|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 65 (9164 total) |
| |
ChatGPT | |
Total: 916,914 Year: 4,171/9,624 Month: 1,042/974 Week: 1/368 Day: 1/11 Hour: 0/0 |
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: The evidence for design and a designer - AS OF 10/27, SUMMARY MESSAGES ONLY | |||||||||||||||||||||||
Admin Director Posts: 13046 From: EvC Forum Joined: Member Rating: 2.7 |
Hi Barack,
I just replied to your complaint in Hyena Attacks, please see Message 40. This thread is in the science forums, which are usually paid more attention by moderators than Coffee House. If you truly wish to set a higher tone in discussion then I suggest you avoid openings like this:
BarackZero writes: dwise1 - truly a humble name, writes: Also, please do not attempt to play the role of moderator yourself, as you do here:
This is a clear violation of Rule #10, not that any "moderator" gives a damn, or will do anything about it. If you are having problems with discussion then please post a message to the Report Discussion Problems Here 3.0 thread describing the problem and providing links to any relevant messages or threads. But since this is your first post in this thread, it isn't possible that you could already be experiencing a problem.
I merely point out the pervasive hypocrisy of Darwinists, and of course the left in general. "Understanding through Discussion" is a joke, and all of you have made it so through your "bullshit" posts. Q.E.D. Hyenas proceed with your attack. You are unable to do otherwise. Please keep your discussion focused on the topic. Barack, you joined just this past Friday, and it's only Sunday. You've been here less than three full days. You seem to have come in with some preconceptions and a chip on your shoulder. All you've done so far is prove the dictum, "Treat people with disrespect and they will treat you back with disrespect." As AdminModulous told you, if you improve your tone a notch or two you'll get better results, and the support of moderators as well. Please, no replies to this message in this thread.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
tesla Member (Idle past 1623 days) Posts: 1199 Joined: |
Huh? What about the tests and experiments needed to verify? And above, you indicate that you already have that since the way you recognize god is involved was scientifically. How do you do that?
Logic and observation. First, know what you DO know. The rest is interpretation. You know me well enough that the logic of existing in an evolving state suggests: as long as two things ARE before that is a relevant question. Therefore, a true singularity is true T=0. Science does not have the ability to define T=0, as either a singularity, or other theory, which though considered theory, is still a pretty wild guess. Here’s a better response from: Tim Paglione, Ph.D., Research Assoc./AMNH:
Anyway, it's not so cut and dry and scientists always openly state what's not understood (it's what keeps us in business too), and this is one. The singularity is presumed but our physics actually breaks down when we get too close to t=0, so we can't predict anything really. The singularity is a placeholder for now. My argument is that the assumed 'universe' being 'everything' is wrong. And the opposite position needs explored. For a decent assumption all probabilities need equal review. My argument isn’t that the universes we know, and its interactions, don't have specific laws and rules to govern them, therefore being self governed by those laws for interaction. my argument is that it was designed that way by an intelligence, and the position of most great scientists is that it’s just those interactions that gave birth alone, and intelligence a product of interactions from non intelligence, whereas, I say intelligence was first, and lesser intelligences (such as mankind) were a decided product and outcome by the first greater intelligence. The first intelligence is assumed. The assumption of the first intelligence being a necessity, is by the logic, one thing, (singularity, true T=0, inevitable by my first logic) cannot evolve without anything else to interact with, and no environment. Therefore; the first evolution is only possible when intelligence is a factor in a singular energy. I realize the supposition. I realize the assumptions of my logic. HOWEVER; they are no different than the assumptions of scientists today. i.e.: assuming the 'universe' incorporates ALL there is, having no edge, with no proof. Therefore: by faith science assumes no God, and by faith I assume there is. keep your mind from this way of enquiry, for never will you show that not-being is ~parmenides
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
tesla Member (Idle past 1623 days) Posts: 1199 Joined: |
Good. Maybe you will be the first to show us this evidence which we have been asking for since this forum started.
Maybe one day. Not today. You can see my reply to jar for my current position. I’m still doing data crunching and unless I am able to convince an astrophysicist to do the math I need, it’ll be a few years before I can show the validity of my hypothesis for a potential theory. keep your mind from this way of enquiry, for never will you show that not-being is ~parmenides
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
tesla Member (Idle past 1623 days) Posts: 1199 Joined: |
Scientists.
keep your mind from this way of enquiry, for never will you show that not-being is ~parmenides
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 424 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
My argument is that the assumed 'universe' being 'everything' is wrong. And the opposite position needs explored. For a decent assumption all probabilities need equal review. My argument isn’t that the universes we know, and its interactions, don't have specific laws and rules to govern them, therefore being self governed by those laws for interaction. my argument is that it was designed that way by an intelligence, and the position of most great scientists is that it’s just those interactions that gave birth alone, and intelligence a product of interactions from non intelligence, whereas, I say intelligence was first, and lesser intelligences (such as mankind) were a decided product and outcome by the first greater intelligence. The first intelligence is assumed. LOL But there is evidence for for the laws and rules and interactions. Where is the evidence for some "first greater intelligence".
Therefore: by faith science assumes no God, and by faith I assume there is. But science does NOT say that, does not assume that. Science says just as I said, where is the evidence? Present the evidence for your "first greater intelligence" and science says then it can be investigated. Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
tesla Member (Idle past 1623 days) Posts: 1199 Joined: |
How have you eliminated the other alternatives?
What’s to eliminate? String theory or plate theories etc? They fall under 'chance' since no theories accepted by science include the direction of a creator. keep your mind from this way of enquiry, for never will you show that not-being is ~parmenides
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
tesla Member (Idle past 1623 days) Posts: 1199 Joined: |
But there is evidence for for the laws and rules and interactions.
We are not dealing with 'apple falls, there’s gravity' science. The realm of creator vs. no creator is a step into the darkest corners of understood science. It starts with a wild guess; some math appears to verify something, and then an interpretation of the math that could very well be wrong. Its wild guesses. You think that the big bang theory is solid science? This is from Camden university or Page not found | Relativity and Gravitation Group
Shortcomings of the Standard Cosmology Despite the self-consistency and remarkable success of the standard Hot Big Bang model in describing the evolution of the universe back to only one hundreth of a second, a number of unanswered questions remain regarding the initial state of the universe. The flatness problem Why is the matter density of the universe so close to the unstable critical value between perpetual expansion and recollapse into a Big Crunch? The horizon problem Why does the universe look the same in all directions when it arises out of causally disconnected regions? This problem is most acute for the very smooth cosmic microwave background radiation. The density fluctuation problem The perturbations which gravitationally collapsed to form galaxies must have been primordial in origin; from whence did they arise? The dark matter problem Of what stuff is the Universe predominantly made? Nucleosynthesis calculations suggest that the darrk matter of the Universe does not consist of ordinary matter - neutrons and protons? The exotic relics problem Phase transitions in the early universe inevitably give rise to topological defects, such as monopoles, and exotic particles. Why don't we see them today? The thermal state problem Why should the universe begin in thermal equilibrium when there is no mechanism by which it can be maintained at very high temperatures. The cosmological constant problem Why is the cosmological constant 120 orders of magnitude smaller than naively expected from quantum gravity? The singularity problem The cosmological singularity at t=0 is an infinite energy density state, so general relativity predicts its own breakdown. The timescale problem Are independent measurements of the age of the Universe consistent using Hubble's constant and stellar lifetimes? And that’s just the BBT, our most accepted theory. You can imagine what kind of holes are in 'other' theories. How much do you trust science? If you truly trust it: then trust them when they say 'we don’t know'. keep your mind from this way of enquiry, for never will you show that not-being is ~parmenides
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 315 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
What’s to eliminate? String theory or plate theories etc? They fall under 'chance' since no theories accepted by science include the direction of a creator. Well, no. Some things happen by chance, some by intelligent direction, and some fall in neither set. Granted, the two sets are disjoint, but I don't see why you assume that they're complementary. Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
tesla Member (Idle past 1623 days) Posts: 1199 Joined: |
Well, no. Some things happen by chance, some by intelligent direction, and some fall in neither set. Granted, the two sets are disjoint, but I don't see why you assume that they're complementary.
Can you further elaborate? keep your mind from this way of enquiry, for never will you show that not-being is ~parmenides
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Panda Member (Idle past 3743 days) Posts: 2688 From: UK Joined: |
tesla writes:
Correct. And that’s just the BBT, our most accepted theory. You can imagine what kind of holes are in 'other' theories.You can imagine what kind of holes are in other theories involving god/s. tesla writes:
This seems as poorly argued as "If I prove evolution wrong, then I will have proved Creationism true". How much do you trust science? If you truly trust it: then trust them when they say 'we don’t know'.Could you explain how scientists 'not knowing what happened at T=0' is in anyway connected to there being a god?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 424 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
I do trust an answer of "We don't know".
That is in fact the proper answer in many cases. But saying that "there is some first intelligence" is NOT accepting an answer of "We don't know", it is simply asserting a phrase that has no meaning and pretending that it is an answer.
You think that the big bang theory is solid science? Absolutely. Just understand that your cut-n-paste has absolutely nothing to do with the Big Bang Theory, it's just another attempt to misdirect folks attention while the pea gets palmed. Sure there is a period approaching T=0 where our current understanding breaks down. The honest response to that is to say "We don't know" and then to continue to explore those questions just as science is doing. But the topic is... "The evidence for design and a designer " and so far you have not presented anything related to that. What is your evidence of some "first intelligence"? Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 442 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
tesla writes:
No problem then. There is a scientific definition of God that is accepted by scientists. It goes something like this:
What’s missing is a scientific definition of God that will be accepted. Accepted being the key.
ringo writes:
Scientists. Accepted by whom? quote:You may not like that definition but scientists do agree on it. Whether they're Hindu or Muslim or Christian or atheist, that's one thing that scientists agree on. "It appears that many of you turn to Hebrew to escape the English...." -- Joseppi
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 424 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
I'd revise that slightly.
quote: If someone actually produced an objective observation of God or an objective observation of some effect of God on the universe then it would be possible for science to investigate. Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
tesla Member (Idle past 1623 days) Posts: 1199 Joined: |
You may not like that definition but scientists do agree on it. Whether they're Hindu or Muslim or Christian or atheist, that's one thing that scientists agree on. Who did you quote? I'm not concerned of what scientists believe today. That is subject to change tommorrow. keep your mind from this way of enquiry, for never will you show that not-being is ~parmenides
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 315 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
Can you further elaborate? For example, I do not attribute the six-fold symmetry of snowflakes to design by Jack Frost; but nor do I attribute it to one vast coincidence. Rather, it happens because that's what water does --- it is the result of neither chance nor design, but necessity.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024