question is whether or not these adaptations have resulted in different life-forms, or simply better adaptations of the same life-form. It is perfectly reasonable and supported by evidence to theorize that life-forms change to adapt to their environment in order to survive. But this adaptation leading to the present diversity of life forms is an assumption. We have never actually witnessed a primate, for instance, turning into a human, or to my knowledge, any other such combination.

This thread has advanced quite far and with my current efforts at work absorbing all my time I probably won't be able to keep up with this debate, so I’m not going to try.

Just a quite note to Citizen: Schrödinger’s Cat is not about randomness, it is about probability. The aspect of randomness in this G.E. is defined by the question, not a part of the answer. That’s important. QM is not a theory of randomness it is a theory of probability. One cannot assert that the universe is random by putting form such interpretations as Schrödinger’s Cat, only that the universe cannot be completely known by the observer.

-------------
Qui desiderat pacem praeparet bellum.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, August 10, 2005 12:38 PM

c is a constant as the absolute speed restriction of the universe due to mass/energy coefficents...
Its not really about the speed of light, as I understand it. More about the point when the mass/energy coefficent becomes infinate...
By give up the absolute nature of space and time I believe it means the difference between Newtonian physics and General/Special Relativity.
The universe runs like clock work in newtonian physics, it does not in einstiens.

I believe its accepted that photons have mass (and at the speed of light their subjective mass is nearly infinte) It is, however there rest mass that is zero, and this is perfectly possible...
To answer your question:
the closer that a ships velocity comes to c, the closer tau comes to zero.
If an outsider were to measure the mass of the ship the result would be the ships rest mass divided by tau. this means the faster the ship travels, the more massive she is...
This extra mass is from e=mc².
Further more lengths shrink; the observer would see the ship shortened in the direction of of movement by the factor tau.

EDIT: tau is a number given by the equation:
SqRt( 1 - (v/c)² ) (where v is the velocity and c is the speed of light in a vacuum, both in metres per second).

Q: What do you have when you are holding two little green balls in your hand.
A: Kermit's undivided attention.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, August 10, 2005 12:40 PM

Finn, I was under the impression that the true meaning of random WAS that an observer could never know what was going to happen next?

Q: What do you have when you are holding two little green balls in your hand.
A: Kermit's undivided attention.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, August 10, 2005 1:01 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Atomkey:
I take it you believe the Apollo missions were faked? I've seen some stuff on that both ways.

Atomkey, I am a Class 3 Conspiracy Theorist, therefore I believe our space missions and moon landings to be real ( a Class 2 would believe them to be a hoax, a Class 1 would believe them to be a hoax perpetrated by the aliens who live among us without our knowledge).

I looked at the SSC site and I admit this is the first I've heard of it. I know what path to persue now, if I should ever succumb.

That's Class 3 Chrisisall

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, August 10, 2005 1:32 PM

The first one was faked, the following ones weren't, the aliens are in my cupboard, in a box cause I wont let them out...
what does that make me...

Q: What do you have when you are holding two little green balls in your hand.
A: Kermit's undivided attention.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, August 10, 2005 1:36 PM

A Modified Class 1 CT.

Chrisisall

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, August 10, 2005 2:12 PM

Well, that means I'm unique, which is definatly a good thing...

Q: What do you have when you are holding two little green balls in your hand.
A: Kermit's undivided attention.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, August 10, 2005 3:29 PM

FINN MAC CUMHAL

Quote:
Originally posted by citizen:
Finn, I was under the impression that the true meaning of random WAS that an observer could never know what was going to happen next?

That may be, but just because we don’t or can’t know fully the velocity and position of a particle doesn’t mean that it is random. Only that we don’t have complete knowledge, and that is the story behind Quantum Mechanics. In the Schrödinger’s Cat GE the randomness is define by the question. We assume that the cat will die on a 50% chance, thereby making it random. Randomness is not necessarily a natural phenomena; it is enforced. The issue here is that the Cat is in a superposition of two probabilities, which are collapsed upon examination to yield a result that may be random purely because that is how the experiment was set up in the first place. Quantum Mechanics tells us that at a certain level we can no longer have full knowledge of the universe. Unless we measure a particle’s position we can’t precisely know it, but when we do measure it, its position will not necessarily be random. If anything QM suggests that the universe is not random, because when we measure a particle’s position in an experiment in which it can pass through two openings on a 50% chance, it will always appear exactly where we measured it, even though classically that particle has a 50% chance of being somewhere else. This is a case in which, classically and intuitively, we should see a pattern very much like flipping a coin, but in reality and according to QM we see instead no randomness whatsoever. So the absence of full knowledge does not necessarily imply randomness.

The moon landing was faked, but due to budgeting issues, instead of building a set they decided to use the moon, which was already there.

-------------
Qui desiderat pacem praeparet bellum.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, August 10, 2005 3:49 PM

SERGEANTX

Quote:
Originally posted by Finn mac Cumhal:
The moon landing was faked, but due to budgeting issues, instead of building a set they decided to use the moon, which was already there.

Wow! That's totally it. You've solved one of the biggest open questions of the theory - where did they fake those films? Many thought it was in the desert, but it just didn't add up. What better place to do it than the moon?!!

The truth is out there!

SergeantX

"Dream a little dream or you can live a little dream. I'd rather live it, cause dreamers always chase but never get it." Aesop Rock

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, August 10, 2005 4:19 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Finn mac Cumhal:
The moon landing was faked, but due to budgeting issues, instead of building a set they decided to use the moon, which was already there.

You guys never take anything seriously

Seen Capricorn One too many times Chrisisall

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, August 10, 2005 4:49 PM

RUE

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

Can I dig this one out of the back of the garage?

186,000 mi/sec - it's not just a good idea, it's THE LAW

(Some day I'd like to get this made into a bumper-sticker.)

Quote:
But this adaptation leading to the present diversity of life forms is an assumption.

If you call a new species a form of diversity, there is scientific observation of species formation right at this very moment. One involves recently isolated groups, the other involves species that cover large territories, with the versions at either extreme being distinctly different from each other.

Nearly everything I know I learned by the grace of others.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, August 10, 2005 6:37 PM

PERFESSERGEE

So far, I've sat out on this thread (and it's recent parallel), for two reasons. The first is that I'm a practicing biologist whose research program explores the evolution and maintenance of behavior. I teach evolutionary biology and therefore I'm biased. The second reason is that I'm not interested in, and don't have the time for, extended debate with those for whom no amount of rational and logical argument and no amount of evidence will serve to cause a reassessment of their preconceived notions. It's just not worth it.

So, I'm not going to address the merits of either ID or evolution and I'm going to cut to the chase: The only reason that folks are debating this issue at all is that there are repeated calls (rather assertive ones at that) that ID should be taught as science in science classes. Should such a thing be allowed (or fostered, or promoted?). There's a very simple answer - NO - and for a very simple reason - ID is NOT science, and it never will be. There are several reasons for this, but the most important is that ID relies on supernatural causation. Science by definition excludes supernatural causation,so ID will never fit the bill. That political leaders and educational policy makers don't understand what science is and isn't is appalling, and their attempts to enforce the expression of their own gnorance is a disgrace. No wonder science comprehension by US students lags so far behind not only the rest of the developed world, but big chunks of the third world as well.

perfessergee

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, August 10, 2005 11:59 PM

I happen to aggree with what your saying perfessergee but the way your saying it is far to confrontational to work with anyone who is a proponent of ID...

Q: What do you have when you are holding two little green balls in your hand.
A: Kermit's undivided attention.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, August 11, 2005 3:23 AM

I think we're talking different things here finn. Something can have a probabillity and still be random, flipping a coin is random, nuclear decay, based on all knowledge we have of it is random...
One atom has a probabillity of decaying, but we don't know which or when, so when and where an atom decays is a random event.
Something is random if all possibillities have an equal probabillity...

Quote:
Originally posted by Finn Mac Cumhal:
Unless we measure a particle’s position we can’t precisely know it, but when we do measure it, its position will not necessarily be random.

Unless you measure a particle's postion, you don't know where it is, and when you measure it your changing it. Thus you can't predict where a particle is, has been, or where it will be, until it is observed. Since this observation changes the particles state/position you can't be certain that where you observed it to be is where it would have been.
Thus I believe you could say that the particles postion/state can be said to be random.
The random nature of QM was at the heart of Einstiens rejection of it, hence the quote:
"God does not play dice with the Universe!"

Q: What do you have when you are holding two little green balls in your hand.
A: Kermit's undivided attention.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, August 11, 2005 7:04 AM

HKCAVALIER

Quote:
Originally posted by citizen:
I happen to aggree with what your saying perfessergee but the way your saying it is far to confrontational to work with anyone who is a proponent of ID...

Q: What do you have when you are holding two little green balls in your hand.
A: Kermit's undivided attention.

The problem is, ProffessorGee is exactly right. Teaching ID as science is nothing but a big

to science. That folk don't understand the most basic thing about science is appalling. I think part of the problem is that the pro-evolution folks engage with the pro-ID folks on the level of Truth, rather than approaching the question from the point of view of scientific limitation and discipline. That's how they getcha! The point isn't that ID is idiotic nonesence; the point is that it's abysmally bad science. It simply is. Faith in God and commitment to the scientific method, are in no way mutually exclusive, never have been. Polarization in any arena doesn't help anything except the propogation of prejudice and ignorance.

HKCavalier

Hey, hey, hey, don't be mean. We don't have to be mean, because, remember, no matter where you go, there you are.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, August 11, 2005 7:07 AM

Yeah sure, but people need educating, you can't educate if your being confrontational...

Q: What do you have when you are holding two little green balls in your hand.
A: Kermit's undivided attention.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, August 11, 2005 7:40 AM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

The people who want ID taught in science class aren't open to discussion or education. They have an agenda for which ID is only a fig leaf.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, August 11, 2005 8:08 AM

Okay, as a Brit I can't really comment on that.

Q: What do you have when you are holding two little green balls in your hand.
A: Kermit's undivided attention.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, August 11, 2005 11:31 AM

FINN MAC CUMHAL

It is unlikely that you’ll be able to illicit much reason from either side. The arguments on both sides of the Evolution/Intelligent Design debate are ideologically driven. They will both use confrontational language and ad hominem, because both Evolution and Intelligent Design are based on assumptions that probably cannot be tested, and neither side will admit that.

-------------
Qui desiderat pacem praeparet bellum.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, August 11, 2005 12:26 PM

I remember when we were told to eat margerine, 'cause butter was 'scientifically proven' to raise your cholesterol, therefore BAD for you. As a kid it made no sense to me that something people ate for centuries was 'suddenly' bad for you. I continued with the butter.
Now it is known that margerine is lacking in Qmega-3's, and it's crappy oils used in the cell walls of your body directly help to cause aortic anurisms and such...

Seems to me everything is pretty much theory. ID, Evolution,...the healthyness of margerine...

You pretty much have to go with your gut instinct on matters of faith, 'cause theories are always changin'.

Hey didn't the T-Rex used to stand perfectly upright Chrisisall

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, August 11, 2005 2:11 PM

Finn:

The cat has a 1 in 3 chance.

Chance 1 = the cat dies
Chance 2 = the cat lives
Chance 3 = the system is never observed, and the state of the cat is never known.

And I completely agree with your initial statement = "...just because we don’t or can’t know fully the velocity and position of a particle doesn’t mean that it is random."

About the coin toss. When I was in high school some friends (5) and I decided to flip coins and record thier results. We did this to gather data for a computer program. The test was to see how close the computer could come to matching real world randomness... if such a thing exists. Anyway, we did this for five days during lunch period near the band hall. On the fourth day we rolled 80+% of one state. We were all a little confused since each took a turn at 'rolling' the die. Friday returned the results to normal, being around 50% +/- about 2% in tolerance. Either way, the computer program (written in Pascal at the time) never came close to matching the oddity that happened on Thursday.

Atomkey

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, August 11, 2005 2:24 PM

How about the subconscious factor? When a variance occured couldn't one or more in the group have tossed the coins (dice?) in just the way to produce even more variance just 'cause it was interesting, but without consciously attempting to? I know that at my job I have to bundle one dollar bills into groups of twenty, and when I try to grab exactly twenty off the pile, I can never quite do it; but when I'm in automatic mode, not thinking too much, I 'accidently' grab exactly twenty, most times!

Amazing what you can do when you don't think so hard Chrisisall

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, August 11, 2005 2:32 PM

Perfessergee:

ID is not a science? There are many archeologist that would seriously disagree with you. But if you insist that a non-science should not be taught in school, then we should also rule out the following:

Football. Basketball. Anything ending with BALL.
Better yet = all sports. For they have no scientific bearing on anything except = who has the freaking ball...
How about band? Cheerleading. Drivers ed. Shop class. Home ec? Beauty school. Special ed?

Theatre arts. Or better anything that is considered an art. Painting, drawing, composing, be it prose, poetry, etc. I could go on for quite some time. You have generalized without using the scientific method itself. In fact, any decent scientists worth his/her salt would NEVER disregard ANYTHING even if it seems impossible.

I suggest to you that without the warm embrace of a possible reason and intelligent purpose that no one would create anything that could ever evoke an emotion. And with the cold line of science alone, we are no more than insects with the ability to build.

My apologies to all insect life in the event they do have emotions.

Atomkey.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, August 11, 2005 2:38 PM

CHRISISALL:

You make a fiar point. And it was considered at the time. But there is no way to prove it in a precise way. I do agree, the mind has a way of generating desired effects (in some cases) that are not explainable. Not to get metamind on you, but maybe the 'coins' themselves wanted a change of state. Anyway - die = dice = anything with 2 or more states. Hince a coin is a two sided dice. Anyone for D&D?

Actually you can have a zero sided dice in logic.

JJ.

Atomkey.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, August 11, 2005 2:42 PM

HKCAVALIER

Quote:
Originally posted by perfessergee:
...ID should be taught as science in science classes...

ProffesserGee was talking about science class. The folks that believe in ID don't tend to come by it through scientific investigation, right? Scientifically, isn't ID kind of a "throw up your hands" theory; we can't thoroughly explain the diversity of species, so it must be God?

HKCavalier

Hey, hey, hey, don't be mean. We don't have to be mean, because, remember, no matter where you go, there you are.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, August 11, 2005 2:52 PM

HKCavalier:

Well - yeah. But ID and Religion are two different things. Consider an excerpt =

Religion = An organized method of faith or belief practice.

Belief = Specific guidelines; An operand of religion. That is, what the religion teaches; A method of operation (such as company policy).

Faith = Knowing that what you believe is true without direct evidence. Furthermore, seeing it could actually diminish it, even though it would still be true.

Science = Knowing what you observe is true and persistent as far as nature or your perception allows (usually through the Scientific Method). Something subject to precedent. Proof by observation.

Denomination = Divisions of anything, usually money(s) or religion(s).

Politics = Any defined system for manipulating society in regards to: religion, science, belief, and faith. The word ‘manipulating’ is often substituted with any of the following: Directing, Guiding, Controlling, Regulating, Overseeing, Developing, Nurturing, etc… The function of most political engines is to obfuscate the obvious by diluting it in a trained-truth ‘en mass.

Politicians = seed planters. Their spiritual counterpart can be the pastor, the deacon, the bishop, the cardinal, the guru… The just-about-anything.

Government = A paid-for system that uses politics like ‘believers’ subscribe to religion.

Truth = What everyone wants, no one has, all are looking for, and none can buy. By definition of itself, it is what it is. As a result, the Truth must therefore exist.

ID is not Religion.

Religion is a BELIEF based on FAITH.
Evolution is a BELIEF based on THEORY.
Intelligent Design is a METHOD of bringing the TWO together.

Just my opinion.

Atomkey

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, August 11, 2005 2:56 PM

Why not teach all theories in science class, no matter what the degree of proveability (as long as they have SOME scientific refrence, I don't mean we should teach Quantum Tooth Fairy Mechanics, or anything...)?

Broad minded Chrisisall

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, August 11, 2005 3:11 PM