Intelligent Design == Human Design?

quote:

---

The complexity of what exactly? What are you talking about? Would you like to borrow a noun?

---

i watched some of the Dover trial. and the argument of what i saw was about a biological specimen supposedly impossible to have evolved, but had to have been created. the argument did not hold.But I'm not arguing the Dover trial.I'm arguing the place of God in science and whether or not we are in a created existence, or a randomly formed one.I do not claim to have all the answers. i do claim to have some questions concerning the answers we do have and what they signify.If you would like to debate that evidence i would love to in a great debate with you. but its mostly physics and cosmology.as far as this thread, we both already agree that ID as it is proposed does not fit science. But the proposal that we live in a created universe and that God IS, i believe is relevant to science and should be taught based on the evidence i have found. UNLESS; contrary evidence can be provided to prove the current data of physics and cosmology wrong.

---

keep your mind from this way of enquiry, for never will you show that not-being is
~parmenides

quote:

---

Rational people understand your statement as saying that the attribution of supernatural causation is just a stop-gap, a place-holder, an ersatz "answer" to fill a space that can't be filled on the basis of careful and replicable observation. In other words, asserting "God" as a cause is actually just an admission of ignorance.

---

I am not contradicting myself. If the science of physics and cosmology are true, then it points out this definition when dealing with the universal beginning:singularity= all the energy of the universe in a singular state.now ask, how can it evolve with nothing to interact with? probability math: T=0 =inevitable. T=0 evolution impossible.fact: T=0 evolvedhow? self directed act.t=0 = singularity.singularity= first existence/existence.self directed act = intelligence.definition: Existence = energy first before all things that was intelligent and evolved by its own direction based on faith that it existed.existence=God.__________________________So to me its a natural thing that God exists based on this science. i do not consider God supernatural, nor thoughts, nor aliens or psychic phenomenon. i consider it all natural and misunderstood.so when i say God, i do not mean in a supernatural sense. i mean it in a natural sense.

---

keep your mind from this way of enquiry, for never will you show that not-being is
~parmenides

quote:

---

Science is not going to progress without addressing issues of thought , emotion and other things that DO exist...

---

But that's what 'science' means... Science isn't meant to be the be-all-end-all study of reality. It simply focuses on what is measurable and objectively verifiable. That sounds harsh and heartless, but that's just what it means to study science.

quote:

---

there is no area absent of energy.... a constant singular source cannot evolve without intelligence... there is no other variable possible

---

I must confess to being very confused by what you're saying here. Aside from the fact that your science 'facts' are nothing of the kind (even if an area is absent of energy, it still contains both space and time, and thus exists. A single seed can evolve into a full-grown tree without the need of intelligence, etc)But all of this is just fluff meant to cover up the real issue: You said that most scientists accept Intelligent Design. I pointed out that this is patently false: the vast majority of scientists reject Intelligent Design (even if they believe in a Creator).

Then let's use your arguments to see if it really works. I will use empirical data just like you.E=mc^2, therefore leprechauns exist. See how I did that? I used one of the best known facts in science to show that leprechauns exist. Can you please show me where I went wrong in this argument?

quote:

---

E=mc^2, therefore leprechauns exist. See how I did that?

---

LOLYeah i see how you did that. thats not what i'm doing.

---

keep your mind from this way of enquiry, for never will you show that not-being is
~parmenides

quote:

---

But that's what 'science' means... Science isn't meant to be the be-all-end-all study of reality. It simply focuses on what is measurable and objectively verifiable. That sounds harsh and heartless, but that's just what it means to study science.

---

Anything that exists can be measured. it has energy. we just don't know how. science CAN measure even "thought" if it understands the link between thought and matter.Its not harsh or heartless. i like the objectivity of science. that's why i choose to study it.

quote:

---

I must confess to being very confused by what you're saying here. Aside from the fact that your science 'facts' are nothing of the kind (even if an area is absent of energy, it still contains both space and time, and thus exists. A single seed can evolve into a full-grown tree without the need of intelligence, etc)

---

Space and time are relevant to this universe. In the singularity, there is only a single energy without time. and apparently without any space as we know it.and as for trees, did you know that if a parasite attacks a tree, some trees can chemically defend itself like our immune system defends us? and even greater science fact: those trees can also release a chemical that other trees of its biology can read interpret and emit the same chemical to defend itself? its really cool. but also, its communication. which to me is some sign of intelligence.In my discussions of the inevitable point in time known as T=0 in quantum theory, i have attempted to explain what most scientists ignore. but they DO agree the singularity exists at that point, and that its energy, and space and time are irrelevant.The only thing I'm attaching is: OK, so how did it evolve? there's nothing to interact with. no environment, and no hope of introduction. and look around...It DID evolve. so...how? Tell me, ANY other variable that could make that happen that actually exists. Intelligence does exist. And with it as a variable, evolution is a probability.

---

keep your mind from this way of enquiry, for never will you show that not-being is
~parmenides

quote:

---

In the singularity, there is only a single energy without time.
  —tesla

---

'Energy' is not a unit... there's no such thing as "an energy", so I don't understand what you are saying here.

quote:

---

but they DO agree the singularity exists at that point, and that its energy, and space and time are irrelevant.
  —tesla

---

Absolutely not. Space-time is not irrelevant to a singularity because a singularity is an aspect of space-time. You cannot have a singularity without space-time.But I understand your general direction: space-time was greatly warped at the singularity, and a singularity might be the natural 'starting point' of space-time itself.
This, as it turns out, is actually an answer to your question...

quote:

---

The only thing I'm attaching is: OK, so how did it evolve? there's nothing to interact with. no environment, and no hope of introduction. and look around...It DID evolve. so...how?
  —tesla

---

Because if a singularity represents the beginning of time itself, then obviously there was no such thing as "interaction", "cause", or "evolution" (this entire discussion, of course, has nothing to do with the Theory of Evolution).I should state at this point that in my understanding of what a 'singularity' is, modern physicists actually aren't sure if space-time itself had a beginning with the singularity. However, I do know that if this turned out to be the case, then the question "What came before the Big Bang?" is like asking "What is south of the south pole?" There's no such thing as 'before' the beginning of time (because "time" didn't exist).

You Don't understand the bbt.read this pls:
The Big Bang singularity is a point of zero volume, but very high mass, which makes the density infinite. This singularity contained all of the matter and energy in the Universe. The initial moment of the cyclopean explosion very well remains a mystery however, astronomers and physicists believe that after the tiniest fraction of a second, the strong nuclear force and the electromagnetic force separated, which probably caused the Universe to begin inflating. The Big Bang itself created space, time, and all of the matter and energy we know today.link :http://search.mywebsearch.com/mywebsearch/redirect.jhtml?...

---

keep your mind from this way of enquiry, for never will you show that not-being is
~parmenides

... without understanding what the math is telling you!This is the crux of your problem, tesla. You have a layman's understanding of the math/concepts without the knowledge of the underlying principles and their connection to the models from which they are derived.One case in point:Do you really understand what the spacetime singularity is and what it means?What attributes for this singularity are derived from the math?What do these attributes tell us about the models from which the equations sprang?It's as if you heard or read about this singularity then stopped thinking. You did not read or comprehend the following paragraphs that relayed (or should have relayed) what the attributes of this singularity means to the underlying models.You are so hell-bent on proving your preconceived religious point you can not be bothered with what a spacetime singularity means to the "physics LAW and RELIABLE physics math" you so errantly think you are quoting.

quote:

---

You Don't understand the bbt. read this pls:
  —tesla

---

I have read your source and I'm sorry to say that your accusation is misplaced. I may not understand all aspects of the Big Bang Theory, but I understand the basics, and as far as I can tell, you don't.Consider what I've said in my posts. Here it is again:

quote:

---

Space-time is not irrelevant to a singularity because a singularity is an aspect of space-time. You cannot have a singularity without space-time.
  —Fiver

---

...and from your own source...

quote:

---

It had all of the properties of a black hole singularity but from it 'grew' space time and matter was released into this space as the fundamental particles of very high energy.
  —Your source!

---

And ALL of this goes back to your suggestion...

quote:

---

there is no area absent of energy
  —tesla

---

Those have been my points, and I'd ask any 3rd-party reader to support or correct me on whether I understand the basics of the Big Bang Theory.

lol ii'm sorry your post doesn't seem to fit somehow, I'm not sure what your saying about my findings which match the BBT perfectly.I do know your objective is to discredit my knoledge. Consider this: if i have said these same things to cosmologists who definitely know their business, and THEY agree with my assessment of the BBT and the singularity; (although not what i suggest it signifies). Then Who should i believe? you or them?

---

keep your mind from this way of enquiry, for never will you show that not-being is
~parmenides

quote:

---

This is the crux of your problem, tesla. You have a layman's understanding of the math/concepts without the knowledge of the underlying principles and their connection to the models from which they are derived.

​

One case in point:

​

Do you really understand what the spacetime singularity is and what it means?

​

What attributes for this singularity are derived from the math?

​

What do these attributes tell us about the models from which the equations sprang?

---

Yes. laymens terms aye? but if you know the theory, then verify or correct this: and ill find some references for conclusion.singularity means : all of everything . that is. was one energy.
When a physicist refers to a singularity they are generally referring to a quantity which is infinite.in this case they are ignoring that there is nothing else to interact with. i do not believe it was real tiny. i think it started out in something really big and inside that big something a small spot started to grow that became this universe.
however, then you ca ask what does that look like and go nowhere. but the point it evolved is definite. and as long as two things ARE from an evolved state, before that is a relevant question. that's how we got down to a small thing crawled out of the ocean that came from a bacteria that came from oh whats that? something smaller. but they all started in something bigger. the ocean perhaps. do you see my point now?I don't have a problem with why science wants to ignore all the universe as a single black whole that was infinitely dense. but the amount of mass in the universe cannot conceivably exist in the size of a pea. it had to come from a source. and that source is apparently infinite. and this universe is expanding inside it. that's what the math tells me. i just don't know at what point a density of mass hits its threshold in which it no longer is mass. and i don't think anyone else even cares to see if we can find out.

---

keep your mind from this way of enquiry, for never will you show that not-being is
~parmenides

Precisely what I meant. You have it wrong.Singularity ≠ all of everything.Singularity ≠ existence.Singularity = ignorance.Singularity is the term used to describe that area where both of our most accurate models break down by showing impossible absurdities. It is that area of which we know nothing. You are ignoring the fact that no one knows if there was anything else to interact with or not. Your beliefs mean nothing.The rest of your post is drivel.Whether the Universe is an embedded manifold or not is unknown. Piercing the singularity cannot yet be done. The math tells you nothing because it does not yet exist.You, further, extrapolate your intuition from things in our 4D existence onto those areas of ignorance. If there is one thing our models show, operating in those areas where they are known to have exceptional efficacy, it is that this Universe defies intuition at every level. Edited by AZPaul3, : delete redundedunencyEdited by AZPaul3, : spelin

quote:

---

Singularity is the term used to describe that area where both of our most accurate models break down by showing impossible absurdities. It is that area of which we know nothing.

---

until you plug in the empirical data ive offered it will continue to appear absurd.now accept the fact the universe is expanding inside of an apparently infinite area ( and that the known universe has an edge). now what does the math say?

---

keep your mind from this way of enquiry, for never will you show that not-being is
~parmenides

quote:

---

Whether the Universe is an embedded manifold or not is unknown.
  —AZPaul3

---

Your "fact" is not evidenced. It will not, cannot, be accepted.

quote:

---

The math tells you nothing because it does not yet exist.
  —AZPaul3

---

You say you respect the science and try to use the science, yet you twist then abandon the protocol for your religious speculations.Fail.