When all you get are insults are repeating of arguments that are refuted, then it is time to close.
Message 1235:Wow, you are the WORST when it comes to logic! Oh, and BTW, since all that crap about decay rates was not directed at me, I won't respond to them, unless you want me to. I will just let you know, that you are either a liar or you don't read my posts at all. You said this. This is a lie. I refuted this crap already an let me re cite myself again. Once more before you forget about it. Are you blind or something? Can't you read this? I told you, regardless of the radioactive decay being changed or not, regardless of the particle energy being changed or no, regardless of the halo being changed or not, U238 halos are not evidence for an old Earth.
This from the person who has been caught inventing evidence.
quote:The first showed an increase in the beta decay rate of (6.83.2)10−4 relative to the natural rate, and the other resulted in an increase of (6.52.0)10− 4.
Curiously, minor variations in beta decay are known, but they are all -- like the example above -- less than 1% change, and no similar effect has been shown for alpha decay. Amazingly, then, this does not address the issue of the uranium halos at all.
Amusingly, this is the best Smooth Operator has done in trying to refute reality. What we have instead are repeated statements of denial.
Mathematically one can stipulate that everything in the universe rotates in relation to a single arbitrarily chosen point, but this does not make it so. To logically support such an assertion one needs to show why any chosen point is superior to another, say a dot in the middle of the nail on my little finger of my left hand. Without any reason to chose one point over another, logically one must to conclude that no one point is special.
1.) ID is not supposet to make a prediction about homology. 2.) Evolution can not by definition predict anything because the variations that drive it are random. 3.) It's not that there are 1.5 hotsposts for every single ERV. There are specific hotspots for a specific ERV. 4.) There are only nested hierarchies if a person you chooses to throw away 35% of the data for all mammals. 5.) ID can be falsified very easy. Either by showing that a natural law can account for an event in question orby showing that chance can account for it falsifies the design hypothesis.
And as for the U238 halos...
1.) Half-life of Uranium 238 is not known. 2.) It is not known what energy and decay rates it takes to form a Uranium 238 halo. 3.) For any observed Uranium 238 halo, it is not known if it was formed by a constant rate of decay and energy, because it's formation has never been observed. 4.) Therefore Uranium 238 halos do not have to be 4.5 billion years old. 5.) Therefore Uranium 238 halos do not have to be produced by constant decay rate and energy strenght. 6.) Therefore Uranium 238 halos are not evidence for an old Earth.
That's it for me. I'm not responding to this topic anymore...
Did you not see my posts requesting summations and no more discussion? I know you only visit every few days, so I was holding this thread open for you, but you seem to have squandered your summation opportunity with a response to RAZD.
If you want to post a summation do it today, I'm closing this thread tomorrow morning.
what did the designer create? (species? genus? familiy?)
Is this a trick question? If I reply with Bible verses of what God created then you say "WAIT A SECOND, I thought ID didn't claim 'GOD" as the desingner". Yeah, that's true, it doesnt. The designer designed everything from You, Me, the Animals, Sun etc etc. The complexity of these things call for a designer. Maybe we'll get to Vestigial organs later on if you think that's an issue.
Son writes:
when did he create life?
Another trick question (it seems) Again, if I say God created all life roughly 6000 yrs ago then it looks like Im claiming God as the desinger. Here is what ID is:
ID is a theory that some complex biological structures and other aspects of nature show evidence of having been designed by an intelligence. Such biological structures are said to have intricate components that are so highly interdependent and so essential to a particular function or process that the structures could not have developed through Darwinian evolution and instead must have been guided in there development.
Not when. We see how some things are so complex that intelligence must have guided the process.
Son writes:
I would also like to know if possible, what are the observations that lead to your answers.
When you walk down the beach and see a sand castle( not a pile of sand with a few holes in it but a structure that you can identify with) what are your observations that lead you to believe that it wasn't the wind that slung that castle together?
There are a 1000 examples. The Sand Castle is easiest to understand.
When you walk down the beach and see a sand castle( not a pile of sand with a few holes in it but a structure that you can identify with) what are your observations that lead you to believe that it wasn't the wind that slung that castle together?
No observations, my knowledge of how sandcastles are made, combined with the fact that (and this is a very important bit) it looks different from its natural surroundings, make me think that someone designed it.
First, there's no trick questions. I asked questions this way because I asked under the assumption that I.D was a rival theory to evolution, meaning that I expected I.D to explain the same things (or more) that evolution does. Obviously, a scientific theory doesn't depend on the existence of its rivals so I don't see why you need to use evolution to explain ID. After all, the theory of evolution(TOE) is not saying "ID" is false so evolution is true.
What I expected was an "history of life" through an ID explanation. The reason I asked for the age of the earth was to have some sort of timeline. If the TOE just said "I don't see any other way so life must have evolved", it wouldn't explain anything.
As for what the designer designed, you're trying to say that he designed me? I never saw him designing any babies in my life so how did he do it? When and how did he intervene in my birth?
ID is the theory that things are intelligently designed. Like the computer your using or the car you drive didnt evolve on their own, but were specifically designed by an intelligence. That kind of theory is applied to life and the universe.
ID is a back door entry to Creationism, without incurring the wrath of anti-creationists. A design infers a designer, which is one and the same as a Creator; Goddidit.
ID seems to go this path without referring to the theology which introduced creationism, by its findings and assessments of criteria which aligns with a designer minus the Goddidit. They also avoid much of a distorted version of Genesis by Christianity, namely that the earth is 6000 years old - which Genesis does not say. In actual fact, Genesis is the first recording the universe and the earth are billions of years old, in describing a host of actions which preceded life!
A host of emerging scientists disagree with the Dawkins/Hawkings premises as in fact unscientific, a syndrome very similar to what occured with Darwin - namely a host of humans who did not see the Gospels as credible in portraying the emergence of the universe, but were threatened of saying so - saw Darwin as their savior. Today, the anti-creationsts still don't cnfront theologies like the Gospels and Quran - two theologies which claimed the earth was flat; instead they take their anxst out by scapegoating to the only theology which did not say the earth was flat!
Some scientists condone ID with the premise a complexity cannot be derived by a random; other atheist scientists countered with the term 'SELECTION' as their answer to a non-random, another bogus slight of hand response disguised as science. I would rather see as selectEE a more honest response. Dawkins and Hawkings do not work when the preamble is a finite universe - first declared in Genesis.
ID is the theory that things are intelligently designed. Like the computer your using or the car you drive didnt evolve on their own, but were specifically designed by an intelligence. That kind of theory is applied to life and the universe.
OK, here is your chance. Explain ID in such a way that it can be a theory.
First, you must understand how the term "theory" is used in science. It does not mean "my best guess" or "an idea." In science a theory is along these lines:
Theory: a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world; an organized system of accepted knowledge that applies in a variety of circumstances to explain a specific set of phenomena; theories can incorporate facts and laws and tested hypotheses. Theories do not grow up to be laws. Theories explain laws.
Theory: A scientifically testable general principle or body of principles offered to explain observed phenomena. In scientific usage, a theory is distinct from a hypothesis (or conjecture) that is proposed to explain previously observed phenomena. For a hypothesis to rise to the level of theory, it must predict the existence of new phenomena that are subsequently observed. A theory can be overturned if new phenomena are observed that directly contradict the theory. [Source]
Since ID claims to be a science, it must adhere to the rules and methods of science.
So, here is your big chance. Explain ID in such a way as to qualify as science using the rules and methods of science. [But be cautioned that ID has already been determined by a federal court to be religion (Dover).]
Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.
ID is the theory that things are intelligently designed. Like the computer your using or the car you drive didnt evolve on their own, but were specifically designed by an intelligence. That kind of theory is applied to life and the universe.
I have never seen this question answered - perhaps you will be able to answer it for me.
I have found an object in my garden - I do not recognise it. How do I tell if it is designed?
i.e. If I wanted to know if it was poisonous, I could give a small amount to a rodent and see if it suffers any ill effects. What would I need to look at (or measure or whatever) to decide if it is designed or not?
To add from Coyote, could you tell me more by answering some questions in the OP?
For example, what is ID's "history of life"? Meaning who is the designer, what did he design (species? families? genus? something else?). How did it come from the things it designed to what we have now? I would only need a very rough description, but something that would be enough to be described as a scientific theory.
quote:I have found an object in my garden - I do not recognise it.
I doubt that design here means some form of graphic drawing or a recognizable shape. Instead, it refers to an intelligent construct of complexity which does not appear plausable as random but the result of an intentional input. ID says a car is not the result of a random set of accumulative occurences over infinite time, but the result of a car maker.
quote:OK, here is your chance. Explain ID in such a way that it can be a theory. So, here is your big chance. Explain ID in such a way as to qualify as science using the rules and methods of science. Since ID claims to be a science, it must adhere to the rules and methods of science.
ID is no different to any sciences except for the fact that it claims that things are designed, not random accidents. For example, if you study a computer and you learn that the computer has a designer, does that mean that science no longer works when researching a computer? One ameba cell equals 1000 sets of an encyclopedia. So if you spelled out the information in English and printed it in books, it would fill out 1000 sets. If the simplest forms of life have so much complex information, it can be argued that it is the result of an intelligent mind. Would you ever believe me if I told you that my encyclopedia set created itself or would you insist that there was a designer?
A living cell is much more complicated and ingenious than any manmade machine. In a pinhead of DNA, the information stored would take 15 million million books to contain the information. There would be enough information to go from here to the moon 500 times. SETI, which looks for intelligent life in space are looking for signs of intelligence. How exactly would they determine intelligence? If they got a reply with the numbers 1-100 neatly written out, do you think it would infer intelligence? The reason intelligent design isnt considered science "is because of the materialistic and naturalistic philosophy that dominates culture. It is presupposed. Many scientists who dissent from this worldview have experienced intense hostility and persecution."
™ Version 4.2
(1)
(1)