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

Discussion in 'Science & Society' started by Mr. G, Aug 18, 2002.

  1. Adam §Þ@ç€ MØnk€¥ Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    7,415
    Skulls

    I don't know if anyone has answered this yet or not - I have no intention of reading through this entire thread - but about those weird skulls... From the time the baby is born, its head is wrapped in slats of wood or bone which are bound in place, forcing the skull to grow in weird ways. This is still done in some places in South America, occasionally. There's nothing at all mysterious about it. This was covered in year 12 sociology/anthropology, I'm sure it's covered in university in other countries.
     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. (Q) Encephaloid Martini Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    20,855
    In Defense of John MacNeil:

    Some preamble; Quoth John:

    That last photon will almost instantly reverse course and follow the path of least resistence until it can come to a rest state. That is the self preservation principle that all matter is subject to.

    All matter follows the preservation principle which states that matter will assume a stable posture as soonest as is possible...

    ..the self preservation principle forces them to assume a stable state...

    The special property of photon transference occurs at the speed of light squared + the speed of light...

    ...the classical mechanical view of light quanta as having both quanta and wave properties...

    The instant of those sub-photonic particles being acted upon by a force and becoming radient is described as the action of illumination...

    the sub-photons will be a different particle than they were when they were a pre-photonic sub-photonic particle.

    The law of equivalence dictates that those leading photons will not be able to continue to be radiant and still maintain their total mass. The self preservation principle dictates that they will seek a rest state in which they are not dispensing their limited energy gratuitously.

    ...means it is attempting to disperse a portion of it's energy, which is a description of a particle in flux. For any particle to be in a radiant state, it's electromagnetic field must be extended further beyond the surface of the particle than when it is in a non-radiant state.


    At this point we begin to see John's learning curve increase as he begins to comprehend the terminology, somewhat:

    When James stated in his post that he studies physics and stated in the same post that he doesn't know what 'heat' or 'equivalence' is and that he'd never even heard of the 'conservation of energy', then what conclusion could I make other than to believe that he has less than a high school education in physics...

    And that he, after studying physics, does not know what equivalence, the state of being radiant, or the conservation of energy are? Am I to believe that James, or you, Mr.G., have never heard of the particle/wave theory of light?

    And if James had an aptitude for physics, wouldn't he already know what conservation of energy is? Wouldn't he have heard of the particle/wave theory of light? Wouldn't he know about equivalence and heat?


    I went back through this thread in order to extract certain statements which John was unable or refused to qualify. Although John has yet to explain his pseudo-brand of terms, he appears to be changing those terms labels to somewhat more appropriate labels over the life of the thread. This state of change can only be explained by the fact John is beginning to learn something about science. It is clear he has not yet grasped the fundamentals of these terms nor has placed any urgencies on formulating clear and concise representations of said terms. However, it is apparent that a little of what has been explained to him is beginning to rub off.

    And although his hands are clasped tightly round his eyes and ears, a certain amount of information is leaking past the barricade and is starting to stick. There is hope for John yet.

    So, in defense of John MacNeil, I say kudos to you, you're learning. Keep it up.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. John MacNeil Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    345
    Yes, Q, I'm glad I'm finally catching on, but we can get back to that later.

    What you didn't mention was anything about the elongated skulls and their implication for being the proof that Darwinian Theory of Evolution does not hold true for all species on the planet and therefore cannot be a valid scientific theory as it was presented.
     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. Adam §Þ@ç€ MØnk€¥ Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    7,415
    Again: Skulls

    These skulls have no effect in any discussion of evolution. It is a modification made upon birth, when the child's skull is still in pieces and has not yet fused into a single piece.
     
  8. (Q) Encephaloid Martini Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    20,855
    John,

    I will first reproduce requests from myself and Mr. G respectively:

    You cannot expect us to comment without some verifiable evidence from reliable sources, especially since your sources have been for the most part from crank sites.
     
  9. John MacNeil Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    345
    Really..Q, this is not new news. My original source for the skulls story wasn't a crank site, only the temporary replacement site was.

    The Discovery Channel had a program about those skulls, and others, on their affiliate TLC just within the last week. I don't get the TLC channel so I couldn't direct you to it exactly, but I'm sure you probably have the resources and capability of tracing that program. If the Discovery Channel broadcast it on TLC then we must believe that the skulls are real and not made of clay.
     
  10. goofyfish Analog By Birth, Digital By Design Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,331
    Hardly. The Discovery Channel and TLC have become nothing more than a Fox wannabees.
    • The Discovery Channel - "Bermuda Triangle - Mystery Solved?"
    • TLC - "Bermuda Triangle - Secrets Revealed."
    • The Discovery Channel - "Bigfoot Bioacoustics"
    • The Loch Ness Monster
    • Atlantis
    All presented in that mystical Leonard Nemoy style. Sorry, if the Discovery Channel broadcast it on TLC then we must take it with a grain of salt.

    Peace.
     
  11. (Q) Encephaloid Martini Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    20,855
    John

    If the Discovery Channel broadcast it on TLC then we must believe that the skulls are real and not made of clay.

    Since I don't watch television, I cannot comment on TLC or the Discovery Channel. However, I will comment on the notion that anyone who places a high regard on the credibility of television programming is indeed deluded and in need of some serious education. Turn off the TV and pick up a book.

    I'm reminded of a song by Joe Jackson; Sunday Papers.
     
  12. (Q) Encephaloid Martini Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    20,855
    John,

    The Discovery Channel had a program about those skulls, and others, on their affiliate TLC just within the last week.

    Is there time in between TV shows for you to pop out and catch a movie ? I hear Paramount produces excellent educational films.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  13. James R Just this guy, you know? Staff Member

    Messages:
    38,920
    John,

    <i>And if James had an aptitude for physics, wouldn't he already know what conservation of energy is? Wouldn't he have heard of the particle/wave theory of light? Wouldn't he know about equivalence and heat?</i>

    Did you bother reading my previous replies at all, John?

    I don't want to know what Einstein thinks the terms you used mean. I want to know what <b>you</b> think they mean.

    <i>If James and Mr.G. or anyone else were able to defend their phony Ultimate Creation cum Evolution theory, (or is it vice versa), they would be doing so instead of trying to divert the discussion onto definitions of terms that are well known and understood.</i>

    What is there to defend against? You've provided no evidence against the big bang theory. The theory of evolution is quite separate.

    I cannot comment on your skulls at this stage, because I admit I have not researched the matter, and it is outside my field of expertise. However, I am in a position to comment on any supposed challenges you might level at the big bang theory. So far, I haven't seen anything from you on that topic which stands up to even minimal scrutiny.

    And you still haven't answered my questions.
     
  14. John MacNeil Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    345
    The White House gives briefings almost every day that are meant for, and are, broadcast on live T.V. CNN, a division of AOL Time-Warner, airs them on their network religiously. Are we, the general public, now to believe that all of what the government tells us, through the medium of television, is a lie? And, by proxy, that AOL Time-Warner knowingly participates in this big lie? Or are you saying that AOL Time-Warner is also being deluded?

    If the Discovery Channel is also a part of the big lie, then their corporate owners, The News Corporation Limited, must also be a big lie. Since the News Corporation publishes a fifth of the world's print media, including The Times of London and The New York Post, and book publishers such as William Morrow & Company and HarperCollins Publishers, then they must also be a part of this big lie. When we hear categorical denunciation of such large segments of our culture, shouldn't we then logically wonder just what is truth and just what is part of the Big Lie Theory? Perhaps, Q, you could tell us exactly which media publications we can get the truth from so we don't make the mistake of referencing any of the BLT in future posts?

    The fact of the matter is, the skulls, which prove Darwinian Theory of Evolution does not apply to all the life systems on this planet and therefore cannot be a viable theory, do exist. The only people who can pretend that they do not exist are those people who have ulterior motives for that denial. To say that the skulls do not exist because a cat-scan is needed to prove they exist is a phony argument. Cat-scans are a relatively new procedure and we certainly knew a lot about artifacts before that procedure was developed. By Mr.G.'s illogical reasoning, they didn't know that Tutankhamen was real when Mr. Carter found him because Mr. Carter didn't have a cat-scan to verify that great discovery. So, logically, the cat-scan requirement can only be viewed as a diversionary tactic employed to avoid discussing the real subject.
     
    Last edited: Sep 21, 2002
  15. (Q) Encephaloid Martini Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    20,855
    Earth to John:

    Perhaps, Q, you could tell us exactly which media publications we can get the truth from so we don't make the mistake of referencing any of the BLT in future posts?

    The media are not interested in the truth.

    ...they didn't know that Tutanhkamon was real when Mr. Carter found...

    Unlike your skulls, information on Tutankhamon can be found at reputable sites like university sites for example:

    http://www.wisc.edu/arth/ah201/03.egypt.html

    http://emuseum.mnsu.edu/prehistory/egypt/history/people/tutankhamun.html

    or perhaps a museum site:

    http://www.egyptianmuseum.gov.eg/piece.asp

    If your so-called skulls are undeniably authentic, they should appear in similar such sites exhibited as alleged alien artifacts. Can you produce ?
     
  16. John MacNeil Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    345
    I wasn't asking what the media are interested in. I was asking which of them can we trust to give us information which is credible.

    You see information about Tutankhamen in museums now, but you couldn't have seen such presentations when the Tomb was first opened, nor for years afterward. But people did flock to the site to get a tour directed by Mr. Carter. This was because back in those more innocent days people still believed that knowledge should be disseminated and not hoarded.

    The fact that you classify the elongated homind skulls as alien artifacts is interesting, Q. Could you please elaborate on your reasoning for such a classification?
     
    Last edited: Sep 21, 2002
  17. Mr. G reality.sys Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,191
    John MacNeil:
    The 'cat-scan requirement' is one part of a methodical means of eliminating possiblities. You know, Sherlock Holmes? "Eliminate all other factors, and the one which remains must be the truth." From which arises the need to resort to forensic and other scientific evidences from demonstrably reliable sources. Holmes would never just take the words of an interested party as being the truth. He systematically searched for corroborative evidences and testimonies as his principal methodology for eliminating all other factors.

    The fact that you do not see the wisdom in, let alone recognize the merits of, such an approach bespeaks your low threshhold for evidence discrimination.
     
  18. (Q) Encephaloid Martini Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    20,855
    John,

    I wasn't asking what the media are interested in. I was asking which of them can we trust to give us information which is credible.

    My response should have answered your question.

    You see information about Tutanhkamun in museums now, but you couldn't have seen such presentations when the Tomb was first opened, nor for years afterward. But people did flock to the site to get a tour directed by Mr. Carter. This was because back in those more innocent days people still believed that knowledge should be disseminated and not hoarded.

    In other words, you can't produce a reputable site other than crank. As time goes by...

    The fact that you classify the elongated homind skulls as alien artifacts is interesting, Q. Could you please elaborate on your reasoning for such a classification?

    Did you not add the so-called 'evidence' of the skulls to this thread in support of your intelligent design theory ? Have you not all along been proponent to alien visitations ? You've certainly posted enough crank sites with alien connections that it was clear to me you are supportive.
     
  19. John MacNeil Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    345
    When I referenced the Smithsonian Institution for photographic evidence that modern humans are not pylogenically related to Neanderthals or Skhul V, it was to point out the obvious differences that could not possibly occur through natural selection within a timeframe proposed by Darwinian Theory of Evolution. There is an equally distinct difference between the elongated skulls and the Nenderthals and Skhul V. As there is an equally distinct difference between the elongated skulls and modern man. We know for fact that we have these physical specimens with their pronounced differences and we also know for fact that we have no phylgenic proof that they evolved from the same common ancester. Therefore we must conclude that Darwinian Theory of Evolution does not apply for all species on this planet and so cannot be a viable theory as it was presented and as it is currently being touted by the scientific community. On these points we must face the factual evidence and not jump to conclusions before any evidence has been proffered to allow us to speculate on alien origin of anything.

    My interest is not in proving or speculating on the absolute origin of anything, although it certainly would be nice to have the answers to everything. Rather, my interest is in evaluating the known evidence and learning as much truth about them as possible so that science is served. If science is not about truth, then it is about nothing. If truth is excluded from science, then all you are left with is construction.

    Some of you people are learning from this thread exactly how the creationists felt when you hounded them to wise up and face reality. I notice how they haven't returned to post in this thread, since they realized they couldn't possibly discuss the subject effectively against people with better evidence. I hope you people aren't going to start to disappear like they did.
     
  20. (Q) Encephaloid Martini Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    20,855
    John concludes:

    We know for fact that we have these physical specimens with their pronounced differences and we also know for fact that we have no phylgenic proof that they evolved from the same common ancester.

    What you don't have is evidence that these elongated skulls have not been altered in any way such as to represent the elongation. Remember the monkey/mermaid; the torso of a monkey attached to a fish.

    Therefore we must conclude that Darwinian Theory of Evolution does not apply for all species on this planet and so cannot be a viable theory as it was presented and as it is currently being touted by the scientific community

    If ever there was a straw man argument...

    Rather, my interest is in evaluating the known evidence and learning as much truth about them as possible so that science is served.

    If that is true, then by all means, research further the findings of the skulls. Provide more information to analyze, preferably from reliable sources. Due diligence. Don't base your entire argument on crank sites interpretations.

    I hope you people aren't going to start to disappear like they did.

    Still here.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  21. Mr. G reality.sys Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,191
    John MacNeil:
    No one is disputing that you have better evidence. Rather, we're effectively disputing that your evidence is evidence of anything not entirely subjective.
     
  22. John MacNeil Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    345
    "When you go high enough, you always come to one man."--Porter

    Mr.G.,

    Who is the authority who can officially decide the elongated skulls are real? I was under the impression that the Smithsonian Institution was the virtual spokesman for the scientific community, on our continent, at least, and I've referenced them numerous time but Q keeps referring to them as something less than savorable. Q has also called into question the morals of virtually everyone associated with any type of media and said he wouldn't believe anything from any of them, or at least that is the impression I got from the way he was phrasing his posts. So I, and I'm sure everyone else, would like to know where the final authority lies, exactly.
     
    Last edited: Sep 21, 2002
  23. (Q) Encephaloid Martini Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    20,855
    John

    I was under the impression that the Smithsonian Institution was the virtual spokesman for the scientific community...

    Where is your link from the Smithsonian ?

    Q has also called into question the morals of virtually everyone associated with any type of media and said he wouldn't believe anything from any of them, or at least that is the impression I got from the way he was phrasing his posts.

    I merely stated that the media is not interested in the truth. They are in the business of selling news hence, they have a bottom line, that which is their shareholders. The dividend precludes the truth.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     

Share This Page