Is the Universe Conscious?

[SeattleGriz]

One you see a lot is the flagella or the clotting cascade is another.

How do you get to this complexity via mutation, if the whole structure or process has to work? Did it come about one piece at a time? How does that work, if it isn't functional until it is all built?

There are proposed pathways, but nothing that can be proven out. Speculation, just like on the ID side.

Been saying it for a long time. The science at this level of argument is above 99% of the population, me included.

It's not that complicated, except for the 99% of evangelicals who "believe" otherwise. That's fine -- you are free to believe whatever you want to believe. You are not free, however, to teach those alchemy "beliefs" in public education without a scintilla of scientific reason. It is not an 'alternative' to life in the Universe.

For over 20 years the concept of "Irreducible Complexity" has been seriously de-bunked. It was shot down in the 1990s. It was shot down during the 2000s at trial with Dover, and has been shot down in comparative genomics studies.

But, feel free to keep flagellating yourself ...

Oh, I've read the articles and yet, not a one has definitive proof of how the flagella came about. It's always the same - we have a proposed mechanism we can't prove, but yet it somehow disproves someone else's unprovable hypothesis.

Nice try Aho, but if you provide proof of how we got these complexes, I would surely read them.

[Vidav]

I knew none of you Darwin fans would look at that movie, as you don't want facts to get in the way of your evolutionary rants/rhetoric.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

It's okay lil guy. You will be alright.

[Aho Old Guy]

Your reading comprehension sucks, then.

And by your comment you clearly do not want to entertain science which strikes directly at the heart of your lame, de-bunked argument.

[Ibanez]

For those interested in this topic there is a movie devoted to creation science, and yes it is science, on Netflix called "Is Genesis History?" Their is extensive study of the geological formations, fossils and wildlife in various parts of the country and world.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

pseudoscience

[SeattleGriz]

Your reading comprehension sucks, then.

And by your comment you clearly do not want to entertain science which strikes directly at the heart of your lame, de-bunked argument.

Can't find anything to back your claim?

Let's try something easier. How about junk DNA? Not the newly angled version, but what they were promoting while I was in school as it being proof there is no God.

[Ibanez]

Really?

Is there a mathematical theory out there that differentiates down to

X = GOD

What observable phenomena are being explored by this legitimate scientific line of inquiry?

One does not have to prove God, in order for there to be proof of Intelligent Design. As I have stated before, ID is looking at complex and specified information and how it pertains to the creation of new species or structures.

To take the structures example, one performs knockdown testing. If the structure no longer performs after "knocking down" one of it's components, then that shows the structure couldn't have built itself up one piece at a time to get to a functional state. Where did all that complex and specified information come from to get to that structure?

While it's not quite that cut and dry (a lot of summation in that previous paragraph), that is a normal test procedure.

So b/c something broke, it must be God?

[Ibanez]

It's not that complicated, except for the 99% of evangelicals who "believe" otherwise. That's fine -- you are free to believe whatever you want to believe. You are not free, however, to teach those alchemy "beliefs" in public education without a scintilla of scientific reason. It is not an 'alternative' to life in the Universe.

For over 20 years the concept of "Irreducible Complexity" has been seriously de-bunked. It was shot down in the 1990s. It was shot down during the 2000s at trial with Dover, and has been shot down in comparative genomics studies.

But, feel free to keep flagellating yourself ...

Oh, I've read the articles and yet, not a one has definitive proof of how the flagella came about. It's always the same - we have a proposed mechanism we can't prove, but yet it somehow disproves someone else's unprovable hypothesis.

Nice try Aho, but if you provide proof of how we got these complexes, I would surely read them.

But the irreducibly complex test that ID proponents use actually fails when we discuss flagella. IC states, "A single system which is composed of several interacting parts that contribute to the basic function, and where the removal of any one of the parts causes the system to effectively cease functioning." We know flagella can lose or have mutation and still function.

Think of a hand. The hand functions with the use of 5 digits. You lose 1 digit, the hand still works.

[SeattleGriz]

One does not have to prove God, in order for there to be proof of Intelligent Design. As I have stated before, ID is looking at complex and specified information and how it pertains to the creation of new species or structures.

To take the structures example, one performs knockdown testing. If the structure no longer performs after "knocking down" one of it's components, then that shows the structure couldn't have built itself up one piece at a time to get to a functional state. Where did all that complex and specified information come from to get to that structure?

While it's not quite that cut and dry (a lot of summation in that previous paragraph), that is a normal test procedure.

So b/c something broke, it must be God?

Not quite. With evolution, you have natural selection and mutations. In order to get something like a flagella, you would have to build the flagella up one mutation at a time, unless the organism was able to "procure" parts already created and use them for their new part. The point is that as far as we know, evolution does not hold onto stuff in the hopes it will one day become useful after countless mutations. If it doesn't work and it causes enough damage, the species gets rid of it, or the species is gotten rid of. How did the flagella get to that fully functional unit, if "breaking" one protein makes the whole thing broken?

[Ibanez]

So b/c something broke, it must be God?

Not quite. With evolution, you have natural selection and mutations. In order to get something like a flagella, you would have to build the flagella up one mutation at a time, unless the organism was able to "procure" parts already created and use them for their new part. The point is that as far as we know, evolution does not hold onto stuff in the hopes it will one day become useful after countless mutations. If it doesn't work and it causes enough damage, the species gets rid of it, or the species is gotten rid of. How did the flagella get to that fully functional unit, if "breaking" one protein makes the whole thing broken?

So because we don't know, it must be God?

[SeattleGriz]

Oh, I've read the articles and yet, not a one has definitive proof of how the flagella came about. It's always the same - we have a proposed mechanism we can't prove, but yet it somehow disproves someone else's unprovable hypothesis.

Nice try Aho, but if you provide proof of how we got these complexes, I would surely read them.

But the irreducibly complex test that ID proponents use actually fails when we discuss flagella. IC states, "A single system which is composed of several interacting parts that contribute to the basic function, and where the removal of any one of the parts causes the system to effectively cease functioning." We know flagella can lose or have mutation and still function.

Think of a hand. The hand functions with the use of 5 digits. You lose 1 digit, the hand still works.

The loss of one finger doesn't affect the other fingers as far as their structure and interactions. That is what you are missing in this example. If you change one protein in a structure, then chances are very high the structure won't work anymore or at a reduced capacity. This is because each protein has tons of minus or positive interactions with other proteins and if you change one of them, those interactions are changed and thus actually changes the shape on the protein. Now that protein that used to fit perfectly with another protein doesn't anymore.

[Rob Iola]

Didn't this all get resolved at Scope's Monkey Trail?

phpBB [video]

[Grizalltheway]

*trial

[SeattleGriz]

Not quite. With evolution, you have natural selection and mutations. In order to get something like a flagella, you would have to build the flagella up one mutation at a time, unless the organism was able to "procure" parts already created and use them for their new part. The point is that as far as we know, evolution does not hold onto stuff in the hopes it will one day become useful after countless mutations. If it doesn't work and it causes enough damage, the species gets rid of it, or the species is gotten rid of. How did the flagella get to that fully functional unit, if "breaking" one protein makes the whole thing broken?

So because we don't know, it must be God?

No, but it does open the door to competing theories. As stated, much of this discussion is at the PhD level and when you watch them go round and round, you quickly realize nobody knows the actual answer.

"My science is better than your science!" is what you feel you are reading half the time.

[Ibanez]

But the irreducibly complex test that ID proponents use actually fails when we discuss flagella. IC states, "A single system which is composed of several interacting parts that contribute to the basic function, and where the removal of any one of the parts causes the system to effectively cease functioning." We know flagella can lose or have mutation and still function.

Think of a hand. The hand functions with the use of 5 digits. You lose 1 digit, the hand still works.

The loss of one finger doesn't affect the other fingers as far as their structure and interactions. That is what you are missing in this example. Ever heard of steric hindrance? It's when one object gets in the way of another due to size. If you change one protein in a structure, then chances are very high the structure won't work anymore or at a reduced capacity. This is because each protein has tons of minus or positive interactions with other proteins and if you change one of them, those interactions are changed and thus actually changes the shape on the protein. Now that protein that used to fit perfectly with another protein doesn't anymore.

Like when a flagella loses a protein? It continues to function, but probably at a reduced capacity.

[Ibanez]

So because we don't know, it must be God?

No, but it does open the door to competing theories. As stated, much of this discussion is at the PhD level and when you watch them go round and round, you quickly realize nobody knows the actual answer.

"My science is better than your science!" is what you feel you are reading half the time.

Competing theories is fine. The introduction of religion into science is problematic.

[SeattleGriz]

No, but it does open the door to competing theories. As stated, much of this discussion is at the PhD level and when you watch them go round and round, you quickly realize nobody knows the actual answer.

"My science is better than your science!" is what you feel you are reading half the time.

Competing theories is fine. The introduction of religion into science is problematic.

This is honestly where I am with this discussion. The need for competing theories when we don't know the answer.

I honestly do not understand why proponents of a theory don't like competition. The scientific theory I learned, you welcomed challenges because it made your theory stronger if it held up.

It's not like ID is stealing funding from Evolutionists. Let them try.

[Vidav]

Competing theories is fine. The introduction of religion into science is problematic.

This is honestly where I am with this discussion. The need for competing theories when we don't know the answer.

I honestly do not understand why proponents of a theory don't like competition. The scientific theory I learned, you welcomed challenges because it made your theory stronger if it held up.

It's not like ID is stealing funding from Evolutionists. Let them try.

I don't like the name evolutionists. It should be creationists and then just normal people. Don't need to label people who believe in evolution. Like we have flat-earthers and then just people. We don't need to call them globists.

[Grizalltheway]

This is honestly where I am with this discussion. The need for competing theories when we don't know the answer.

I honestly do not understand why proponents of a theory don't like competition. The scientific theory I learned, you welcomed challenges because it made your theory stronger if it held up.

It's not like ID is stealing funding from Evolutionists. Let them try.

I don't like the name evolutionists. It should be creationists and then just normal people. Don't need to label people who believe in evolution. Like we have flat-earthers and then just people. We don't need to call them globists.

[Jjoey52]

No, but it does open the door to competing theories. As stated, much of this discussion is at the PhD level and when you watch them go round and round, you quickly realize nobody knows the actual answer.

"My science is better than your science!" is what you feel you are reading half the time.

Competing theories is fine. The introduction of religion into science is problematic.

ID can be taught without the religious component.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[Jjoey52]

Competing theories is fine. The introduction of religion into science is problematic.

ID can be taught without the religious component.

What is being done now is censorship and prohibiting free expression in the academic arena. Just what are evolution people afraid of?


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[Vidav]

ID can be taught without the religious component.

What is being done now is censorship and prohibiting free expression in the academic arena. Just what are evolution people afraid of?


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

Not allowing fake science to be taught in science class is not censorship. Is keep art instruction out of physics also censorship? No, they are different subjects that should be taught in different classes, ya big dumb dumb.

We get it, you don't understand science or how it works. That is fine, but stop trying to argue that ID is science. Just keep telling yourself you are right but stop saying it out loud, this will help you look smarter.

[Ibanez]

Competing theories is fine. The introduction of religion into science is problematic.

ID can be taught without the religious component.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

Then it wouldn't be ID. ID comes from creationism. The Intelligent Designer is God and if you think it isn't, you aren't being honest.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Chizzang]

ID can be taught without the religious component.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

Then it wouldn't be ID. ID comes from creationism. The Intelligent Designer is God and if you think it isn't, you aren't being honest.

Don't start asking Christians to be honest...
You'll break a 2,000 year trend

[JohnStOnge]

All I know is that this "falsifiability" thing is a crock. "Falsifiability" is not a rule of science. It's not part of the scientific method at all. It's just a concept a philosopher came up with. And to me it's pretty obviously nonsense.

I think the piece at http://www.courses.vcu.edu/PHY-rhg/astr ... index.html, while trying to tout falsifiability as a condition of being science, actually provides the opportunity to debunk the idea. Here's a quote:

Examples of Non-falsifiable Statements

An alien spaceship crashed in Roswell New Mexico.
A giant white gorilla lives in the Himalayan mountains.
Loch Ness contains a giant reptile.

In each case, if the statement happens to be wrong, all you will ever find is an absence of evidence --- No spaceship parts. No gorilla tracks in the Himalayas. Nothing but small fish in the Loch.

Ok. So what will you say if someone comes up with an approach they think will find a giant white gorilla living in the Himalayas then they find one? Are you going to say, "That doesn't count because your expectation wasn't falsifiable?"

That would be ridiculous. Which is why the whole load of crap about "falsifiability" is ridiculous. Science is about positive inference. To the extent that "falsifiability" is a factor, it's in "falsifying" the negative. Like for instance doing a statistical experiment to reject the null hypothesis that two things are the same in order to infer that they are different.

[JohnStOnge]

And if you want a really clear example of how the falsifiability thing goes out the window check this out:

http://www.seti.org/centerforseti[

SETI, the Search for Extraterrestrial Intelligence, is an exploratory science that seeks evidence of life in the universe by looking for some signature of its technology.

Underline added for emphasis.

This is very similar to the "giant white gorilla" example discussed in my last post. But I wonder how many people are ragging on the SETI efforts based on the argument that what they're doing isn't science because the idea that extraterrestrial exists isn't "falsifiable."

Are the "falsifiability" NAZIs going to say SETI isn't science if SETI does indeed make contact with extraterrestrial intelligence because the existence of extraterrestrial isn't "falsifiable" right now?

I'm telling you, guys, this "falsifiability" thing is a total BS.