How certain is 'science'

[Crusadar]

rmwilliamsll said: can someone please tell me what this means?
it makes no sense to me.

think real science brother, especially in the field of information theory.

 

[The Lady Kate]

I think it means that scientists and engineers expect things to happen the same way tommorrow as they did yesterday and the day before. After all, it has proven to be a pretty good assumption.

IOW...gravity is not going to start pulling things to the left tomorrow, and steel is not going to suddenly turn into marshmallow fluff.

I agree...I'm not sure what kind of engineer would there be without assumptions like these....perhaps the unemployed kind?

Even though it would be well within God's power to do these things, it's a safe bet that He's not going to...furthermore, He most likely hasn't done it in the past, having no reason to do so.

What do they call that again?

Common sense?

 

[Crusadar]

IOW...gravity is not going to start pulling things to the left tomorrow, and steel is not going to suddenly turn into marshmallow fluff.

A bit on the absurd side now aren't we?

Common sense?

The problem with common sense is that it's not so common.

 

[gluadys]

. What I was pointing out was that the design aspect of any machine time and again is demonstrated in the amount of specified information that is applied. This is something that is not derivable from natural laws.

In fact the information applied specifies the purpose – this is seen in all biology. This is what I was after, that natural laws alone produces no plane nor spacecraft and yet evolutionists dare say something which is much more complex as that of a bacterium or a bird are the product of nature alone?


Simply put, the time required to create or design a machine is flexible, where the time factor decreases as the amount of information increases - where there is little or no information applied there is low tech or no tech.

Nature designs without thought, but it takes ingenuity to imitate nature's designs. That's why birds can fly as soon as their wings are strong enough, but it takes engineers to design and build an aircraft which imitates bird flight very imperfectly.

 

[Crusadar]

gluadys said: Nature designs without thought, but it takes ingenuity to imitate nature's designs. That's why birds can fly as soon as their wings are strong enough, but it takes engineers to design and build an aircraft which imitates bird flight very imperfectly.

Come again? So what you are saying then is that a thoughtless process created perfect flight while a thoughtful process creates imperfect flight? I suppose maybe we should let nature design planes and computer systems from now on since we are so inept at designing anything?

 

[gluadys]

gluadys said: Nature designs without thought, but it takes ingenuity to imitate nature's designs. That's why birds can fly as soon as their wings are strong enough, but it takes engineers to design and build an aircraft which imitates bird flight very imperfectly.

Come again? So what you are saying then is that a thoughtless process created perfect flight while a thoughtful process creates imperfect flight?

Exactly. Most human designs are imperfect imitations of nature.

 

[Crusadar]

Alright then everyone take note, gluadys says we should stop trying to imitate nature, since were so bad at designing so lets just let nature design things for us and see if a new windows os that works flawlessly can pop up into existence on its own. (Holding breath, turning blue...passingggooout

 

[shernren]

Dear Crusadar, I really dislike that stuff about "operational science vs. origins science". How do you draw the line between the two? You do realize that you cannot observe anything in the present.

 

[notto]

Alright then everyone take note, gluadys says we should stop trying to imitate nature, since were so bad at designing so lets just let nature design things for us and see if a new windows os that works flawlessly can pop up into existence on its own. (Holding breath, turning blue...passingggooout

Your statement ignores quite a bit about how evolution and nature actually work. It is a bit absurd.

 

[gluadys]

Alright then everyone take note, gluadys says we should stop trying to imitate nature, since were so bad at designing so lets just let nature design things for us and see if a new windows os that works flawlessly can pop up into existence on its own. (Holding breath, turning blue...passingggooout

LOL. Exaggeration. Where did I say we should stop imitating nature?

 

[Micaiah]

I think that process is called "learning." Doesn't it falsify your initial claim? If scientists are regularly changing their minds, or more accurately, regularly changing each other's minds, doesn't that mean they're not trusting each other on faith alone?

It proves to me that their is a degree of uncertainty about what they say. If I was told by the One who Created the world that it was created in six days, that would eliminate all uncertainty.

 

[The Lady Kate]

IOW...gravity is not going to start pulling things to the left tomorrow, and steel is not going to suddenly turn into marshmallow fluff.

A bit on the absurd side now aren't we?

Why? Are you implying that God could not do these things if He so chose?

Common sense?

The problem with common sense is that it's not so common.

How sadly true...

 

[The Lady Kate]

It proves to me that their is a degree of uncertainty about what they say. If I was told by the One who Created the world that it was created in six days, that would eliminate all uncertainty.

Indeed, IF you were told by the One who created the world... but you weren't told by Him, were you? You got the message second- and third-hand from anonymous sources, who may very well be in His presence right now ROFLing that you took them literally.

 

[rmwilliamsll]

gluadys said: Nature designs without thought, but it takes ingenuity to imitate nature's designs. That's why birds can fly as soon as their wings are strong enough, but it takes engineers to design and build an aircraft which imitates bird flight very imperfectly.

Come again? So what you are saying then is that a thoughtless process created perfect flight while a thoughtful process creates imperfect flight? I suppose maybe we should let nature design planes and computer systems from now on since we are so inept at designing anything?

that is the field of genetic algorithms.
and it is applied to both airplane design and computer systems, in fact, GA is quite efficiency in layout design of chip positions and interconnect wiring.

 

[Crusadar]

shernren said: Dear Crusadar, I really dislike that stuff about "operational science vs. origins science". How do you draw the line between the two? You do realize that you cannot observe anything in the present.

Hopefully it’s not me you dislike but my ideas, which is mutual, I have nothing here against anyone, only their views. But as my signature says I am not here to please anyone. But really are we talking about the same thing here? Does any engineer or doctor for that matter work on the basis of no observation? How does any engineer determine the thrust per square inch needed to allow a hunk of metal with wings to take off on the runway without being a danger to its passengers if he cannot observe it in the here and now! No doctor who claims to have any knowledge of medicine would dream of prescribing medication that hasn’t already been tested to be safe in the here and now. If it cannot be observed and tested in the present than it is useless.

Could it be that perhaps you are confusing evolution with real science - that’s why you cannot draw the line between them? Lets put it another way, what designed the computer you are using that allows us to have this meager discussion? Operational science perhaps? What put the first man on the moon? What designs better vaccines? What designs more fuel efficient cars? I’ll let you take a guess.

That is after all the meat of the matter in science, whether it enhances life and is usable in the here and now. It is after all the here and now that real science operates as we can empirically observe and test. What guarantees that something is certain or not is if relatively the same results are achieved in every test. Origins science (especially evolution) however cannot be empirically tested, but merely assumed and therefore is pretty much useless, in other words - junk science.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------

notto said: Your statement ignores quite a bit about how evolution and nature actually work. It is a bit absurd.

Actually it ignores evolution in its entirety, - because evolution IS absurd!


--------------------------------------------------------------------------


Gluadys said: LOL. Exaggeration. Where did I say we should stop imitating nature?

Come now - its not that hard to figure out is it? First of all you said that “Nature designs without thought, but it takes ingenuity to imitate nature's designs”. And then that: “Most human designs are imperfect imitations of nature.” All one needs to do is logically conclude that since nature is thoughtless but does do a better job of designing than man who uses his best thinking then the obvious conclusion is that a thoughtless process is much better at designing than a thoughtful one! So then why not let nature perfectly design for us instead of trying to imperfectly copy nature!


--------------------------------------------------------------------------


Kate said: Why? Are you implying that God could not do these things if He so chose?

Hey, you’re the one that brought it up - not me.

The problem with common sense is that it's not so common.

How sadly true...

See what I mean.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------


rmwilliamsll said:that is the field of genetic algorithms.
and it is applied to both airplane design and computer systems, in fact, GA is quite efficiency in layout design of chip positions and interconnect wiring.

Now who is doing all this designing, a source of intelligence perhaps? An already existing genetic system perhaps? I hope it’s not appearing out of the thin air now is it?

 

[rmwilliamsll]

rmwilliamsll said:that is the field of genetic algorithms.
and it is applied to both airplane design and computer systems, in fact, GA is quite efficiency in layout design of chip positions and interconnect wiring.

Crusadar:Now who is doing all this designing, a source of intelligence perhaps? An already existing genetic system perhaps? I hope it’s not appearing out of the thin air now is it?

did you even bother taking a few minutes to google genetic algorithms to see what they are and how they work? before replying to my posting?
that appears to be one big difference between the people who are here to learn and those that are here to preach.

.....

 

[Crusadar]

rmwilliamsll said:did you even bother taking a few minutes to google genetic algorithms to see what they are and how they work? before replying to my posting? that appears to be one big difference between the people who are here to learn and those that are here to preach.

The real question is did you understand my statement before you replied? Again the question still stands, who is doing all the designing chance or a source of intelligence? But since you brought it up I'll let you preach to me your understanding of GA and we will start from there.

 

[gluadys]

Gluadys said: LOL. Exaggeration. Where did I say we should stop imitating nature?

Come now - its not that hard to figure out is it? First of all you said that “Nature designs without thought, but it takes ingenuity to imitate nature's designs”. And then that: “Most human designs are imperfect imitations of nature.” All one needs to do is logically conclude that since nature is thoughtless but does do a better job of designing than man who uses his best thinking then the obvious conclusion is that a thoughtless process is much better at designing than a thoughtful one! So then why not let nature perfectly design for us instead of trying to imperfectly copy nature!

Because nature has no interest in designing anything for us.

 

[rmwilliamsll]

rmwilliamsll said:did you even bother taking a few minutes to google genetic algorithms to see what they are and how they work? before replying to my posting? that appears to be one big difference between the people who are here to learn and those that are here to preach.

The real question is did you understand my statement before you replied? Again the question still stands, who is doing all the designing chance or a source of intelligence? But since you brought it up I'll let you preach to me your understanding of GA and we will start from there.

i dont preach, not licensed to do so.
but i do teach Sunday School, proudly and gratefully.
it is there that i've discovered that adults learn better on their own, so if you want to engage with the science, you'll need to research GA on your own. to discover that it is a random exploration of possibility spaces that yields up surprisingly good answers.


....

 

[Crusadar]

gluadys said: Because nature has no interest in designing anything for us.

It's not because nature has no interest in designing, its that it only works on the basis of its design.