REAL WORLD EVENT DISCUSSIONS

Intelligent Design

POSTED BY: RUE
UPDATED: Tuesday, August 16, 2005 07:04
SHORT URL:
VIEWED: 9432
PAGE 1 of 3

Tuesday, August 9, 2005 9:09 AM

RUE

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


I tried to find the previous thread that, in part, discussed evolution, but didn't have any luck.

I was playing a computer game where the player attempts to create patterns, while the computer counters with random moves that sometimes help but most often block the player.

And that led me to thinking that, over time, randomness is a pervasive, persistent, and ultimately dominant trend (otherwise known as entropy).

So an intelligent design created some time in the past and then left alone can't help but degrade into disorder.

OTOH, if there is a process that depends on random changes and propagates the most stable ones, it is in the long term driven by that random change. That makes it a likely piece of the concept of how did life end up this way.

Comments?



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

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

Tuesday, August 9, 2005 9:49 AM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.


The problem that religious folk have with evolution (aside from the fact that it's not spelled out in the bible) is the problem that you pointed out:
Quote:

randomness is a pervasive, persistent, and ultimately dominant trend (otherwise known as entropy).
They have a housekeeper view of the universe: If someone isn't constantly cleaning up and organizing then eventually everything goes to hell. But there are, apparently, self-organizing forces in the universe as well as disorganizing forces and evolution is one of them. The concept of evolution as a primary organizing force has certainly been proven by computer models, where bits of self-replicating programs (with little deviations thrown in at random) compete for memory space and computng power. Inital conditions (like the "primordial soup") create the entire gamut of primary producers, predators, parasites and symbiots. Seems like a field ripe for philosphers much more intelligent than myself.

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

Tuesday, August 9, 2005 11:24 AM

CHRISISALL


Randomness pokes the status quo in the ribs saying, "whatcha gonna do now?". Constructive force adapts to become the new. Destructive force limits the life span of the new, forcing randomness to repeat it's question.
Every atom is recycled. No new energy is ever created, only changed in form, or use. And change is the essential nature of all existence.

This is why I like Buddism.

An answer to every question isn't necessary, but you should always ask them Chrisisall

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

Tuesday, August 9, 2005 1:15 PM

SERGEANTX


The arguments for ID are compelling for many, but, if anything, the evidence points to "Stupid Design".

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  

Tuesday, August 9, 2005 1:24 PM

CHRISISALL


lol, that's funny.
But intelligence is something we are trying to apply here to a force or phenomenon that is probably not defined by or limited to such.
Like trying to see the nose on a chicken, so to speak.

All mystical and what-not Chrisisall

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

Tuesday, August 9, 2005 1:28 PM

SERGEANTX


Quote:

Originally posted by chrisisall:
Like trying to see the nose on a chicken, so to speak.



Is this something that's caused problems for you in the past?

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  

Tuesday, August 9, 2005 1:44 PM

CHRISISALL


Aren't we the little smart-ass demon?

Tacky Chrisisall

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

Tuesday, August 9, 2005 2:26 PM

HKCAVALIER


Quote:

Originally posted by SergeantX:
The arguments for ID are compelling for many, but, if anything, the evidence points to "Stupid Design".

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



Detractors and proponents of I.D. alike tend to make the assumption that the design is somehow complete or that human beings are the "end result." To me that's kind of like criticizing molten bronze bubbling in the crucible because it doesn't look like the Pieta. Work in progress, folks. Any artist will tell you, the creative process is messy and there are a lot of false starts and dead ends on the way to completion.

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  

Tuesday, August 9, 2005 2:35 PM

DAIKATH


Im still wondering how randomness can create a bacteria who moves around with a hair spining around.

That hair on a bacteria requires several different systems to work in harmony for it to do the purpose wich has made the bacteria so succesfull.

I still have trouble that that very specific system has come to be due to randomness alone.

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

Tuesday, August 9, 2005 3:17 PM

ATOMKEY


CHRISISALL:

Was not intelligence a force that compelled you to write? Or at least made it possible to comprehend and respond? Is it not like the difference of potential across the terminals of a battery? One seeks the others potential so the electrons may complete a circuit and allow the flow to realize itself?

Well okay. How about this = the beginning of all things is the absence of them. There could be no number line without (0) zero. The moment there is (1) one of anything, there is a potential for it to NOT be. Basic observation proves this one quite simply. There would be no math without ‘nothing.’ So, in the ‘real’ beginning there was nothing. Right? And then something had to instigate the ‘first’ anything. You can’t use Big Bang here people, because BB says there was a singularity (still something at least 1). It was composed of four basic things. All the matter collapses into this singular thing and then bang. But where did all the stuff come from in the first place? Did it make itself? Did you make yourself? A subatomic particle has a particular vector and velocity. These cannot be known until measured, right? So then when they are measured they are proven to have a particular course and speed. Take a wave-guide that has one injection site and two paths. The observed path is always where the particle emerges. Is this random? Perhaps random is just a cop-out way of saying we have no method to predict the outcome – yet. Maybe there is no random after all? Can you imagine life where all things were know? That would be really boring wouldn’t it? I cannot subtract 1 from 1 unless it is possible for 0 to exist. All things observed cannot exist unless they cannot, and at one time did not. Conservation of energy works now, because the energy exists. That is to say, the universe exists energetically on all layers, mass, time, speed, etc. But where did the energy come from in the first place? There is no such thing as garbage, becuase there is no way to discard anything in the universe. It just changes form. So the real answer to the question is, find a way to get completely rid of the universe, and then you will know if it were random or not.



Atomkey...

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

Tuesday, August 9, 2005 4:09 PM

ATOMKEY


Rue:

Some people (many) believe that PI is equated to 22/7. It is not. This is an approximation to make math by hand more manageable. PI is the ratio of a circle’s diameter to it radius. Thus PI = C/R. To the end, PI is a NEVER repeating NEVER ending value. If you counted to the digit minus one end of PI, you would have never seen the same number sequence repeat. What’s even more insane = if you average the occurrence of each digit 0-9, they all fall with a delta 10% of each other. Some are around 9.8 others 10.2 – and if you do it in real time, they each take a chance at beating and then losing to each other. A circle is one of the most elegant forms in geometry. It extends into a sphere when rotated around any give axis that intersects its center. Every model of everything is typically based on this form. So for every ‘random’ event demonstrated through this form, it is based on an object that has a particular destiny to always exhibit the same infinitesimal stream of numbers that ARE NOT random, and yet defies all logic in their propagation. Not only that, but the results are the same for ANY scale, be it a basketball, baseball, ping pong ball, molecule, protein, atom, electron, quark, and even further.


Atomkey

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

Tuesday, August 9, 2005 4:37 PM

SERGEANTX


Crikey, I've gone cross-eyed!

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  

Tuesday, August 9, 2005 4:48 PM

RUE

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


I'm still unravelling the contradictions in algebra. Geometry is next on my list.

I think I undertstand the demoralization that comes with thinking the universe is deterministic. And the conundrum of the concept of 'random' ('nothing happens without cause'). The circular logic of the big-bang and the same circular logic of religion (if god made all, what made god?)

Perhaps some things happen on scales we can't perceive.

Let me just think along some new lines ... not going to an end, just musing ... Physical randomness is classically thought of as coming from thermal motion. High aggregate thermal motion is the same as high temperature and high energy. With a thermal gradient, it CAN be used to drive work. It can also thermally smash to smithereens. It drives work which is order, and diffusion which is disorder.

Maybe we need a new language for these concepts, it may be that different things are lumped together.


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

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

Tuesday, August 9, 2005 5:58 PM

RUE

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


So, moving along, does it seem that an intentional design from the past is a static state? And that randomness (which may just be a different level of order we can't perceive) is a dynamic process? And that dynamic processes will overwhelm static states?

Would the next step be to think that a countervailing dynamic process must exist to maintain life? (SignyM's housekeeping)


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

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

Tuesday, August 9, 2005 6:26 PM

CHRISISALL


Wow. This thread got very heavy (not due to a shift in the Earth's gravitational field-kind of heavy), and all I can respond with is: I think, therfore I am.
I also have a recollection of being a lowly private-type in a fuedal war in China in my last (partial) life, however, the technology to prove it's validity won't come on-line for several score years, so I am taking my 'awake dream' on faith that it was a true account of it's existance.
Or maybe I ate too much popcorn at the theatre that evening. Anything is possible.

Flexable Chrisisall

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

Tuesday, August 9, 2005 6:38 PM

CHRISISALL


Quote:

Originally posted by Atomkey:
Not only that, but the results are the same for ANY scale, be it a basketball, baseball, ping pong ball, molecule, protein, atom, electron, quark, and even further.

Jokes aside, have you written a book, or could you recommend a book detailing what you're talking about? Your shorthand is losing me a little, but it sounds facinating.
Quantum mechanics and theoretical physics were sort of glossed over at my H.S., and all I studied in college was art and film.

Scientifically challenged Chrisisall

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

Tuesday, August 9, 2005 6:45 PM

CHRISISALL


Quote:

Originally posted by Atomkey:
One seeks the others potential so the electrons may complete a circuit and allow the flow to realize itself?

One last thing, are you referring to LOVE here?

Scientifically romantic Chrisisall

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

Tuesday, August 9, 2005 7:44 PM

FINN MAC CUMHAL


I’m not a big supporter of Intelligent Design, but then I’m not a big supporter of Evolution either. They both seem very speculative to me. On the one hand, the shear enormity of the complexity of life does suggest something more then simple random events. There is mathematics that suggests that the probability of life occurring with the complexity that we observe is astronomically small. And while some Evolutionists scoff at the notion that this suggests some sort of intelligent design, it is a valid scientific question. If the complexity is such that the probability of life emerging arbitrarily is so small then could there be nonrandom factors involved that favor life?

I’ve heard Evolutionists insist that the theory of Evolution is a fact and only the details are in debate, but evidently one of these details is the complete absence of any evidence for Evolution. There is plenty of evidence that life forms adapt to their environment, but very little evidence of a life form transforming into something else as a result of environmental pressures. Gradual adaptation is generally used in a hand-waving attempt to suggest that this transformation occurs, and that’s probably about as suggestive for Evolution as complexity is for Intelligent Design. But in my mind, neither one is particularly strong.

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

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

Tuesday, August 9, 2005 8:11 PM

SERGEANTX


Quote:

Originally posted by Finn mac Cumhal:
There is plenty of evidence that life forms adapt to their environment, but very little evidence of a life form transforming into something else as a result of environmental pressures.



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?



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  

Tuesday, August 9, 2005 11:43 PM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.


Quote:

There is plenty of evidence that life forms adapt to their environment, but very little evidence of a life form transforming into something else as a result of environmental pressures.
I'll let Finn explain what he means, but on a related comment, "species" is not a totally clear-cut concept since exceptions occur no matter which definition you choose. For example, tigers/lions and porposies/ orcas have been know to interbreed and produce fertile offspring. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Species
Quote:

There is mathematics that suggests that the probability of life occurring with the complexity that we observe is astronomically small.
Directly contradicted by computer simulations that "create" whole ecosystems given certain basic parameters. There are other more complete disussions available but they require subscription, so here is one example: www.cs.utoronto.ca/~adyecker/download/Tierra.ppt adaptation is generally used in a hand-waving attempt to suggest that this transformation occurs
Actually, "punctuated equilibrium" is one of the current models of evolution currently being debated. The model suggests that species evolve relatively quickly in isolated areas subject to enormous environmental pressure. www.answers.com/topic/punctuated-equilibrium I agree that the exact characteristics of evolution haven't been entirely worked out (Was it fast or slow? Isolated or broad-based?) but both fossil records AND subsequent investigation of DNA (with highly conserved areas common among many species) point to a process in which life forms change over time and eventually produce new species. Virology provides a real-time example of evolution.

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

Wednesday, August 10, 2005 1:06 AM

GROUNDED

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

Wednesday, August 10, 2005 3:30 AM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.


There are many examples of bacteria forced to evolve including (but not limited to) in-situ remediation. The thing that crosses my mind is: I sure hope those bugs don't get loose! But then, I guess that it is so energetically costly to detoxify methylene chloride, for example, that in virtually all cases the bateria would be quickly out-competed by their more normal cousins. It's that 1:10^20 Andromeda Strain you have to watch out for!

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

Wednesday, August 10, 2005 4:13 AM

CITIZEN


Quote:

originally posted by AtomKey:
But where did all the stuff come from in the first place? Did it make itself? Did you make yourself? A subatomic particle has a particular vector and velocity. These cannot be known until measured, right? So then when they are measured they are proven to have a particular course and speed. Take a wave-guide that has one injection site and two paths. The observed path is always where the particle emerges. Is this random? Perhaps random is just a cop-out way of saying we have no method to predict the outcome – yet. Maybe there is no random after all?


Why couldn't it make itself, or maybe what existed before our universe was pure energy, E=MC² gives a mechanism for energy to become matter and vice-versa.
If/when our universe ceases to exist they're will be no time, as time is a part of the change in state of our universe. Its a difficult point to grasp but they're would be no before or after, so hypothetically its possible that a 'big crunch' where our universe collapses into a singularity could be the catalyst for the big bang that created our universe in the first place.
Your point seems to jump around ideas of quantum physics a lot, and I'm not sure what your trying to say, but randomness in the field of sub-atomic particles takes the idea of Schrödinger's cat, an explination of which you can find here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schrodinger%27s_cat

The idea is that a particle is 'random' because you or it doesn't know where it is or will be until its measured, and the measuring itself changes the particles behaviour/position. Thus until a particle is measured it can be thought of being everywhere within its realm.
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.
In nuclear decay you can know how many atoms will decay, but not which atoms, not until it happens. Every atom in the sample has an equal chance of decaying, but only some do at any instant.

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 4:41 AM

ANTHONYT

Freedom is Important because People are Important


Hello,

It seems to me that any intelligent design meant to endure over centuries and millenia, ought to include an ability to adapt to changes in its environment. When new challenges surface, the design ought to be able to alter itself to meet them.

It seems to me that evolution is the most intelligent design feature possible.

--Anthony

"Liberty must not be purchased at the cost of Humanity." --Captain Robert Henner

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

Wednesday, August 10, 2005 4:57 AM

CITIZEN


That doesn't rule out evolution being a natural and random process, nor does it support I.D., as far as I can see...
Although I don't see any reason why evolution or the big bang precludes the existence of god. To my mind it only precludes the humanised version of god, and creation seen in the Bible for instance.

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 5:31 AM

ANTHONYT

Freedom is Important because People are Important


I have always felt that evolution suggests an intelligent design feature that responds to the ever-changing, sometimes random, nature of the universe.

The fact that not all creatures who are exposed to similar experiences end up evolving in the same way suggests to me that the course of evolution itself is guided by an underlying intelligent design or plan.

I feel that evolution, as the most intelligent of all design features, is clear indication of a higher creator. Not randomness forges us, but rather the One who made it possible for randomness to change us in beneficial ways.

--Anthony

"Liberty must not be purchased at the cost of Humanity." --Captain Robert Henner

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

Wednesday, August 10, 2005 5:47 AM

CITIZEN


Quote:

originally posted by AnthonyT:
The fact that not all creatures who are exposed to similar experiences end up evolving in the same way suggests to me that the course of evolution itself is guided by an underlying intelligent design or plan.


But the only true test would be if the same creature was subjected to the same experiences in seperate (tho identical) places...
Even if the creatures and their situations are similar I doesn't necessarilly follow that the same mutation would be optimal. In fact I would argue the fact that not all creatures evolve in the same way is more coherent with a 'random' element to evolution than a designed.

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 5:59 AM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.


Quote:

The fact that not all creatures who are exposed to similar experiences end up evolving in the same way suggests to me that the course of evolution itself is guided by an underlying intelligent design or plan....the One who made it possible for randomness to change us in beneficial ways.

Wha...? Randomness also changes creatures to their detriment. It's not as if every creature that ever evolved is still alive today.

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

Wednesday, August 10, 2005 6:05 AM

HERO


Quote:

Originally posted by citizen:
Even if the creatures and their situations are similar I doesn't necessarilly follow that the same mutation would be optimal. In fact I would argue the fact that not all creatures evolve in the same way is more coherent with a 'random' element to evolution than a designed.



What about the idea that all possible outcomes of any given choice exist on seperate planes of existance. Thus identical creatures and situations yield an infinite number of combinations.

That means somewhere out there John Kerry is the Republican President and Saddam Hussein is Pope and Firefly, starring William Shatner as Captain James T. Reynolds, is entering its sixth or seventh season as the number one show on CBS, Mexico's most wathced network wilst 'Who Wants to be a Hilton' is set for a September movie release.

Oh, and any intelligent design would incorporate randomness as a factor, thus ordering random chaos into its overall pattern.

H

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

Wednesday, August 10, 2005 6:40 AM

RUE

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


Quote:

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.
I have thought for a long time that matter is merely wave forms that are brought to focus in a particular time and space by interactions with other wave forms (something like constructive interference). Thus, all possibilities exist in a wave, but when they are 'measured' or seen it is due to their local interaction with other wave forms.

PS And the reason why E=MC^2 is because matter is merely the focused state of these waves (like a standing wave in space)


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

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

Wednesday, August 10, 2005 6:57 AM

RUE

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


To say that incorporating randomness (the evolutionary process) is the "intelligence" in intelligent design contradicts the major contention of ID:

Quote:

http://www.intelligentdesignnetwork.org/

The theory of intelligent design (ID) holds that certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause rather than an undirected process such as natural selection.

Positive evidence of design in living systems consists of the semantic, meaningful or functional nature of biological information, the lack of any known law that can explain the sequence of symbols that carry the "messages," and statistical and experimental evidence that tends to rule out chance as a plausible explanation. Other evidence challenges the adequacy of natural or material causes to explain both the origin and diversity of life.

And, they not only have a problem with the origins of life, they have a problem with the diversity of life and all the finely tuned physical constants that make the universe possible.


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

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

Wednesday, August 10, 2005 7:16 AM

SERGEANTX


It's hard to take seriously scientific arguments for Intelligent Design when the whole point of it is to undermine the reliance on scientific argument. The proponents of the movement will deny that this is the case, but c'mon - they don't want evolution accepted as fact because it calls into question some of the basic assumptions of their religion. That's pretty much what this is all about.

It seems to me, for a religion to have much value it ought to be flexible and adaptive (much like science is). Part of the problem today is that our religions can't keep up with our changing understanding of the physical world.

I'm not really anti-religion. It may prove to be an indispensable part of the human psyche, but why not try to understand it and adapt it to our current environment so that it is actually a boon to modern civilization?


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 7:23 AM

CHRISISALL


Quote:

Originally posted by SergeantX:
It seems to me, for a religion to have much value it ought to be flexible and adaptive (much like science is).

Buddism, anyone?
Or you could always go the Scientology route...

Meditating Chrisisall

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

Wednesday, August 10, 2005 7:26 AM

CITIZEN


Thats right Rue, its called wave-particle duality...
Einstien postulated that all matter was in fact a wave AND a particle, that is particles have wave like properties, but as particle size increases wavelength drops, until by the time you get to the size of a neutron the wave properties are 'invisible' because they are contained within the particles mass...
E=MC² describes the amount of energy yielded if a given quantity of matter is converted into energy.

Quote:

Originally posted by Hero:
Oh, and any intelligent design would incorporate randomness as a factor, thus ordering random chaos into its overall pattern.


Ladies and Gentlemen, the very definition of a Post-hoc analysis...
Well, if evolution is random it proves that theres intelligent design, if it isn't then it proves the existence of intelligent design.

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 7:27 AM

RUE

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


And the Universe as the dance.


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

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

Wednesday, August 10, 2005 7:28 AM

CITIZEN


I agree Chrisisall, Buddhism is a religon I have alot of respect for, due in no small part to the fact that it concentrates more on getting people to live good lives, rather than being right and persecuting heretics...

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 7:38 AM

RUE

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


Citizen

Something a little different from wave-particle duality. I'm going for wave, with matter being waves in a special type of interaction. But thanks for the response. As you may have noticed, I'm not a mathemetician or physicist so this notion of mine could be completely bogus. But it is so clear in my mind.

PS Anything you could tell me would be greatly appreciated, or a reference would be good. One of the wonderful things about this board is the chance to learn.


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

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

Wednesday, August 10, 2005 7:39 AM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.


People who embrace ID have to reject fossil evidence, DNA studies, and the entire foundation of scientific enquiry. And I do have a problem with that kind of religion. I can understand religions that acknowledge human unity or that recognize the vastness of the universe or that provide ethical guidance or that seek to explain those areas that science cannot (Why are we here?)... but THIS particular religious sect seeks to impose belief even when it contradicts daily experience. And the problem is when you set up a religion based on faith VERSUS evidence, that religion will never be self-correcting because there is no avenue for feedback/ input.

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

Wednesday, August 10, 2005 7:43 AM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.


Citizen- you seem to be knowledgeable about quantum physics. I confess- I fufilled my second-year physics requirements with meteorology and thermodynamics. I ducked. So, do I have some theories for YOU. But I gotta get back to work- DANG!

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

Wednesday, August 10, 2005 7:44 AM

RUE

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


It has taken some great detours, but thank you SignyM for bringing to the discussion back into focus.


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

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

Wednesday, August 10, 2005 7:59 AM

CITIZEN


I see what you mean... Not quite ready to give up on Einstien quite yet myself tho .
Its an interesting idea tho...

When it comes to physics most of my refrences (read nearly all) are in offline format...
Heres a few ok ones tho:
Wave particle duality:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wave_particle_duality
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/mod1.html
http://www.hotquanta.com/wpd.html

More general:
http://www.generationterrorists.com/quotes/abhotswh.html
http://newton.physics.metu.edu.tr/~fizikt/html/hawking/A_Brief_History
_in_Time.html





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 8:17 AM

FIVVER


Even Einstein wasn't happy with quantum mechanics. Remember his quote: "I refuse to believe that God plays dice with the universe."

One great place to explore is the Antropic (or Anthropic) Principle. This is one place where science and religion are glaring at each other. It was alluded to earlier but what it says is that at the moment of creation all of what are now constants in the universe were in flux. And the way they stabilized was so favorable for life that it couldn't have been coincidence. Example: If the gravitational constant was either higher or lower by just a FEW percent then either the universe would have been composed of massive stars that would have quickly burned out (higher) or the gravitational pressure in the hydrogen cloud would never have reached the levels for fusion to start (lower).

This holds for all constants - weak nuclear, strong nuclear, e/m, etc.

Fivver

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

Wednesday, August 10, 2005 8:33 AM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.


Quote:

If the gravitational constant was either higher or lower by just a FEW percent then either the universe would have been composed of massive stars that would have quickly burned out (higher)...
Well, so we say NOW! Just wait another several billion years and we'll be cryn' the blues THEN! I'm just sayin' that we had better find our purpose for creation because we're on a timetable, gorramit!

Doing my best to immitate Chrisisall.

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

Wednesday, August 10, 2005 8:35 AM

CITIZEN


True, but coincidences do happen.
Besides, who says life couldn't start in a universe with different properties?
Quote:


The Copernican Principle holds that since our universe exists, and since we have no good reason to think that it is special, we have to assume that it is simply the most likely of all possible universes - in short, mediocre.


http://www.esoterism.ro/english/antropic-principle.php

Your argument focuses on the Principle from the wrong direction (IMHO). What if, rather than the universe forming to serve our life, our life formed to live in this universe...
This would result in a universe finely tuned to support us, simply because we evolved to live within the constraints of this system.

Quote:

Weak anthropic principle (WAP): "The observed values of all physical and cosmological quantities are not equally probable but they take on values restricted by the requirement that there exist sites where carbon-based life can evolve and by the requirements that the Universe be old enough for it to have already done so."
Strong anthropic principle (SAP): "The Universe must have those properties which allow life to develop within it at some stage in its history."
Final anthropic principle (FAP): "Intelligent information-processing must come into existence in the Universe, and, once it comes into existence, it will never die out."


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

http://www.anthropic-principle.com/

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 8:42 AM

FIVVER


Quote:


Well, so we say NOW! Just wait another several billion years and we'll be cryn' the blues THEN! I'm just sayin' that we had better find our purpose for creation because we're on a timetable, gorramit!



We may have more than a few billion years depending on who wins the 'is the universe open / closed / or just being renovated?' debate.

Fivver

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

Wednesday, August 10, 2005 8:49 AM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.


CROSS POSTED
The "anthropic" prinicple seems to require that we are the only form of life possible therefore everything must have evolved to create us. I'm sure someone can clarify that logical inconsistancy better than I. For all we know, "life" is a ubiquitous phenomenon. After all, it only takes a self-replicating entity with a "soft" code. It doens't even take a multiplicity of chemical compounds- computers express the process with only two states.

So if the stars burned brighter, the higher energy flux might have simply accelerated the process. And if nuclear fusion "never" took place, the interiors of gas giants might prove to be fertile ground. Seeing ourselves as the pinnacle of creation doesn't make it so.

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

Wednesday, August 10, 2005 8:59 AM

CITIZEN


Essentially, yes.
Can Humans live solely off of discharge from hydro-thermal vents miles under the surface of the ocean?
No way!
Can life?
Yes, in fact, it does!
Point is people say life could only survive under the circumstances and properties of our universe, but that simply doesn't fit the evidence all around us.
Life as we know it may not be able to survive in anything but our universe, but would you really expect otherwise? It doesn't need to survive in any other universe, does it...

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 9:08 AM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.


I don't have a problem evolution. That's small potatoes. I have an issue with the Big Bang theory. It seems to me that when you have to hang so many fudge factors on a theory (Dark matter. Dark energy. n-dimensions.) you've gone off in a wrong direction somewhere. Not that the correct theory MUST be simple and intuitive, but when a simple explanation suddenly develops so many curlicues we might look a little more deeply into our paradigms.

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

Wednesday, August 10, 2005 9:12 AM

INEVITABLEBETRAYAL


I have resisted posting in here because this is a subject near and dear to my heart (and, no, I won't say which way).

But I just wanted to commend all for not going to the place these discussions usually do: one side shouting, "Ignorant religious fanatic!"; and the other, "Godless pagan!"

I'd encourage all to keep the discussion going in the spirit of openness that's characterized it thus far.

_______________________________________________
I wish I had a magical wish-granting plank.

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

Wednesday, August 10, 2005 9:25 AM

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

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

YOUR OPTIONS

NEW POSTS TODAY

USERPOST DATE

OTHER TOPICS

DISCUSSIONS
Salon: NBC's Ronna blunder: A failed attempt to appeal to MAGA voters — except they hate her too
Thu, March 28, 2024 07:04 - 1 posts
Russia Invades Ukraine. Again
Thu, March 28, 2024 05:27 - 6154 posts
In the garden, and RAIN!!! (2)
Thu, March 28, 2024 02:07 - 3408 posts
Russian losses in Ukraine
Wed, March 27, 2024 23:21 - 987 posts
Elections; 2024
Wed, March 27, 2024 22:19 - 2069 posts
human actions, global climate change, global human solutions
Wed, March 27, 2024 15:03 - 824 posts
NBC News: Behind the scenes, Biden has grown angry and anxious about re-election effort
Wed, March 27, 2024 14:58 - 2 posts
BUILD BACK BETTER!
Wed, March 27, 2024 14:45 - 5 posts
RFK Jr. Destroys His Candidacy With VP Pick?
Wed, March 27, 2024 11:59 - 16 posts
Russia says 60 dead, 145 injured in concert hall raid; Islamic State group claims responsibility
Wed, March 27, 2024 10:57 - 49 posts
Ha. Haha! HAHA! HAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAAHAHA!!!!!!
Tue, March 26, 2024 21:26 - 1 posts
You can't take the sky from me, a tribute to Firefly
Tue, March 26, 2024 16:26 - 293 posts

FFF.NET SOCIAL