Re: Ben Stein's Movie EXPELLED - Could we have been "designed"

Tokay Pino Gris wrote:
> 
> Bill Bonde ( 'the oblique allusion in lieu of the frontal attack' )
wrote:
> >
> > David Johnston wrote:
> >> On Wed, 30 Apr 2008 13:58:31 +0000, "Bill Bonde ( 'the oblique
> >> allusion in lieu of the frontal attack' )"
> >> <tributyltinpaint@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> >>
> >>>>> So there's no possible way to discuss ID scientifically? What if
> >>>>> space aliens did affect the earth's biote? In this hypothetical,
> >>>>> you are excluding what actually happened from study. That doesn't
> >>>>> sound like what science is about.
> >>>> If you can't detect it, you can't study it.  Science requires
> >>>> observations, not merely truth.
> >>>>
> >>> What you are saying is that detection is impossible even in
> >>> principle, or you'd be arguing similarly against string theory.
> >> String theory is a different but not particularly more complicated
> >> interpretation of the same observations as I understand it.
> >>
> > The reason that "string theory" meshes with reality is that there
> > are an infinite number of string theories and they just pick one
> > that fits all observations.
> 
> Maybe you should read up a bit.
>
So your answer to my comments is that *I* should read up a bit?



> What ALL string theories must be able to
> do is explain the known facts. Since it is maths, and since string
> theory as a whole tries to combine and include all other theories of
> physics, it cannot exclude one.
>
The problem is, string theory can be changed to meet almost any
test, therefore string theory (in general) isn't falsifiable.


 
> M-Theory (the latest one, and combining the other string theories) must
> do this as well. It includes the older theories of physics and can be
> used to explain the three space and one time dimension we experience. It
>   itself uses eleven dimensions.
> 
Will N-Theory use twelve dimensions? Maybe Z-Theory can use 26
dimensions: "What will be call the next theory?!"




> I don't understand the maths used. I guess there are only a handfull of
> people on this globe that do understand it.
> 
How convenient.


> > That's very close to the "God did it"
> 
> Yes and no. Yes, because since string theory is not yet and won't be in
> the foreseeable future falsifiable in practice (although it is in
> theory), it is argued that it is not really science.
> Also, up until now, as I understand it, it doesn't make any testable
> predictions.
> 
> Note, that SCIENTISTS argue this. They THEMSELVES argue this.
> 
That's right, like how people who sup****t evolution argue with
people who sup****t ID or some other cockeyed scheme.



> So far, string theory is basically maths.
> 
> And No, because whatever the theory does or does not do, it must include
>   the know observations. It strives to combine the other theories of
> physics, and in that must be capable of doing the other calculations of
> those theories.
> 
But the point is, say you do an experiment, or have an observation,
and say it doesn't mesh with string theory, it turns out that
string theory is very flexible, it can just adjust.


> > idea because every time you give a Creationist some observation,
> > say fossils, he changes his "theory" to mesh with that, "God put
> > the fossils in there to trick us, he did."
> 
> Weeeell, not really. The way I understand it, if you find some part of
> the theory that doesn't add up or is contrary to what is known, the
> theory is out.
> 
You just mod the theory. Some theories have troubles because they
don't make sense when modded in certain situations. For example, if
you say that the Earth is 6000 years old, you could just claim that
the billion year old fossils that we found were "just put there by
God to trick us", but that would seem to throw all of science for a
spin. But string theory can be modded, and can hide in its maths.



> The creationists don't really have a theory. "goddidit" is not a theory.
>
The problem isn't that it isn't an answer, which could be true,
it's that it isn't a falsifiable answer.



> It doesn't allow for predictions (ok, so M-theory doesn't do that as
> well. That's why it is not really a scientific theory). It doesn't
> include the other theories, in fact, goes contrary to them in parts.
> 
Yet it is science?




> >>  Aliens
> >> on the other hand are a complication to the basic question that
> >> doesn't actually answer the question of how life originated.
> >>
> > But you don't get to define where and how life originated.
> 
> It is not a question of "definition" or only in the way that you have to
> define "life". It is a question of finding out.
> 
I mean if God did it, you can't say that God didn't do it because
God doing it isn't science. Or if aliens put us here, you can't say
that didn't happen because you'd rather have an ultimate answer
which locates on Earth itself. 


>   It could
> > be that we came from alien DNA but that aliens evolved like we
> > figured we'd evolved.
> 
> Could be, yes. Btw, you mixed up evolution and abiogenesis again.
> 
I don't see that there's really a limit on what "evolution" means.
That's part of the problem. I'm certainly not confused about the
technical differentiation that is supposed to exist between
evolution and abiogenesis.




> > You don't get to decide what happened.
> 
> Nobody "decides". The question is what really happened. Not that we have
> that great a chance to find out, really, but we can at least TRY.
> 
I don't think that anyone here is arguing against that.



> Even IF they manage to produce a living cell (or pre-cell) in that lab
> (and they are pretty close to that), that doesn't mean that this is what
> actually happened.
>
Close to that? From nichts? I'm not aware that that's the case,
that they are "close". I understand that work is on to perfect from
the ground up the DNA of a working bit of "life".



> It just means that this way of abiogenesis is
> POSSIBLE. It doesn't even say that this happened on earth. It might have
> been somewhere else in the universe.
> But then we'd have a bunch of other tricky questions to answer: How did
> these "lifeforms" or how did just the DNA from these lifeforms end up on
> earth? You know, DNA is not that durable as a whole.
>
It can be protected in a cyst or something like that.




-- 
"Question, two men starving to death decide to eat their hair like
spaghetti. Is that funny?"
"Hmmm, well, it depends on if by funny you want to make people
laugh."
-+Eddie Izzard and Joanna Lumley, "The Cat's Meow"