• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

ID/Creationism challenge

Did someone earlier in the thread really claim some nonphysical aspect of entanglement? Regardless of how you interpret entanglement, it still has to be physical, even if you say it's action at a distance or something like that. It is still physical.

Concerning the reality of unobserved systems (and I don't know how in the world that applies to ID) : Accurately predicting, via math and all its associated magic, the time evolution of a system pretty much locks it into reality, independent of my looking at it.

Several Posters have asked this, but What in the world does all this quantum mechanical discussion (which I love, by the way) have to do with arguments supporting ID.

ID/Logos/God/FSM is a parameter the model does not need, in any sense of the role parameters play in any model.
 
Regardless of how you interpret entanglement, it still has to be physical, even if you say it's action at a distance or something like that. It is still physical.
Click to expand...

Isn't that just a tautology? It has to be physical only in the sense it affects the physical world.
 
The consistent materialist view has to be principles such as so-called physical laws arose only as a by-product of the universe coming into physical existence.

The ID perspective is that the principles, the design, had to predate the universe and give rise to it, and reality is better understood as an interplay between non-physical things and physical things. If someone discovers some new math, it's not that the math never existed but that it was there waiting to be discovered. It became physical when the brain of the person thought of it but it was there already waiting to be discovered.

Same with choice. One makes a choice and so there is a physical component but the physical part is the mechanism, the choice involved choosing an idea, a non-physical thing. In other words, just because something has a physical component does not mean it is entirely physical.
 
randman said:
One makes a choice and so there is a physical component but the physical part is the mechanism, the choice involved choosing an idea, a non-physical thing. In other words, just because something has a physical component does not mean it is entirely physical.
Click to expand...
1. Just because something can be said to be "not entirely physical" does not, alone, imply Intelligent Design

2. Your example of choice is a poor one. We can break "choice" down into an emergent behavior of physical systems, if we wanted to.
 
randman said:
Male nipples are not a problem. Man-boobs are....:)

But hey, God never said He made it easy here on earth, at least for everyone but Adam.
Click to expand...
God never said anything at all, ever, because there isnt one and there is absolutely no evidence to show there ever was one. I can see that you get excited by your own ideas, but you are not listening to anyone. Now, I would say that if there were a God, he'd have something to say to you about that.

Science is about seeking the truth, but its obvious from the way you debate that you are not interested in that.
 
Halfcentaur said:
He seems to not distinguish between radiometric carbon dating, which is for fairly recent estimations, and the elements used for older more ancient dating.
As I understand it, the issues raised with the accuracy of carbon dating are not an issue in the others, such as argon. Am I correct in that?
Click to expand...

Not quite. Radiometric measurements compare the ratios of radioactive vs non-radioactive isotopes. Radioactive decay of C13 (half-life) is fast enough that after about 50,000 years there is not enough left to accurately measure so the error in the ratio of C12 to C13 increases. With other methods, the difference decay rates on the order of millions of years instead of thousands.
 
randman said:
All dating methods are based on assumptions which may or may not be correct. But soft tissue and hemoglobin cannot exist 65 million years inside a bone according to what biochemistry says.

Put it this way. If you took this to a coroner and team of scientists and asked them how long ago the creature died, without considering it was a dinosaur, what do you think they would say?
Click to expand...

Responses by sentence:

1 - Dating methods are based on assumptions that are tested thousands of times, fine-tuned, and modified based on data.
2 - Soft tissue and hemoglobin didn't exist unaltered inside a bone. Fossilized remains of hemoglobin and soft tissue existed in a fossil bone.
3 - Put that way, they would say - its a fossil, where was it found?

Nice examples of creationist factual dishonesty.
 
randman said:
All dating methods are based on assumptions which may or may not be correct.
Click to expand...
One assumption: The Principle of Uniformity. Every test we've done suggests that this is correct.

But soft tissue and hemoglobin cannot exist 65 million years inside a bone according to what biochemistry says.
Click to expand...
Where exactly does biochemistry say that?

Put it this way. If you took this to a coroner and team of scientists and asked them how long ago the creature died, without considering it was a dinosaur, what do you think they would say?
Click to expand...
They would say: It depends.
 
sphenisc said:
The evidence seems to be against you.
Click to expand...

So you genuinely think the existence of something is evidence that a supernatural being created it?

Honestly?

Really?

I don't think I've ever come across someone with so poor a grasp of the word evidence.
 
randman said:
The consistent materialist view has to be principles such as so-called physical laws arose only as a by-product of the universe coming into physical existence.

The ID perspective is that the principles, the design, had to predate the universe and give rise to it, and reality is better understood as an interplay between non-physical things and physical things.
Click to expand...

I hate to sound like a broken record, but is there any evidence of this that doesn't involve tearing down evolution?

If someone discovers some new math, it's not that the math never existed but that it was there waiting to be discovered. It became physical when the brain of the person thought of it but it was there already waiting to be discovered.

Same with choice. One makes a choice and so there is a physical component but the physical part is the mechanism, the choice involved choosing an idea, a non-physical thing. In other words, just because something has a physical component does not mean it is entirely physical.
Click to expand...

Thinking and choosing happen as a result of physical processes. We have a subjective experience of them, but the physical process can be recorded and measured by observers.
 
Last edited:
MarkCorrigan said:
So you genuinely think the existence of something is evidence that a supernatural being created it?

Honestly?

Really?

I don't think I've ever come across someone with so poor a grasp of the word evidence.
Click to expand...

Do you have anything constructive to offer or is that it?
 
PixyMisa said:
That article not only tells you that you are wrong, it tells you why you are wrong, and it's the same reason I gave you previously.

I suggest you read it rather than just linking to it.
Click to expand...

You ignore the alternative hypothesis that I have read it but am too stupid to understand it without your explanation.
Is that your standard way of handling evidence? In which case I can begin to see where your problem lies.

Oh, and you didn't give me a reason previously.
 
sphenisc said:
Do you have anything constructive to offer or is that it?
Click to expand...

Ok, how about this.


If you take your definition of evidence, then evolution science would stall utterly because everything that is evidence for evolution would also be evidence for creationism, the only difference being that the creationsits would simply say that god was creating every single differential animal ever found, and he killed off the rejects. You would literally not be able to differentiate between competing ideas and science would fall flat on it's face.


Seriously, if the simple existence of X is evidence for A, B and C, then what do you use to differentiate between them? Your definition of evidence is not even close to being rigorous enough to be useful in a laymans context, let alone a scientists one, and amounts exactly to the theistic circular argument that the Earth is evidence for god because god created the Earth.


To make matters worse, you've also implicitly stated that all possible ideas are on an equal footing if we take your claim as the truth. For example, if you look specifically at whales, using your own definition you could say that the evidence for whales is evidence of creationism. Further to this, the evidence of the evolutionary markers is evidence of creationism as well, because god put those markers in and made them look that way. You don't see how this is a major problem that renders your definition utterly useless?
 
I think the problem here is that the faithful do not understand what scientific evidence is and how important falsifiability is.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom