Originally posted by Zeal Ex Nihilo
I like how Alliance disappears for awhile, but, as soon as a post about intelligent design appears, he's back and posting furiously.DUDE ID TOTALLY WORTH GETTING PISSED ABOUT
And you continue to spam your own thread with insults toward other members. I don't think I've seen you contribute to the discussion since page 1. At least Alliance is staying on topic, even if you disagree with his opinion or tone.
Originally posted by DigiMark007
And you continue to spam your own thread with insults toward other members. I don't think I've seen you contribute to the discussion since page 1. At least Alliance is staying on topic, even if you disagree with his opinion or tone.
Originally posted by Zeal Ex Nihilo
No one else is on-topic. My topic was not about intelligent design as a whole but rather evolution appearing as design (and vice-versa).
So because it went in a new direction, that's license to insult others?
Your topic was awkwardly worded and some misinterpreted it. Others just started talking about something else, which most threads seem to do. Check 10 threads in this forum...9 of them will have evolved into new topics (or was it by design...).
So learn to deal with it respectfully, because your current approach isn't going to do anything except make people upset with you.
undermining argument. if it is our perception and not objective physical traits which make us categorise things as EVOLVED. then it would stand to reason that the definition would hold true only for the present and would not be able to predict further evolutionary forms in the future, infact the definition would just change to assimilate any changes in the form of things/animals/plants in the future. but that isnt true, we can infact predict at teh micro level, which course evolution would take in bacteria etc and which of the changed bacteria would survive or die in the given enviornment. this also holds true for predicting the presence of INTERMEDIARY fossils which werent found at the time but were discovered after the prediction. same goes for physical theories, the existance of states/phases/dimension is theorised upon based on evidence and often times {large number of proven instances} proof is found later in emperical experiments to support the claim.
That is not an undermining argument.
First, long term, evolution depends on environmental factors and without knowing the future environment.
Secondly, there are studies that do predict short term forms. The Galapagos finches are perfect examples. IN years that are drought heavy and only big stronger seeds survive, you can accurately expect an increase in the beak depth and width in the next season.
Thridly, if we were oging to accurately predict a future form, we'd need an extensive knowledge of genetics and proteomics that we simply just don't have.
[QUOTE}]That is not an undermining argument.[/QUOTE]
yes it is, read down.
First, long term, evolution depends on environmental factors and without knowing the future environment.
but that isnt true, we can infact predict at teh micro level, which course evolution would take in bacteria etc and which of the changed bacteria would survive or die in the "GIVEN" enviornment.
see, im talking about KNOWN enviornments which are not as dynamic as the real world. that is to make the case simpler and elaborate the argument of evolution being just perspective or some form of objective reality.
Secondly, there are studies that do predict short term forms. The Galapagos finches are perfect examples. IN years that are drought heavy and only big stronger seeds survive, you can accurately expect an increase in the beak depth and width in the next season.
but isnt that in complete agreement to my argument?
Thridly, if we were oging to accurately predict a future form, we'd need an extensive knowledge of genetics and proteomics that we simply just don't have.
that is why you look at MICRO level phenomenon so that the variables can be more or less acounted for. the thing is, whether micro or macro, it proves that the PHENOMENON, of evolution very probably isnt just base on our perspective as nihilo proposed. and u do not have to look exclusively at ecologically valid situations to establish that.
Originally posted by leonheartmm
but that isnt true, we can infact predict at teh micro level, which course evolution would take in bacteria etc and which of the changed bacteria would survive or die in the "GIVEN" enviornment.
Originally posted by leonheartmmTo be honest I can't find an argument...just a sting of sentances that don't make points and contradict eachother.
but isnt that in complete agreement to my argument?
Originally posted by leonheartmm
that is why you look at MICRO level phenomenon so that the variables can be more or less acounted for.
Originally posted by leonheartmm
whether micro or macro,
Originally posted by leonheartmm
it proves that the PHENOMENON, of evolution very probably isnt just base on our perspective as nihilo proposed. and u do not have to look exclusively at ecologically valid situations to establish that.
Evolution is just a biological theory. What social and other pseduosciences do with it is of no concern to us.
Originally posted by Zeal Ex Nihilo
The point is, we only see things as being designed because we design things. Instead, perhaps we should look at our designed things from the perspective of "they look evolved."
Your argument, i.e. that proponents of evolution are simply imposing evolutionary patterns on designed processes is not sound as your premise, i.e. that an intelligent agent is responsible for natural processes multiplies entities unnecessarily.
Originally posted by leonheartmm
undermining argument. if it is our perception and not objective physical traits which make us categorise things as EVOLVED. then it would stand to reason that the definition would hold true only for the present and would not be able to predict further evolutionary forms in the future, infact the definition would just change to assimilate any changes in the form of things/animals/plants in the future. but that isnt true, we can infact predict at teh micro level, which course evolution would take in bacteria etc and which of the changed bacteria would survive or die in the given enviornment. this also holds true for predicting the presence of INTERMEDIARY fossils which werent found at the time but were discovered after the prediction. same goes for physical theories, the existance of states/phases/dimension is theorised upon based on evidence and often times {large number of proven instances} proof is found later in emperical experiments to support the claim.
In the instances you mention, usually the theory is mathematically sound when it is "accepted", even if there isn't evidence for it yet. Black holes were proven mathematically before they were physically discovered, for instance. But this generally only works well for mathematical and/or scientific theories, because anything outside of that is much more sketchy and open to rational critique.
Also, the large number of prizes and grants existing for the ability to prove paranormal phenomeon in a controlled setting, equal millions of dollars across numerous foundations and research groups. None have been claimed, calling into sharp quesiton the actual validity of the "states/phases/dimensions" that you seem to allude to as having proven instances. If anecdotal evidence is true, it should maintain its truth in controlled, objective settings. Any known case thus far has not.
Originally posted by Alliance
To be honest I can't find an argument...just a sting of sentances that don't make points and contradict eachother.That is not the case.
These terms are not accurate.
Evolution is just a biological theory. What social and other pseduosciences do with it is of no concern to us.
as to the first two, i dunno what to say. but i think your getting confused in the last part. evolution is PROVEN FACT{i.e. dna's changing or mmutating over time and giving rise to individuals better suited to the enviornment which have a probability to passing their genes onwards}. ur referring to the THEORY OF NATURAL SELECTION, and its assertion that we all came from common ancestors and humans evolved from apes etc. which isnt proven to a point as uncanny as to make relegious opposition beleive it.
please, do not throw the baby out with the bathwater.{if u consider natural selection to be useless that is}
Originally posted by DigiMark007
In the instances you mention, usually the theory is mathematically sound when it is "accepted", even if there isn't evidence for it yet. Black holes were proven mathematically before they were physically discovered, for instance. But this generally only works well for mathematical and/or scientific theories, because anything outside of that is much more sketchy and open to rational critique.Also, the large number of prizes and grants existing for the ability to prove paranormal phenomeon in a controlled setting, equal millions of dollars across numerous foundations and research groups. None have been claimed, calling into sharp quesiton the actual validity of the "states/phases/dimensions" that you seem to allude to as having proven instances. If anecdotal evidence is true, it should maintain its truth in controlled, objective settings. Any known case thus far has not.
😆 . i think your interpreting my post in reference to posts elsewhere. wen i satted "states/phases/dimension" i was merely referring to purely physical properties like entropy/quantum mechanics/time/space etc which were physically theorised before their emperical physical evidence came in. those terms are deceptive or referring to mystical concepts but that wasnt what i meant. i just used them in the absence of better terms to define physical phenomenon. 🙂