Print

[damam]

QUOTE(puckSR @ Sep 28 2005, 10:07 PM)

The problem with "intelligent design" is that they are trying to suggest it can be used exclusively in the realm of genetic evolution.  They are not trying to say that the "designer" is responsible for the existence of genetics.  They are suggesting that he is actively involved in genetic evolution.

I dont think that is true.  I think the intelligent design people suggests that for the most part, the designer has set it up and let it go (ie being responsible for genetics and everything else period), the designer has only intervened in certain limited areas to direct evolution through manipulation of the 5 tenets of evolution only one of which pertains directly to genetics.  

QUOTE

Science usually takes the side of Deism, or in the case of my religion, deterministic deism.  The idea that a "designer" is still actively working brings a lot more questions than answers.

"intelligent design" is heretical offshoot of deterministic deism.  And their have been several deist who believe that g-d does intervene on extremely rare occasions.  Most of the founding fathers are examples of deterministic deist who believed that . . .

[puckSR]

a deist cannot believe that god still intervenes on occassion, if they did, then they wouldn't be a Deist.  They would be a Theist

I have never heard an ID person say that they were Deists.  If that was the driving belief behind intelligent design, then they really wouldnt have much to do with science.  They also would not be an "alternative", in their words, to evolution.  They would simply be Deists, which is a theological perspective.

Ih, and ID is not an offshoot of Deism, its an offshoot of creationism

[xmedia2004]

QUOTE

First, science wouldnt call it a theory unless it had been tested and proven.

READ MY FIRST POST ON THEORY VS LAW(you obviously didnt read source or didnt understand source)

QUOTE

Who the hell is Dr. Glenn Jackson

I dont know him he is a well qualified scientist that doesnt buy the BS you are selling. Underscoring my jury is till out comment.

QUOTE

The only thing scientist are disagreeing about in his case is where man evolved, and the exact time frame of his evolution from earlier hominids

And just how long this process took. So a "loooooonnnnggg" time as you put it
keeps getting  a makeover ever few months further disproving Evolution

QUOTE

even if our DNA is almost 99% the same?

You oversimplify the convergance. That 1% biologically is a grand canyon. And considering our limited knowledge of DNA, which the science is still relatively an infant, I tend to hold judgement.  

And also stated by Dr. Jackson I am skeptical of DNA samples from fossilized remains. It is hard enough to get good DNA profile from people that have been dead around range of 100 years when not properly buried. Sounds a little hookie.

[xmedia2004]

QUOTE

First, science wouldnt call it a theory unless it had been tested and proven.

READ MY FIRST POST ON THEORY VS LAW(you obviously didnt read source or didnt understand source)

QUOTE

Who the hell is Dr. Glenn Jackson

I dont know him he is a well qualified scientist that doesnt buy the BS you are selling. Underscoring my jury is till out comment.

QUOTE

The only thing scientist are disagreeing about in his case is where man evolved, and the exact time frame of his evolution from earlier hominids

And just how long this process took. So a "loooooonnnnggg" time as you put it
keeps getting  a makeover ever few months further disproving Evolution

QUOTE

even if our DNA is almost 99% the same?

You oversimplify the convergance. That 1% biologically is a grand canyon. And considering our limited knowledge of DNA, which the science is still relatively an infant, I tend to hold judgement.  

And also stated by Dr. Jackson I am skeptical of DNA samples from fossilized remains. It is hard enough to get good DNA profile from people that have been dead around range of 100 years when not properly buried. Sounds a little hookie.

[damam]

QUOTE(puckSR @ Sep 29 2005, 07:06 AM)

a deist cannot believe that god still intervenes on occassion, if they did, then they wouldn't be a Deist.  They would be a Theist

I have never heard an ID person say that they were Deists.  If that was the driving belief behind intelligent design, then they really wouldnt have much to do with science.  They also would not be an "alternative", in their words, to evolution.  They would simply be Deists, which is a theological perspective

Do Deists believe that God created the creation and the world and then just stepped back from it?    Some Deists do and some believe God may intervene in human affairs. For example, when George Washington was faced with either a very risky evacuation of the American troops from Long Island or surrendering them he chose the more risky evacuation. When questioned about the possibility of having them annihilated he said it was the best he could do and the rest is up to Providence.
Source
ive read similar things elsewhere on deism.  Deism allows for the possibility.  Deterministic Deism (DD) does not.  DD is the belief that everthing that is occuring now is happening due to previous events which can be linked all the back to the creation of the universe (ie. no interference).  ID believes in the chain of events, but says the designer may have alter atleast one event slightly to change the over all outcome (and a deist allows for that possibility as well).

QUOTE

Ih, and ID is not an offshoot of Deism, its an offshoot of creationism

call it a Parallel Evolution of ideas if you wish.  Deism and DD are offshoots of christiainity that is a fact.    And to argue that the ideas of ID were not heavily borrowed from DD and deism is to not have a basic understanding of ID all together.

[xmedia2004]

QUOTE(puckSR @ Sep 29 2005, 09:44 PM)

ok, xmedia, the conversation is over.

[xmedia2004]

QUOTE

g=9.8 is an approximation, its very certainly true, and its fairly accurate

even to the 5th significant digit its still not the exact value, its only an approximation. Approximations are perfectly alright. We frequently use an approximation for pi. Its perfectly alright, and im not doubting the validity

There is no theory involved in a physical quantity that can be measured.
Is your weight a theoretical approximation. We have determined g to a larger precission than you know your factual mass because your scale is not that accurate. For anyone to imply that the scale reading is theoretical would be simply
foolish. And pi can be expressed to some 20ish digits. So much so that computational numerical analysis is the limiting factor not numerical significance in large scale
computer applications.(In lay terms computers cant carry the digits and essentially drop x decimal places to perform calculation)

The irony is that you argue the semantics of observable real world science fact and so readily push the I believe button of evolution.

I would think open minds could very easily conclude a lack of real tangible proof.

Furthermore, we live in a universe that is dictated by laws, like gravity amongst many others. This implies order, intent and even design. The fact that we do not
see the big overall picture, gives no credence to emotional antireligion based agenda's.

[xmedia2004]

QUOTE

Im not trying to make any other point right now, just answer if you can understand that while being incredibly accurate, it is not the exact value. The exact value can never be calculated, because you would have an infinite string of decimal places.

I do not neccesarily agree with these statements. You can know enough information about a system to predict through numerical analysis the behavior of that system.

And as I stated before that if we knew g to 1 billion digits any numerical simulation say the lauch of a satellite into orbit, the precision in the g data is lost in round of error because computers cant answer numerical questions to any real signficance when looking at .000000000000001.

I think if you won 150 trillion dollars and 3 cents in the lottory, 3 cents will not have much significance.    

You never answered my question what field of engineering are you studying?

[puckSR]

before you "disagree" again, let me help you

exactly-no rounding; no significant digits; the whole number

lets forget your preconceptions about what is practical
ignore practical, just tell me what would be the exact amount.

[xmedia2004]

QUOTE(puckSR @ Sep 30 2005, 07:40 AM)

Im an EE grad student

[damam]

doesnt g change depending on your proximity to the core of the planet.  The higher in elevation you are the lower it is.  therefore its not truely a constant like Planks constant (within this universe anyways) and never can be.  Gravitational theories change all the time.  When i was in college the line of thought was that gravity was caused by curvitures in space and theoretically could be altered by changing the magnitude of the curviture.

I think ring species are the coolest examples of evolution.  You can see in space, what also occurs in time.  Heres an example



The places where it is striped are areas where interbreeding can and does occur, but no one else can interbreed.  To me this is a clear example of tranisitional species and speciation.

[puckSR]

oh, by the way, there are many constants in physics, if you would like me to list some just ask.

[xmedia2004]

QUOTE(damam @ Sep 30 2005, 09:17 PM)

was feeling left out and thought i would chime in

[xmedia2004]

QUOTE(puckSR @ Oct 1 2005, 02:24 AM)

i hope you got your lil head around this whole definition thing.

[xmedia2004]

QUOTE(puckSR @ Oct 1 2005, 04:53 AM)

wow, you posted the definitions again, too bad that if you read them you would understand what ive been trying to tell you.