Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 50 (9179 total)
2 online now:
Newest Member: Jorge Parker
Post Volume: Total: 918,214 Year: 5,471/9,624 Month: 496/323 Week: 136/204 Day: 6/4 Hour: 1/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Our perfect place in the heavens..
John
Inactive Member


Message 1 of 53 (23999)
11-24-2002 12:33 AM


One major argument for ID revolves around the idea that conditions in the universe had to be just-so or we wouldn't be here.
It appears that a big bite has been taken out of this argument.
Discover Financial Services
------------------
No webpage found at provided URL: www.hells-handmaiden.com

Replies to this message:
 Message 2 by Coragyps, posted 11-24-2002 11:11 AM John has replied
 Message 13 by Brad McFall, posted 12-20-2002 1:05 AM John has not replied
 Message 20 by logicalunatic, posted 12-21-2002 12:17 AM John has not replied

  
John
Inactive Member


Message 3 of 53 (24041)
11-24-2002 11:26 AM
Reply to: Message 2 by Coragyps
11-24-2002 11:11 AM


quote:
Originally posted by Coragyps:
it's rather odd to preach information that's that easily falsified.
Odd? Seem like a creationist staple to me.
------------------
No webpage found at provided URL: www.hells-handmaiden.com

This message is a reply to:
 Message 2 by Coragyps, posted 11-24-2002 11:11 AM Coragyps has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 4 by forgiven, posted 12-13-2002 7:05 AM John has replied

  
John
Inactive Member


Message 5 of 53 (26493)
12-13-2002 10:42 AM
Reply to: Message 4 by forgiven
12-13-2002 7:05 AM


quote:
Originally posted by forgiven:
maybe it's a small point, but the article you posted isn't quite the same as the argument i've heard framed... it isn't about what it would take for all of us to die, it's about the conditions necessary for us to be here in the first place... maybe that article speaks to that, i'll read it more closely
What I have seen argued is that the Earth is in a near perfect orbit to support life-- not too hot, not too cold.... etc. The point of the article is that a vaste range of orbits could support life and not just life in general but life pretty much as exists on Earth today. Therefore, the appeal to perfect orbital design falls flat.
------------------
No webpage found at provided URL: www.hells-handmaiden.com

This message is a reply to:
 Message 4 by forgiven, posted 12-13-2002 7:05 AM forgiven has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 6 by Brad McFall, posted 12-13-2002 11:51 AM John has replied

  
John
Inactive Member


Message 7 of 53 (26505)
12-13-2002 12:25 PM
Reply to: Message 6 by Brad McFall
12-13-2002 11:51 AM


Brad, I'm sorry, but I don't speak whatever language this is. However, in the spirit of adventure, I am going to attempt a response.
quote:
Where I am going we are going to have to keep "orbit" and "trajectory" seperate.
'k, though I don't see this theme recur anywhere.
quote:
I could speculate with the words given above here but I think it would re-play the display better if one tried to claim (as I am attempting) that the extra gravity well dimension that makes the Humphryes universe visible;
That what, Brad? This isn't a sentence. If one tried to claim that ..... what?
quote:
whether or not we all agree to see or not see the same light as to the life occurring here only (for it may be the means from the "perfect" orbit via any storm (newton's comet)
It doesn't matter if we agree on the issue that life exists only on Earth rather than elswhere. Yes?
quote:
to simply project where best to look for life or rather a statistical approach to the different trajectories is more likely.
This appears to be a synopsis of the research reported in the article I cited.
quote:
That said I do think that IF this is the ability to visulize this 5th dimension (mostly here on Earth) then (although I would perfer to be led to my statements by reasoning with Humphryes tensors regionalizing within galaxay clustering etc)
I have no idea what visualization or what fth dimensions it is of which you speak.
quote:
the reason that creationists can see what evoultionists do not is because the small ex nihilo probability is becoming more than a possibility.
The chances of something from nothing are looking better then? ok. Are you talking about the BB, or about abiogenesis? I can't tell. The later would be more on topic.
quote:
The difficult thing is to get beyond the barrier without having to reason with general relativity. That may not be possible.
What would this gain us?
quote:
But seeing continental drift as a whole CartesianISM IS possible.
Right. Ok. But what does plate tectonics have to do with planetary orbits, in context?
quote:
Einstein made the sophomore geometry observation and we do not need to assume that only Partial Differential Equations are going to network the space but once one abandons the models for life to live wihout scientific support for why it is there is most life on Earth centers not only the Solar System but also the Reproductive Connection.
1) Never thought I'd see 'Einstein' and 'sophomore' in the same sentence.
2) 'k. no assumptions about partial differential equations?????
3) What models for life to live without scientific support? I suppose you mean, 'abandon the models which lack scientific support?' Ok. Not a problem.
4) Why does life center the Solar System? It doesn't. But we have to live somewhere.
5) What reproductive connection and what does it have to do with planetary orbits?
quote:
Regardless the priveldged position of life on Earth + Humprhyes cosmology explains how I can Understand that Kant understood the plane of the Solar System.
Can you explain to us?
quote:
The chain to primeval slime however may not be able to be writ along a sigle descending line however as life on Earth may have multiple (baraminic) origins.
Fine. Life may have emerged from slime multiple times. Your evocation of 'baramins' is unfounded. And, finally, what does this have to do with planetary orbits?
quote:
I am finaly begining to concieve what science without evolution looks like.
Good for you. What does this have to do with the topic of the thread?
quote:
But that indeed is but the cell of my conviction and not necessarily objective enough.
At least you are honest about it. Kudos.
------------------
No webpage found at provided URL: www.hells-handmaiden.com
[This message has been edited by John, 12-13-2002]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 6 by Brad McFall, posted 12-13-2002 11:51 AM Brad McFall has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 8 by forgiven, posted 12-13-2002 10:32 PM John has not replied
 Message 9 by Brad McFall, posted 12-14-2002 3:21 PM John has replied
 Message 14 by Brad McFall, posted 12-20-2002 1:22 AM John has replied

  
John
Inactive Member


Message 11 of 53 (26822)
12-16-2002 2:34 PM
Reply to: Message 9 by Brad McFall
12-14-2002 3:21 PM


quote:
Originally posted by Brad McFall:
I dont have time now but I will come back to this "nexus" of correcting my UBBs etc and answer your comments/responses. Thanks so much for not making this into a game.
Hey Brad...
Bump... just keeping this topic on top.
Take care.
------------------
No webpage found at provided URL: www.hells-handmaiden.com

This message is a reply to:
 Message 9 by Brad McFall, posted 12-14-2002 3:21 PM Brad McFall has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 21 by Brad McFall, posted 12-21-2002 12:20 AM John has not replied

  
John
Inactive Member


Message 15 of 53 (27469)
12-20-2002 8:30 AM
Reply to: Message 14 by Brad McFall
12-20-2002 1:22 AM


quote:
Originally posted by Brad McFall:
In the post I lost I had expressed this fairly well(again) so instead let me ask at this point the question, Do you mean "recur" in this post? or did you mean in nature or science, the latter of which was what the loss and other web site postings referred.
Recur in the post. I don't see where this comes into play in the context of the discussion.
------------------
No webpage found at provided URL: www.hells-handmaiden.com

This message is a reply to:
 Message 14 by Brad McFall, posted 12-20-2002 1:22 AM Brad McFall has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 16 by Brad McFall, posted 12-20-2002 11:54 PM John has replied

  
John
Inactive Member


Message 19 of 53 (27565)
12-21-2002 12:07 AM
Reply to: Message 16 by Brad McFall
12-20-2002 11:54 PM


quote:
Originally posted by Brad McFall:
Is not the context of the discussion that Earth orbit if perturbed a slight bit would lead to extinction that ipso facto makes Earth's trajectory "perfect" or as near as it can be to "sustain" life.
You have encapsulated the basic design argument, and yes this is the topic of discussion. One researcher has done work suggesting that this is not the case. That instead, many quite radically different orbits could support and sustain life. The first post in this thread has a link to the article that caught my attention.
------------------
No webpage found at provided URL: www.hells-handmaiden.com

This message is a reply to:
 Message 16 by Brad McFall, posted 12-20-2002 11:54 PM Brad McFall has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 22 by Brad McFall, posted 12-21-2002 12:28 AM John has replied

  
John
Inactive Member


Message 26 of 53 (27648)
12-22-2002 12:11 PM
Reply to: Message 22 by Brad McFall
12-21-2002 12:28 AM


quote:
Originally posted by Brad McFall:
Instead I am begging to look at the Solar System as I used to my back yard in New Jersey.
I don't know how you used to look at the Solar System.
quote:
What I am learning how to visualize is what in biogeography had been called "endemism" but what I am speaking of in this thread is a life-endemism to use the word as a euphemism. Such it is obviously or inevitably is not.
I don't know how you can do this without having a extra-universe life forms for comparison.
quote:
It is possible that life came from two differnet kinematics to earth even if it only originated on earth but to seperate the chemical kinetics and the total dynamics I think no one has a handle on.
Agreed. Possible, but the evidence for this is vanishingly small.
------------------
No webpage found at provided URL: www.hells-handmaiden.com

This message is a reply to:
 Message 22 by Brad McFall, posted 12-21-2002 12:28 AM Brad McFall has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 28 by Brad McFall, posted 12-24-2002 10:13 PM John has replied

  
John
Inactive Member


Message 29 of 53 (27848)
12-25-2002 2:56 PM
Reply to: Message 28 by Brad McFall
12-24-2002 10:13 PM


quote:
Originally posted by Brad McFall:
The comparison is ALL with in taxa but with potentially contradicting as of yet multiple physicalities. I used to look at the Solar System as too big to take in, in the same sense the topography of NJ I took in when recording where keyed out herps (the first taxa I began to compare with)where actually found. I make NON-sense because the ability of make this rasion de etre of the Harvard Museum Of COMPARATIVE Zoology NOT revert to Aggasiz's for a Maxwell jellyfish sounds not-sense; which it is not but physico-chemistry if...because it is relative to a never ending comparision of forms. I do not have this worked out inside biology at present. All I know is that I keep trying to imagine different forms until in the conxtent of the discussion I am not longer thinking of biology; I ID this in terms physical and then write. Write I do and Clash I hope less.
Brad, buddy, I am completely lost as to how this relates to the topic of the thread.
------------------
No webpage found at provided URL: www.hells-handmaiden.com

This message is a reply to:
 Message 28 by Brad McFall, posted 12-24-2002 10:13 PM Brad McFall has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 30 by Brad McFall, posted 12-26-2002 6:18 PM John has not replied

  
John
Inactive Member


Message 47 of 53 (37995)
04-25-2003 8:56 AM
Reply to: Message 46 by Cryptic
04-25-2003 2:43 AM


quote:
The universe is a series of mathimatical equations.
Do you mean this literally?
------------------
No webpage found at provided URL: www.hells-handmaiden.com

This message is a reply to:
 Message 46 by Cryptic, posted 04-25-2003 2:43 AM Cryptic has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 48 by crashfrog, posted 04-25-2003 12:39 PM John has replied

  
John
Inactive Member


Message 49 of 53 (38024)
04-25-2003 12:56 PM
Reply to: Message 48 by crashfrog
04-25-2003 12:39 PM


quote:
I think he's confusing the model with the reality.
I'm hoping so, but visions of pythagoreans dance in my head.
------------------
No webpage found at provided URL: www.hells-handmaiden.com

This message is a reply to:
 Message 48 by crashfrog, posted 04-25-2003 12:39 PM crashfrog has not replied

  
John
Inactive Member


Message 52 of 53 (38045)
04-25-2003 4:13 PM
Reply to: Message 50 by Cryptic
04-25-2003 2:41 PM


You feel that the universe IS equation, much as someone might say that a baseball bat IS wood? You do not mean that math is a description, but that it is an actual real metaphysical thing?
------------------
No webpage found at provided URL: www.hells-handmaiden.com

This message is a reply to:
 Message 50 by Cryptic, posted 04-25-2003 2:41 PM Cryptic has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024