|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
Member (Idle past 2728 days) Posts: 2843 From: You couldn't pronounce it with your mouthparts Joined: |
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: A Designer Consistent with the Physical Evidence | |||||||||||||||||||||||
hari Junior Member (Idle past 5519 days) Posts: 15 From: Harmandar Joined: |
From your link
quote: lol, beautiful hoax. If signals from an intelligent designer raise concerns about personal privacy, your prayers are answered here Aluminum Foil Deflector Beanie Oh don't listen to me, I'm just a girl
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
riVeRraT Member (Idle past 446 days) Posts: 5788 From: NY USA Joined: |
Taq writes: The fact that my eating hole and breathing hole are one in the same is all I need to know that someone was asleep at the wheel. This is a design flaw. How is this a design flaw? Also, I should have said this earlier, but where do we make the assumption that humans were designed as perfect? Also, humans were designed for a purpose. Unless we fully understand that purpose, then we can't judge if the design is flawed or not. You are saying having two holes would be a better design for living in the physical, but if we are eternal, then it doesn't much matter.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
riVeRraT Member (Idle past 446 days) Posts: 5788 From: NY USA Joined: |
lyxno writes: I'm 100% natural. My atoms are held together by electromagnetic fields. AKA gravity. FYI the earth has an electromagnetic field.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
NosyNed Member Posts: 9004 From: Canada Joined: |
I'm 100% natural. My atoms are held together by electromagnetic fields. AKA gravity. Wrong!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
riVeRraT Member (Idle past 446 days) Posts: 5788 From: NY USA Joined: |
onfire, on the subject of gravity writes: Many on this site could, you just wouldn't understand it, or probably wouldn't want to understand it. It was explained to me by those people (on this site), who are more knowledgeable than me on the subject that there is a theory, that attempts to explain gravity. It is not a full explanation, or a proven one, since nothing is ever proven in science. I also understand it. I know quite a bit about magnetic fields, and electromagnetic forces. I wind my own electric motors, and repair them on a daily basis. I am a fan of science, but not a scientist. I use science everyday in my trade, which helps me to understand certain things. The practical application of these sciences, shows me a lot. If you go to wikipedia, and read up on gravitation, you will see the history of what we believed were explanations. First there was Galileo, then Newton, then Einstein's relativity, then quantum, and finally at the end we read:
There are some observations that are not adequately accounted for, which may point to the need for better theories of gravity or perhaps be explained in other ways. So as you can see we don't fully grasp things. This pattern with science is applicable with all sciences. So as I stated, we know what we know, until we know something else. We are on this learning curve. We know not the beginning or end of this curve. It is therefor a logical assumption to say we are on the tip of the iceberg. The iceberg being the universe and beyond. It is a humble attitude. BTW, the theory of gravity does not explain where it comes from, only how it works.
What physical evidence do you have that a god/designer is necessary? Necessary? I could never say that. I am a mere speck. If God exists, and created all this, then all of it is physical evidence. If we study the works of Hubble, and the big bang theory, I find it funny that the mass of the universe is just the right amount to cause a big bang, how convenient. But I do find the big bang theory consistent with a start to the creation of the universe. But again, these are all theories, and we really just don't know.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
lyx2no Member (Idle past 4746 days) Posts: 1277 From: A vast, undifferentiated plane. Joined: |
Any credibility you may once have had is gone. There is no relationship between gravity and electromagnetism this side of inflation.
I have a mass of 79 Kg. Were I spherical my radius would be ~ 0.27 m. My escape velocity, therefore, is ~ 1/5 of a mm/sec. If I exhale my head should blast off. Nope; that didn't happen. Genesis 2 17 But of the ponderosa pine, thou shalt not eat of it; for in the day that thou shinniest thereof thou shalt sorely learn of thy nakedness. 18 And we all live happily ever after.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
riVeRraT Member (Idle past 446 days) Posts: 5788 From: NY USA Joined: |
lyxno writes: There is no relationship between gravity and electromagnetism this side of inflation. The theoretical implications of electromagnetism led to the development of special relativity by Albert Einstein in 1905. Thank you good night. Don't take what I say out of context. Stick to the point. My point is that gravity is the glue of the universe. It is not fully understood.
Any credibility you may once have had is gone. I neither want or desire "credibility" in human terms.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 10085 Joined: Member Rating: 5.6 |
Also, I should have said this earlier, but where do we make the assumption that humans were designed as perfect? Also, humans were designed for a purpose. Unless we fully understand that purpose, then we can't judge if the design is flawed or not.
If our purpose is to choke on our food and die then we are perfectly designed.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
onifre Member (Idle past 2981 days) Posts: 4854 From: Dark Side of the Moon Joined: |
It was explained to me by those people (on this site), who are more knowledgeable than me on the subject that there is a theory, that attempts to explain gravity. Your choice of words is curious. ALL theories attempt to explain the observable facts.
If you go to wikipedia, and read up on gravitation, you will see the history of what we believed were explanations. Or, I could just go to class.
So as you can see we don't fully grasp things. This pattern with science is applicable with all sciences. This pattern is applicable for anything, really. "We don't fully grasp things..." is an open ended statement, it really is meaningless. We understand how many, many things function, 100%, no, 99.99999999999%, yes. Every theory brings you one step closer to the fundamental answer but as one learns more about things the older theories aren't just discarded. They still explain what they observe. Example: In ALL inertial reference frames Newtons laws for gravity still apply.
BTW, the theory of gravity does not explain where it comes from, only how it works. Btw...It does! Gravity is the result of mass density. Gravity isn't a thing that comes from anywhere, it IS curved spacetime. Mass creates it. No designer required, just some good old fashion mass.
If we study the works of Hubble, and the big bang theory, I find it funny that the mass of the universe is just the right amount to cause a big bang, how convenient. If you really did study the works of Hubble and the Big Bang theory, you would not have made that statement. What caused the cosmological expansion has to do with vacuum energy density.
But again, these are all theories, and we really just don't know. It does not matter what the theory explains, it matters more that the phenomenon is observed. The theory, like you said, is the attempt to explain the phenomenon. Our existance is theoretically "real". It is a known fact that you exist, but in my attempt to explain your existance, I would only be able to provide theories for your existance. Yet you remain real. The expansion is observed. The age of the universe is calculated using tried and tested mathematical formulas. At no point is a designer invoked to explain the phenomenon. Where do you see fit to place a designer? What is the physical evidence that is consistent with the design concept? "I smoke pot. If this bothers anyone, I suggest you look around at the world in which we live and shut your mouth."--Bill Hicks "I never knew there was another option other than to question everything"--Noam Chomsky
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
lyx2no Member (Idle past 4746 days) Posts: 1277 From: A vast, undifferentiated plane. Joined: |
The theoretical implications of electromagnetism led to the development of special relativity by Albert Einstein in 1905. You mean the theory where he didn't mention gravity was about gravity? I must have missed that?
Stick to the point. Fair enough. Your point was that since science doesn't know everything random notions are equally valid. If you can't untangle gravity from electromagnetism when the rest of the world of physics is trying so hard to join them, how do you think it is you can sort out the properties of God. He leaves behind no evidence of competence as an engineer, astronomer, geologist, biologist, mathematician, physicist or moralist, but because we don't know "His" plan we can't judge.
I neither want or desire "credibility" in human terms. one must admire your dedication to that end. Genesis 2 17 But of the ponderosa pine, thou shalt not eat of it; for in the day that thou shinniest thereof thou shalt sorely learn of thy nakedness. 18 And we all live happily ever after.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 10085 Joined: Member Rating: 5.6 |
The theoretical implications of electromagnetism led to the development of special relativity by Albert Einstein in 1905. Specifically, the discovery that light travels at a specific speed led Einstein to formulate a theory to explain why light always travels at the same speed. This lead to his theory of special relativity (the "special" being the special case of constant velocity). It explained how spacetime changes with velocity. The general theory incorporated acceleration. Einstein found that gravity and acceleration were the same. He unified them. He explained how mass warps spacetime, and hence it changes the way in which electromagnetism propogates through spacetime. It all relates back to spacetime. That is the glue of the universe.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
lyx2no Member (Idle past 4746 days) Posts: 1277 From: A vast, undifferentiated plane. Joined: |
the invariance of the space-time interval as the revelation that holds it all together but I rushed my post and dropped the ball. Tanks.
Edited by lyx2no, : left out "interval" Genesis 2 17 But of the ponderosa pine, thou shalt not eat of it; for in the day that thou shinniest thereof thou shalt sorely learn of thy nakedness. 18 And we all live happily ever after.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Richard Townsend Member (Idle past 4762 days) Posts: 103 From: London, England Joined: |
'Specifically, the discovery that light travels at a specific speed led Einstein to formulate a theory to explain why light always travels at the same speed. This lead to his theory of special relativity (the "special" being the special case of constant velocity). It explained how spacetime changes with velocity.
The general theory incorporated acceleration. Einstein found that gravity and acceleration were the same. He unified them. He explained how mass warps spacetime, and hence it changes the way in which electromagnetism propogates through spacetime.' Actually, Einstein doesn't EXPLAIN why light travels at the same speed for all observers - he postulates that to be true and shows what the consequences are - and the consequences are E=mc2, Lorentz contraction, time dilation etc. Same thing with general relativity. He asserted that acceleration and gravity were equivalent and derived the theory from that.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
riVeRraT Member (Idle past 446 days) Posts: 5788 From: NY USA Joined: |
taq writes: If our purpose is to choke on our food and die then we are perfectly designed. Is that designer error/flaw, or operator?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
riVeRraT Member (Idle past 446 days) Posts: 5788 From: NY USA Joined: |
onfire writes: Where do you see fit to place a designer? What is the physical evidence that is consistent with the design concept? You explained many things of which I already get, so no need to debate. I see fit to place a designer, because it is a possibility. You can believe in stuff without minimal evidence. I believed by faith, and then I had an encounter, and continue to this day. For me God is real, and you can have a relationship with Him. But it is subjective, not provable, and all physical evidence in the universe, is evidence of Him. It's what I believe, and I am entitled to it. I am well aware that others who live their lives by the current scientific theory will think I am crazy, and I understand that, because that is how I once lived. What pisses me off is when people try to use science to dis-prove God, and also when they use science to prove God (aka creation science). To me science should be considered a gift from God. Or if you don't believe, then it is just awesome. My main point is, there are somethings we will never know. So all concepts regarding where we came from require a leap of faith.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024