Don't tell me there's any proof for creationism.

real life wrote:

If you want to quote something I've said , quote it correctly and in context, then we'll have somewhere to go with this.

Of course.. let me quote you on it..

real life wrote:

I stated that the naturalistic Big Bang/Abiogenesis/Evolution scenario violates the First and Second Laws of Thermodynamics.

Speaking of a charlatan - it seems that a person of your obvious elevated stature (as you continually remind us in your posts) would offer little time for someone so absurd as RL. What's that about TCR?

It doesn't surprise me that RL is not embarased, its just incomprehensible. I guess some people have a high threshold for personal embarasment.

Baddog wrote:

Quote:

Speaking of a charlatan - it seems that a person of your obvious elevated stature (as you continually remind us in your posts) would offer little time for someone so absurd as RL. What's that about TCR?

I don't know how mentioning that I work for a living gives me an elevated status, but I'm certainly NOT embarrassed by it either. If some of my clients don't provide me with enough work to always keep me busy but want me on site and don't mind me on the web, why would I not take advantage of that? At an average rate of ONE ENTIRE post per day! It all pays the same.

Interesting that such a great (multi-patent holding) engineer who manages a multimillion dollar concern can post far more than I can (a mere consultant.) Funny how the righteous never hold themselves to the same stadards as they do others.

Its also funny how this engineer is as loath to answer science based questions as RL (unless he can reference a definition from Webster's, a tome I know all engineers run to as a reference source ), we know what's keeping RL from answering them, what's keeping you? Oh wait, I remember, your answer is 'unsure'.

Of course none of your tangiential material, used to help try to save your friend I assume, detracts from one of the points that Parados makes to RL now does it?

It shows you disagree with the first 5 points from Davies.

parados wrote:

It shows you disagree with the first 5 points from Davies.

The article is all about the possibility of an existence outside our natural universe.

This existence may not be subject to natural (i.e. scientific ) laws of our universe.

(If that is so, it would be, by definition, 'supernatural'. )

Do you think I disagree with this, and why?

Also, since there is no evidence that such actually DOES exist, is it scientific to postulate something for which there is NO evidence?

Almost all scientists and philosophers accept the general principle that the prediction of unobservable entities is an acceptable scientifc hypothesis if those entities stem from a theory that has other testable consequences.

I could have told you that it was gonna be heading in this direction.

I could have told you that it was gonna be heading in this direction. RL, a mathematical postulate can be solved in a number of partial differential equations. Each can have a number of correct solutions , many that conflict with our testable reallity. Dimensional Speculation via mathematical constructs is quite different from "the supernatural". The math constructs usually cluster around a single phenomenon at a time.

supernatural



Main Entry: su·per·nat·u·ral
Pronunciation: \ˌsü-pər-ˈna-chə-rəl, -ˈnach-rəl\
Function: adjective
Etymology: Middle English, from Medieval Latin supernaturalis, from Latin super- + natura nature
Date: 15th century
1: of or relating to an order of existence beyond the visible observable universe; especially : of or relating to God or a god, demigod, spirit, or devil
2 a: departing from what is usual or normal especially so as to appear to transcend the laws of nature b: attributed to an invisible agent (as a ghost or spirit)

Real life basically said he agrees with Shapiro that abiogenesis can't occur. Something that Shapiro never said. Shapiro only said that one form of abiogenesis wasn't likely to occur and instead supported a differnt form of abiogenesis.

parados wrote:

Real life basically said he agrees with Shapiro that abiogenesis can't occur. Something that Shapiro never said. Shapiro only said that one form of abiogenesis wasn't likely to occur and instead supported a differnt form of abiogenesis.

Again , a mischaracterization of my statement. No surprise there.

The fact that Davies doesn't use the word 'supernatural' is trivial.

Almost all scientists and philosophers accept the general principle that the prediction of unobservable entities is an acceptable scientifc hypothesis if those entities stem from a theory that has other testable consequences.

Quote:

The fact that Davies doesn't use the word 'supernatural' is trivial.

Except it isn't trivial since Davies said this.

Quote:

Almost all scientists and philosophers accept the general principle that the prediction of unobservable entities is an acceptable scientifc hypothesis if those entities stem from a theory that has other testable consequences.

Are black holes supernatural? They certainly are not visible. Yet no one I know would claim they are not part of the uinverse as we know it. We can predict them mathematically. We can predict what happens around one. We can observe what happens around one but the black hole itself is not visible.

parados wrote:

Quote:

The fact that Davies doesn't use the word 'supernatural' is trivial.

Except it isn't trivial since Davies said this.

Quote:

Almost all scientists and philosophers accept the general principle that the prediction of unobservable entities is an acceptable scientifc hypothesis if those entities stem from a theory that has other testable consequences.

Are black holes supernatural? They certainly are not visible. Yet no one I know would claim they are not part of the uinverse as we know it. We can predict them mathematically. We can predict what happens around one. We can observe what happens around one but the black hole itself is not visible.

Bad example. Black holes are:

--part of our natural universe, not outside of it

--function in accordance with the same natural (scientific) laws that the rest of the universe is subject to

of or relating to an order of existence beyond the visible observable universe

--function in accordance with the same natural (scientific) laws that the rest of the universe is subject to

--part of our natural universe, not outside of it

I see you didn't bother to read Davies article since he claims

the Big Bang could be caused by the intersection of another multiverse with this one.

Certainly an intersection would require that it be part of this universe where it intersects which means it would no longer be supernatural.

Of course the real problem with your argument real life is that string theory IS a theory about this universe.

Quote:

--function in accordance with the same natural (scientific) laws that the rest of the universe is subject to

Since black holes are subject to the laws of this universe that means that if this universe is subject to string theory which also says that other universes exist then other universes can NOT be supernatural.


Which of course then leads you to trumpet this argument

Quote:

--part of our natural universe, not outside of it

But the "universe" is an artificial construct created by humans. If string theory says other "universes" exist then they technically become natural and can not be supernatural. We have already expanded the meaning of "universe" to include things we can't see but theoretically can show to exist. By theoretically showing that multiverses exist we have only done the same thing that was done with black holes.