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

Bill Bonde ( 'the oblique allusion in lieu of the frontal attack' ) wrote:
> 
> 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?

Yes. Find out what string theory is. You will find out that it is not a 
proper scientific theory at all. It is a mathematical attempt to combine 
known physical theories. It HAS to conform to the observations. You find 
an observation that does not fit: OUT the theory goes. Simple as that.

The trick is an always has been to find the theory that fits ALL the 
facts. So OF COURSE to make the theory that it fits the observations. 
That IS the whole idea.

> 
>> 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.

It is falsifiable in theory. We just don't have the means to test it.

Also, string theory ISN'T a proper scientific theory anyway. It is a 
mathematical concept.


>> 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?!"

That's why I said, read up on it. M-theory is a mathematical concept. It 
works in maths and in order to mathematically work it needed eleven 
dimensions.

It isn't scientifically falsifiable de facto. In theory it is. We just 
don't have the means to do that yet.

> 
>> 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.

Do you understand how nuclear fission works? In VERY broad terms I do. 
But also I don't the maths behind it.

In VERY broad terms I understand M-Theory. But the maths?

Not a chance.

> 
> 
>>> 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.

Actually, evolution doesn't need sup****t from people. It has all the 
sup****t it needs from evidence.

People who sup****t "ID"? WHAT exactly do they sup****t? That non-answer 
"goddidit"?

>> 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.

That IS the whole idea. You have to find a theory that fits ALL the 
observations.

Actually, I don't see how you can count this as a "bad" point. It is the 
WHOLE point.

> 
> 
>>> 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.

Of course. That is the idea.

  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.

Actually, you could tackle that question like that. You start with 
"goddidit". The obvious question is then "Does god exist?" And to answer 
that one, you do the "usual", you formulate a falsifiable hypothesis and 
tackle that one. The falsifiable hypothesis for the question "does god 
exist" is "there are no gods". The opposite would not be falsifiable and 
is out as hypothesis.

This hypothesis, if not falsified, is then adopted UNTIL falsified.

> But string theory can be modded, and can hide in its maths.
> 

Of COURSE it can be modded. That is the idea. It is a MATHEMATICAL 
concept that strives to combine the other physical theories. So, you can 
find a string theory that fits gravity. Nice. But it doesn't explain the 
weak nuclear power. So we have a fancy way to calculate gravity. But 
since the idea is to combine the two, this the string theory "A" can't 
do. And you have a second mathematical concept, String theory "B". Which 
describes weak nuclear power. But not graviity. So this can't be "IT" 
either. Then you try to combine these two string theories. And get 
string theory "C". Which is nice to combine weak nuclear force and 
gravity, but says nothing about electromagnetics.

So you do this, and combine and calculate. And you have theory that does 
not work, the maths don't add up.

"Wait" says someone. "What if we add another dimension? Maybe THEN we 
can combine the maths".

Turns out, it does. Result: M-Theory. STILL a mathematical concept, but 
in maths, it works.


So, OF COURSE you get a bunch of mathematical solutions. The trick is to 
find the one that actually DOES add up and DOES NOT contradict the facts.

> 
>> 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.

Nope. It is a non-answer because it does not answer anything.

> 
> 
> 
>> 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?

M-Theory? It isn't a scientific theory. It is a mathematical concept.

I was referring to "creationism" (outside the brackets) and that ISN'T 
science. It contradicts the other theories. It contradicts the facts. It 
contradicts the observations.


>>>>  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.

The question is still not what I "would like better". The question is 
where the evidence leads us. And also, what options we have to 
investigate. We CAN'T investigate M-Theory yet. We CAN'T investigate 
what aliens are capable of yet, because we are still trying to find them.

So the usual idea is to take what you have and start from there. To 
include some entities we don't even yet know if they exist or not, even 
less what they are capable of, would be crazy.

We can speculate that further research actually might show that life 
COULDN'T  start on earth. But that is pure speculation. So far, the 
research done looks promising.

>>   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.

Ehm. You DO know what evolution is, right? It is about the diversity of 
life and says absolutely NOTHING about the START of life.

> That's part of the problem. I'm certainly not confused about the
> technical differentiation that is supposed to exist between
> evolution and abiogenesis.

Why don't you use the correct terms then?

>>> 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".

We have the precursors. We have bubbles, membranes. We have some rather 
big steps ahead, but we know the ingredients were there.

>
>> 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.

Probably. Problem is that even then, DNA is fragile. "Space" as in 
"outer Space" is far from empty. Radiation aplenty, Incredible heat, 
incredible cold.

DNA is very attackable by radiation. And radiation we have in abundance 
in space.

Just speculation, of course.

Let's find out first if life COULD arise on earth, shall we? It would be 
the simplest solution. Aliens at this point are way more complicated 
without even changing the initial questions.

Like I said, let's find out how life could arise at all, and if it turns 
out it couldn't have been on earth, we can then break our heads on WHERE 
  it did arise. Because arise it did.


Tokay




-- 

The harder you fall,
the higher you bounce.

   Anonymous