On "Non-Supernatural Intelligent Design": Viable Epistemology/Probative Science Tool?

The Big Bang Theory (the Standard Cosmologic Model) and the Theory of Evolution are actually quite similar, and similarly misunderstood, in this regard: neither has anything to say about origins.

The Standard Model only has something to say about matters that occurred during times T > 0. Whereas the field of Cosmology might otherwise idly speculate about cosmogenesis (time T <= 0 ), the Standard Model most certainly deals only with matters T > 0 ).

Likewise, The Theory of Evolution deals only with what happens to life(forms) after it first appears, it has no direct dealings with how life first appeared--abiogenesis.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

John MacNeil

Well, I said "Not all archeology" in large part because you said "all archeolgy", and I felt like being contrary.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

But also because I haven't heard or read any archeologists say that human origins post-dates dinosaur extinction, because the genetic 'origins' of the human species were already present in the mammals that co-existed with the dinosaurs and later survived the K-T impact.

I presume that the time frame would be different for different species and not a defined period for any one of them.

By whom/what?

You're right. It's not what I meant.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

I'm saying that abiogenesis was fueled by the naturally occuring chemical molecules that came to Earth as part of its late-stage accretion processes (and which actually continues today at much reduced level due to meteoritic dust, grains, and rocks falling to Earth by the thosands of tons per year). That world-wide oceans, atmospheric gases and pre-biotic chemical molecules dissolved in-solution would eventually give rise to the biotic chemistry from which we finally have appeared.

Not at all. I've been very calm and mostly considered about what you've been saying. We could well be conversing across the table over pizza and beer, and you'd be perfectly safe.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Yep.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

If there was flaming is was my lunch-time jalapena breath.

Oceans must be first to provide the solvent in which the molecular ingredients of pre-biotic chemistry can be dissolved. And, there's essentially no atmosphere on Europa....

4.5 Billion years, the age of the solar system/Earth based on stellar evolution models and cosmogonic (from Cosmogony) studies of solar system formation & evolution, rock dating techniques, etc.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Mr. G.,

Whether cosmogonists agree on 6 billion or 4.5 billion year as the age of the formation of the solar system is irrelevant to the inadequacy of Darwinian Theory as a viable model for the explanation and decription of our present ecological framework in which human population abound. While Darwinian Theory of evolution was temporarily an adequate framework within which to work for over a century, it has been outpaced by discovery and so has been relegated to the dusty Theory Shelf of science. This happens to most theories eventually, as it has happened to the theories of Newton and Copernicius and a legion of others.

Archaeology gives the date of 3.5 to 3 billion year ago as the formative period for the first single celled life forms, called stromatolites, and it states that they were the most advanced life form for the next 2 billion year. Archaeology further states that those original stromatolites were formed from prokaryotic cells, some of which are the photosynthesizing microbes called cyanobacteria. If the stromatolites required 2 billion year to evolve into eukaryotic cells, which were the first dual-celled life forms, then it must have taken at least 1 or 2 billion year for the cyanobacteria to evolve into stromatolites. By that description, recorded life on this planet predates the formation of this planet according to the currently accepted cosmogonic model.

Archaeology also states that it took 300 million year for the first vertibrates to evolve into the first mammals which predate the dinosaurs. Yet it claims it took less than 55 million year for the ecosystem on this planet to recover from a mass extinction caused by an asteroid and then to develop a whole different type of lifeform. Even if the asteroid didn't kill every living lifeform on the planet, it would still be required to go back at least 600 million year to the metazoas, the first multi-celled animals, for there to be a change in genetic formation that could lead to a whole new species or group of species.

Archaeology is able to use carbon 14 dating methods, and others, to determine that stromatolites existed when they did and so theorize that cyanobacteria must have pre-dated them by a couple of billion year, but with all their science they can't offer any proof that we humans evolved on this planet. They have abundant physical evidence from a couple of hundred million year ago that dinosaurs existed, but they have no proof that hominids were here past 3.2 million year ago. There is one incidence of record of phylogenetic evidence of hominids from 3.6 million year ago, but that is only two single footprints.

Archaeology further states that our pre-evolutionary development stage were the neanderthals, an animal with a thick, guarded brow with a low cranium that couldn't possibly have contained a brain near as large as ours. The last of these living neanderthals, the remains of which were found in southern Spain and Portugal, were carbon 14 dated to determine that they lived as recently as 28,000 year ago. Clearly, there is no evidence that we evolved from apes or any of the primitive looking hominids that archaeology tries to relate us to. The more that science finds out about us and about the fossil record, the more they keep trying to squeeze everything into the same outmoded Darwinian Theory of evolution whether the evidence or timeframes correlate or not. Archaeology keeps harking back to the one point, that if they could only find the "missing link", which wasn't "Lucy", then they could finally tie their Darwinian Theory up in a neat package so all the disparate parts fit. It is because of this search for a "missing link" that I said in another thread that the evolutionists are operating on the same belief system as are the religionists, but in different categories. By that I didn't mean to equate religionism and empirical methodology.

As for who brought us here? And when? I have no idea who and all I can do is speculate about the when and the why. If the last living neanderthals were proved to have resided in southern Spain and Portugal as recently as 28,000 year ago then our type of human probably haven't been here much longer than that. If someone did bring many different species of human to this planet it must have been so that they eventually would intermingle and become a race without prejudice, which possibly is a problem in some parts of the galaxy where planetary societies of single species human meet other planetary societies of single species human. Us being brought here could possibly be an explanation of why so many religions have the belief of their Gods descending from the heavens and could explain why many ancient texts and drawings seem to depict machines that are located in the sky.

There really is no need to apologize, as I can tell from re-reading my posts that I definately am to blame for any misunderstanding about my stated position. It justs takes a while to get around to saying something succinctly that is contrary to accepted belief. And anyway, I'm not so thin-skinned that I would be upset by words. And I also wouldn't be worried about you jumping across the table at me and spilling my beer just because I said something that didn't jive with your personal view of the universe. I can tell from your discourse that you are a reasonable person and I have no fear in such company.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

John MacNeil:

But not to the theory of genesis, a theory for which a book is the only 'evidence'? In fact, the scientific theory of Darwinian Evolution via Natural Selection is quite alive and well. As is the Standard Cosmologic Model (Big Bang). As is the geologic Theory of Plate Techtonics. Each supports the other by voracity of testability and confirmable prediction. That is not to say that each Theory will not be modified, or perhaps falsified, by future findings and knowledge. It is to say that such ideas are expected to be transitory, despite their unequalled descriptive and explanatory powers, eventually to be replaced by Scientific Theories even better at explanation and prediction then they, themselves. The theory of genesis has no factual descriptive power, and no predictive power. So, btw, what are the testable predictions of 'intelligent design'?

3.8BY

Apparently only .6 BY, according to the pesky fossil record.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Mass-extinction impact events have occured several-to-many times over geologic history. Not all life forms were driven to extinction by any one of those impact event. Therefore, terrestrial 'life' never has had to 'start over from the very beginning'.

Assumption.

Assumption.

Proponents of intelligent design have no evidence that we were not evolved here. They can offer as 'evidence' only supposition, speculation, and non-rigorous discounting of Natural Selection-based Darwinian Evolution Theory to support their claims. For 'intelligent design' to supplant the TOE, ID must produce testable hypotheses and predictions or it will always be nothing more than a sterile, Science-like clone of creationism--a more insidious form of Lysenkoism.

Let us, or the sake of this discussion, together stipulate that the homonid fossil record is incomplete, and at various points is not compelling. Whether or not that might change in the future is not important here. It is time, now and herein, for you to take 'intelligent design' as a 'scientific theory' out of the reactionary "Darwin is dead, long live ID" mode and move on to the 'intelligent design'-can-explain-all-things-adequately -described-by-TOE stage. To do that, you must be able to provide experimentally testable ID predictions. State some of ID's scientifically testable predictions, and describe scientific tests of these predictions able to be performed by ID's scientic opponents. If ID wants to 'run with the dogs', ID has to run with the dogs (Such profundity scares even me.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

).

Not a good sign/indicator of ID validation anytime soon. So, if Darwinian TOE is dead, ID isn't any more alive than "no idea"?

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Just wait 'til I have a few more beers in me.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Speaking of Natural Selection, where the hell is Warren?

 

Mr. G.,

I don't understand why you introduce the theory of genesis. I thought we had both agreed that creationism, religionism and supernatural beings had no place in a discourse about the physical state?

I've stated before that I believe that natural selection is the method by which species evolve. On that, I hope, we're agreed. Although with your steadfast refusal to state what you do actually believe, or what you're most inclined to believe, having a dicussion with you is tentative. Maybe you aren't distinguishing between natural selection as a process and evolution as the theory of an ecological system, as I am.

You seem to play this "Intelligent Design" as if it's some kind of trump card. And to be quite honest, I still don't know what you mean by it because you only ever use someone else's abstract quote when you speak of it. You'll recall that when I spoke of "intelligent design aspect" it was not meant as some metaphysical or supernatural conjunction stated "Intelligent Design" as if representing holistic theory, but as an intervention by intelligent people, from some other populated planet somewhere in the galaxy.

I don't know where you get your information from, but there certainly seems to be a disconnect in your dating of early life forms. When you say prokaryotic cells only took .6 billion year to develop and the next stage of evolutionary life, the stromatolites, took 2 billion year to develop and then the next stage after that, the eukaryotic cells, took less than a billion year, then you have natural selection starting out fast, slowing down incredibly, and then speeding up incredibly. I was under the impression that the very first life was the absolute slowest to develop, not the fastest. And I think even the stoutest adherents of Darwinian Theory will agree with me on that.

According to the books I've read, some as recent as c.1999, there were two mass extinctions allowed for in the timetable of evolutionary development, the first at 250 milion year b.c. and the second at 65 million year b.c.

Now as I have never heard the term "Intelligent Design" before reading your thread for the first time, I am glad now to here you mention ID predictions which you want scientifically tested. Why don't you now list the ID predictions so I will finally know what this ID is?

When I joined this thread it was because I detected a vacancy in the theory of ID, without knowing what it was, because it did not address matter and the systems composed of matter as being able to be described empiracally. I also detect implausible assumptions within the theory of evolution, without having to refute natural selection, which I concur with. There is abundant evidence of unexplained markings and happenings on this planet that no scientist can explain, and so it is only logical to think that someone smart is instrumental in arranging the sequence of events. That means, that since our planetary science is incapable of providing description for the unexplained events, the people who are responsible must come from some other planet.

The hominid fossil record for our kind of human is not only incomplete, it doesn't exist. They have found record of Neanderthal beings that were alive 28,000 year ago. For all we know they weren't the last ones alive, just the last evidence of when we knew they were alive. For all we know they will find evidence of neanderthals that lived only 18,000 year ago. To skip over the most important archaeological proof that we couldn't possibly have evolved from neanderthal man, because there was insufficient time for such a natural selection process, seems to be an attempt to ignore reality so that your arcane position can be adherred to.

 

John MacNeil:

Yes, for the specific purpose of restricting claims to supernatural authority. But the purpose of refering to the genesis story was to contrast it, an immutable theory, against the provisional theories of science, like the TOE.

From 08-22-02: "'Intelligent design' connotes 'directed purpose'--a concept that is beyond the scope and capabilities of empirical endeavors to quantify and validate. As an investigative presupposition, 'intelligent design' introduces additional complexity unnecessary to the considerable abilities of less complex, empirically supportable and defensible explanations of natural processes. That is not to say that 'intelligent design' has no merit as a teleology, but that Science has no immediate need to resort to 'intelligent design' in any of its forms."

And (anticipating the near-term need for this, too) in my post of 08-18-02, I also said: "I can consider sentient Intelligent Design quite easily--aliens, for instance, having engineered our earliest ancestors' RNA and/or it precursor."

I'm not aware (most likely because it's outside my field of expertise) that the TOE makes any claim to being a theory of an ecological system. I thought it only attempts to explain genetic change over time via Natural Selection.

In a non-supernatural sense, neither do I, which is why I almost always inclose it in quotes--it's someone else's terminology. Alien Design I can understand. Supernatural Design I can understand, even though it's irrational. Non-supernatural, non-alien "Intelligent Design" I don't understand, and Warren hasn't explained what he means by it.

From Precambrian Period: Origin of Life: "Not until about 3.6 billion years ago did cells evolve that could produce their own food by photosynthesis. The earliest evidence of photosynthetic organisms are stromatolites, which are domed and layered sedimentary structures formed by mats of filamentous one-celled cyanobacteria and trapped sediments."

You are correct; I was wrong to quote .6BY. I meant to say .9 BY: 4.5BY -.9BY = 3.6BY. From Introduction to Cell and Virus Structure: "Bacteria - One of the earliest prokaryotic cells to have evolved, bacteria have been around for at least 3.5 billion years...." And from Introduction to Light and Energy: "Geologists have found huge rock-like mats of fossilized cyanobacteria, termed stromatolites, that are over 3 billion years old...."

Those two likely resulted from asteroid impacts. There is evidence of 5 mass extinctions in the passed 650 MY via various causes: about 650MY (Precambrian/Vendian ME), 530MY (Cambrian ME), 430MY (Ordovician ME), 365MY (Denovian ME), 245MY (Permian ME), and 65MY (End-Cretaceous 'K-T' ME).

As we're both trying to find out what is non-supernatural "intelligent design", I think you and I should speak to testable predictions of Alien Design, your premise, and leave NID to be explained by Warren, as it is his idea.

It is my understanding that Homo Neanderthalenses were for a time the contemporaries of Homo Sapiens and shared a common ancester but were not the specific progenitor of Homo Sapiens Sapiens.

========================================

Although I am open to the idea of Alien Design, I remain unconvinced that there exists sufficient evidence for it that cannot also be used as evidence for some other possible, perhaps even more plausible explanation--like TOE.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

One possible test of the hypothesis of Alien Design, based on the proposition that humans were brought to Earth in our present form having been engineered on "some other populated planet somewhere in the galaxy" is: there should be measurable differences in certain ratios of isotopic abundances within some or all of the molecules that make up our tissues and skeletons. That is, that there should be a testable difference between humans and native terrestrial life forms on the molecular level--humans having been built from molecular materials of extra-terrestrial origin and history.

 

Mr. G

That is, that there should be a testable difference between humans and native terrestrial life forms on the molecular level--humans having been built from molecular materials of extra-terrestrial origin and history.

That is of course, if the extra-terrestrial molecular materials are any different than those found on Earth.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Q:

Surely there are going to be noticible internal differences between an authentic Rolex watch and a Rolex knock-off made 12 time zones away by a different 'watchmaker'. The form may be the same but the metallurgy of the gears would bear local influences.

For instance, in a technologically advanced, extra-terrestrial culture where economics fuels their space explorations and lifeform engineering activities, the need for investment protection strategies--such as our familiar patents--would imply some measure of identifiable uniqueness of the end product that makes it distinguishable from competitors' unlicensed versions (like a small but periodic nucleotide sequence that to the discerning eye would shout out, "Made on Tau Ceti 4 by @.4>2.4345, Inc.").

Artists always sign their work.

 

Mr. G.,

"Darwin's theory of evolution, which holds that all species of plants and animals developed from earlier forms by hereditary transmission of slight variations in successive generations,"---Webster's

This inclusive description implies a system while natural selection is the hereditary change within a single species.

Before tackling a subject that will necessarily be mostly conjecture upon observance of known phenominal occurrence, I believe there is more to be said about our phylogenic record and the conjectured theory of evolution.

The human evolution chart that Johanson and Edgar use is mere speculation and is similar to the human evolution tree that the Smithsonian Institution uses in their "Encyclopedia Smithsonian" web-site and here is what they have to say about the modern stage of human evolution, "The origin of modern Homo Sapians is not yet resolved. Two extreme scenarios have been proposed." They, of course, know that the theory of evolution doesn't seem to work for human phylogeny based on the known evidence, hence the "extreme" proposals. They have an excellent web-site (that is easy to navigate, look under "human evolution") with clear, color pictures of hominid evidence that dates to almost five million year ago. You can recognize that the only skulls that appear to be modern human are dated to around 30,000 year ago.

The next two specimen closest in age and development to the modern human are the Neanderthal and the Skhul V, both of which are known to have lived during the same epoch. The Skhul V is dated at 90,000 year and was found in Palestine in 1932. Both the Neanderthal and the Skhul V have a thick brow, prognathic face, wide, angular cheekbones and a low cranium. It is easy to picture similariies between the two, but none of those similarities are shared with the modern human skull.

The modern Homo Sapians have lighter skeletons than all the previous hominids. They have very large brains, by comparison. They have a high, vaulted cranium. Their skull is proportionately different than all previous hominids. The differences are so acute that even the scientists recognize that there couldn't be an evolutionary transmogrification between the species, hence the earlier quote, in the allotted time frame. If evidence of a link with Neanderthal, or Skhul V, and modern human existed, the archaeological evidence would be multitudinous and supportable, since it is far easier to find evidence of relatively recent vintage.

With the evidence that does exist, it can only be objectively concluded that there is not now and never was an hereditary connection between modern human and the next two closest, in geologic history, species of hominid. That means that the known fossil record cannot fulfill the criteria of "all species" to meet the definition of Darwinian Theory of Evolution and so the theory itself cannot meet empirical definition. Ergo, the theory of evolution is not valid.

Creationism, Evolutionism, and New Age are all thesis that have based their foundations on faith. Through constant repitition and indoctrination they all seek to portray their view as the only unassailable view that should be regarded with favor by the majority of the population. The Creationists have their religious artifacts and the Evolutionists have a faulty, all encompassing theory of development with scientific proofs of natural selection in limited scenarios and the New Agers have their mysticism. Evolution must be categorized with the other two thesis of faith because the evolutionists refuse to objectively portray the evidence as it exists and therefore they degrade science and stunt the developmental thought of future scientists.

 

John:

As I've previously stipulated above, "....the homonid fossil record is incomplete, and at various points is not compelling" but I would like to read more than "Darwin is dead, long live...." Alien Design. Let us suppose for a brief moment that the TOE indeed is dead. Dead, and buried. Now, all that stands between Alien Design "the idea" and TOAD (hehe, now that's kinda funny) being "TOE's replacement" is testable powers of prediction and tangible evidence.

What are some of Alien Design Theory's testable predictions, and what are some of the tangible evidences accumulated so far that might be convincing to folks like me?

 

Mr. G.,

When a theory is found to not meet the scientific criteria on which it was formulated, then it is not up to anyone to declare it invalid. It just is. If we choose to recognize the truth of what the science shows us, then we can progress in our thought processes. If we don't choose to interpret the truth for what it is, then our thought processes stagnate. That choice of whether or not to believe the evidence is for each individual to decide for themselves.

When we move on to "Theory Of Alien Design" it must be recognized from the start that we do not possess enough information in order to formulate an all encompassing theory so we will necessarily have to confine ourselves to a thesis, which, of course, will still allow for the funny acronym "TOAD". But before we move on to discussing the evidence for such a thesis we must first discuss the "Ultimate Creationist Theory" (commonly known by it's cartoon name, Big Bang) because it interferes with the working nature of the universal model.

The Ultimate Creationist Theory states that all matter in the universe was at one time concentrated in a dense ball in space and for some unknown reason it exploded in an instant and then all that matter shot out from the central explosion and dispersed itself throughout space in every conceivable direction. Then the Ultimate Creation Theory says that all that matter slowed down for some other unknown reason and formed into planets and stars and galaxies. The Ultimate Creationist Theory further states that after the matter formed into planets and stars and galaxies it once again started moving outwards in all directions, which is referred to as the expanding universe, without ever supplying a hypothesis for this second expansion.

The Ultimate Creationist Theory was first hypothesized after Edwin Hubble observed the phenomena of redshift and misinterpreted it as empirical evidence for recession velocity. From that faulty interpretation of observation was born the cartoonish expanding universe, followed by the equally cartoonish "Big Bang" and that was followed by the polar theory of the "Big Bang", the equally outlandish "Black Hole" theory. Ever since they came up with those goofy theories, observation of spatial phenomena has been forcing them to create ever more stupid theories to try and hold those big three together. This was all begun in the days of Albert Einstein, perhaps our greatest scientist ever, and when he gave his opinion that the universe was a complimentary universe, meaning that it worked as a system, the same as a galaxy or any other system in space, his opinion was ignored by all the lesser intelligent people in favor of the opinion of a science laborer, a person much like them.

Hubble's observation of redshift, which is what sparked the Ultimate Creationist Theory and it's bastard child the "Black Hole Theory", was challenged by Astronomer Halton C. Arp, then of the Palomar Observatory, in his books, one of which is "Quasars, Redshifts and Controversies", c. 1987. Arp found from his observation, for which he has photograhic evidence, that redshift is not empirical evidence for recession velocity but is instead an indication of relative motion. The "Controversies" part of his book is that when he tried to make that information known, his observation time at the observatory was reduced and he was subsequently forced to resign. The reason he was forced out was because a lot of people, institutions and companies were making a lot of money off of perpetuating the Ultimate Creationist Theory.

The Ultimate Creationist Theory says that the universe began in an instant 9, 12, or 15 billion year ago. They arrive at these figures by figuring how old the planet earth is and basically doubling that number. The actual number is not constant because they want to be able to change it whenever they learn that the earth is a little older than they previously thought. So according to their "big bang" theory the universe exploded from a dense ball in an instant and in the same amount of time that our planet has been in existence, every other planet and star and galaxy, trillions upon trillions of them, a number so far beyond counting that we'll probably never have a computer large enough to calculate the number, also completely formed into their shapes and systems. And, of course, this was supposd to have happened after the exploded universe was expanding for billions of year and then slowed down enough to form into things and then start expanding again. As if the Ultimate Creationist Theory isn't illogical enough, the timeline alone should make you consider the veracity of it's applicability.

When galaxies are gathered in clusters they are not simply expanding away from everything else, as an expanding universe would dictate, but are complimenatarily associated in a gravity field. Galaxies don't just go off crashing into other galaxies, as scientists so often speculate. They maintain their distances from each other by the interaction and connectivity of their gravity fields. This interaction and maintenance of place is vividly illustratd by the Thursday, May 10, 2001, Astronomy Picture Of The Day which you can see at:

http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/astropix.html

All nine of those galaxies are in a galaxy field which orbits around the megastar that is the hub of the galaxy field. This is vividly illustrated by the Sunday, November 21, 1999 picture that's located in the same calendar index. You can't help but notice that the megastar is far larger than the spiral galaxy that is to the right of it. All the other colored lights visible in the picture are galaxies at variant distances in the same galaxy field. In the caption of that picture you will observe that they claim the megastar is an ellipsoidal galaxy, which clearly it isn't because there is no indication of interiorly located interaction of gravity fields. They also give description of the megastar as being mostly found where galaxies are abundant, which is locationally correct because the megastars are what the galactic gravity fields revolve around.

When you study the picture of the megastar with all the galaxies in the space around it, it becomes apparent that all of what is there couldn't have formed on a timeline that is ultimately derived from determining the age of the planet we live on. The Ultimate Creationist Theory is based on faulty interpretation of observed phenomena and ignores relativity. It has let our young scientists develop their thought processes on a flawed foundation and because of it we get such other misinterpretations as a megastar at the hub of a galaxy field being an over-big ellipsoidal galaxy.

I understand fully how being told by all the top scientists that a thing is true can stop a young mind from mentally exploring subjects along empiracal line of thought. All the time that I was growing up I heard and read about the "big bang" theory and how other theories were judged by how they related to the "big bang". I didn't pursue the actual subject because almost everyone in science said it was true, and I believed them. Then, when I was thirty-five or so, Time magazine had an article in it that described what the actual theory was and when I read it I was shocked by how stupid it was. Since then whenever they proffer a big theory I take it with a grain of salt and wait to make up my mind about it until I've had time to think it through.

 

John:

Okay. Let us suppose for a brief moment that the Big Bang Theory (the Standard Cosmologic Model) is dead. Dead, and buried. Now, all that stands between Alien Design "the idea" and the theory of Alien Design being "TOE's replacement" is testable powers of prediction and tangible evidence.

What are some of Alien Design Theory's testable predictions, and what are some of the tangible evidences accumulated so far that might be convincing to folks like me?

It's one thing to say that the three most substantive, current scientific theories (well, two, anyway. You haven't yet said anything about plate techtonics) are garbage because they are based on wrong assumptions and wrong interpretations of data and reproducible observational evidence.

It's quite another thing to replace them with theories that are even more Scientifically substantive.

Now make your scientific case for Alien Design. I think we're up to speed on the rhetorical case for AD.

 

James, you're a stupid person who doesn't know anything, or are you on assignment for the U.S. state department?

 

John:

Let us suppose for a brief moment that James R. is dead. Dead and buried. Now, all that stands between Alien Design "the idea" and the theory of Alien Design being "TOE's replacement" is testable powers of prediction and tangible evidence.

Well, you know the rest....

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Mr. G.,


Discussion--"talk or writing in which the pros and cons or various aspects of a subject are considered"--Webster's

It seems that with my posting in this thread I have struck a nerve. Because I dare make observation that the known science doesn't support two of the leading conventional theory, I am subjected to strident calls of "Prove it! Prove it!" and accused of using rhetoric. All the time that you "evolutionists" were assailing the "creationists" with your same strident calls and demanding that they hurry up and give you their proof, you were using science as your podium. Now the instant someone else uses science to show where your incomplete theory and your goofy theories depart from reality, you give up discussion and resort to the antics of bullying children. You "evolutionists" and "creationists" are all the same kind of fanatics, operating your theories on faith and using scare tactics and propaganda to try and keep people in line.

You say, "Let us suppose for a brief moment that the theory of evolution and the theory of ultimate ceationism are dead, dead and buried," as if you have some empirical proof to the contrary and you're just waiting for the precise moment to jump out of ambush and clobber me over the head with it. Well, I'm afraid it's too late for that. Those theories are dead and buried and there are no creationist tricks you can use to bring them back to life.

Corporate science is a lot like corporate government in their falseness. When I told you of Astronomer Halton Arp being forced out of his position at the Palomar Observatory you gave it no notice, as if by ignoring it, it could be thought of as not worth having been mentioned. Before Halton Arp tried to make public his opposition to the ultimate creationist theory by refuting the scientific community's accepted position on redshift interpretation, he was one of their bright stars. He is the author of numerous scholorly publications and received awards from the American Astronomical Society and the American Association for the Advancement of Science. He was president of the Astronomical Society of the Pacific. He has a bachelors degree from Harvard and a Ph.D from the California Institute of Technology, both cum laude. All that counted for something before he tried to replace the accepted dogma with factual observation. Once he dared buck the big boys who control where the research money flows, then all that he'd done before counted for nothing and they character assassinated him and shuffled him out the door. And, as always, science suffered because of the ignoramuses who value wealth and their perceived social standing over the advancement of true science.

As for TOAD? I already stated that there could be no "theory" because we have no boundaries that we could affix to such a theory. Of course you conveniently ignored that so you could again make your strident call of "Prove it! Prove it!". I said that by necessity we would be confined to using the term thesis, or hypothesis really, which is the stage before a theory when we all are seeking more data on which to formulate a theory.

The evidence for people from other planets having visited this planet is voluminous, both from recorded history and from the present. There is document evidence that goes back over ten thousand year that can be found in the writings of the early scribes. The very descriptive recordings are found in the earliest Tibetan books, in the cuniform clay tablets of the Gilgamesh, which was two thousand year before genesis, also Ezekial in genesis, in the Dead Sea Scrolls and the writings of just about every other early civilization that knew how to record the events of their day. But you apparently don't consider the testimony of the early historians valid proof so I declined, in this discussion, to use any of that type of evidence to support my belief. It makes no difference, there is plenty of physical evidence of a tangible nature to examine as well.

There is a bas-relief carving in the ancient Mayan site at Palenque, in Mexico, of a space person in modern gear operating the controls of a space machine. You can see a picture of the beautifully detailed carving on page 93 of Erich Von Daniken's "In Search Of Ancient Gods", c.1973. This is a carving that is more valid and permanent than a photograph. It depicts a scene of scientific construct that the carver observed in a time when there was no organized science.

"We must consider real a fact of which we possess eight thousand certain sightings. I cannot say if they are or are not interplanetary vehicles, but nobody can doubt anymore their existence."--Professor Hermann Oberth, Physicist.

I hope now that you will abstain from the strident "Prove it! Prove it!" attack and join the discussion.

 

John:

I commend you for having the balls to stand up for your position; unlike Warren who sensed he was in for some critical scrutiny and ran away like a panty-bunched, Titanic crewman pushing women and children aside to get to a life boat.

And, yes:

....this thread was an ambush. More precisely, it was a thread intended to give advocates of Intelligent Design all the rhetorical, non-scientific rope needed to quite effectively hang themselves before the spectating masses in this public square.

The plain and simple revealed truth, as James R. cogently observed, is that people such as you, and Warren, bash Science and scientific theories without the slightest operational understanding of what is Science, how Science actually works, and what is a Scientific Theory.

Science, in fact, is all about "Proving It". To complain that proof is required but shouldn't be required is certain proof that your personal theories are not only unscientific but irrational.

I couldn't have made my point, and James R.'s, any better than have you, and Warren.

Intelligent Design theory--supernatural, non-supernatural, or alien--is scientifically unsupportable, scientifically unsubstantiable, and otherwise scientifically irrelevent.

But at least you are willing to stand up and be accounted. I respect you for that.

The beer and pizza is on me.