Intelligent Design vs. Casino Universe

@Quehoniaomath,

Quote:

All that we see or seem is but a dream withing a dream

This is a metaphor - not a scientific statement. The purpose of a metaphor is to provoke some feelings, usually melancholy, by making some remote inference by analogy or association - it has no direct connection with the things it is telling about. The poetry is fantasy of the perceptions. Actually the evolution 'theory' and the big bang legendary 'findings' are not much too far away from that standing of the spirit.

1 Reply

Don't know what a metaphor is, huh? The tally of your ignorance is breathtaking in its scope.

1 Reply

@Herald,

Quote:

This is a metaphor - not a scientific statement. The purpose of a metaphor is to provoke some feelings, usually melancholy, by making some remote inference by analogy or association - it has no direct connection with the things it is telling about. The poetry is fantasy of the perceptions. Actually the evolution 'theory' and the big bang legendary 'findings' are not much too far away from that standing of the spirit.

Yes, of course, I understand that. However, I am using it for clearing up a point, that´s all. I think you are overeacting here.
And, in this case, he was right, very right. ´science´ isn´the only thing to use. Most of ´´science´ is worthless anyway.
But what do you mean with your last sentence.

Quote:

Actually the evolution 'theory' and the big bang legendary 'findings' are not much too far away from that standing of the spirit

if you mean they are bogus like the rest of science, I do agree here,

1 Reply

@Quehoniaomath,

Quehoniaomath wrote:

... if you mean they are bogus like the rest of science, I do agree here.

     Just a second, if you proclaim all the sciences 'bogus' you will remain without any tools to verify & validate whatever - any statement, no matter whether scientific or not.
     A theory that claims (big bang) that it is explaining the physical world - what is more 'its creation', and at the same time claims that the laws of physics are not mandatory to be applied in all the cases of explanations of the physical world, is inconsistent (as a theory construct, not as a particular claim). Any theory that claims that its laws are inapplicable to itself is inconsistent. It may present itself as a theory, but it is light years away from any interpretation of that concept.
     Evolution is another case, for it claims that its laws are based on stochastics - its laws are applicable only to the quantum mechanics, as we actually are. It claims that we are quantum products of stochastic events. It denies the existence of any intelligence in the universe and at the same time is absolutely unable to explain our own intelligence - not its origin, orthogenesis or flectogenesis - bit its existence. It cannot explain its existence. It denies the existence and the possibility for existence of something that we are observing and using all the time. It denies the validity of observation as evidence.

1 Reply

@Herald,

Quote:

Just a second, if you proclaim all the sciences 'bogus'

oh yes of course i do, BUT only all the science that came when einstein came on the stage until now.

all crap. especially physics. it´s laughable what they claim!

1 Reply

@Setanta,

Setanta wrote:

Don't know what a metaphor is, huh?

You are talking as if you know what a metaphor is. A metaphor is an application of something to something, to which it is not literally applicable. Thus for example the laws of physics are metaphors to the big bang theory, and the big bang theory is a metaphor to the universe.
Do you want another definition: Any concept, phrase or statement that has literal semantics which can provoke any figurative semantics based on association or something else could be viewed as metaphor as well. The figurative association is not necessarily to be material - it may be some feelings, it may be the big bang theory, it may be anything that presents itself as something.

2 Replies

@Herald,

Quote:

You are talking as if you know what a metaphor is. A metaphor is an application of something to something, to which it is not literally applicable. Thus for example the laws of physics are metaphors to the big bang theory, and the big bang theory is a metaphor to the universe.
Do you want another definition: Any concept, phrase or statement that has literal semantics which can provoke any figurative semantics based on association or something else could be viewed as metaphor as well. The figurative association is not necessarily to be material - it may be some feelings, it may be the big bang theory, it may be anything that presents itself as something.

yes, you can write this, but I think you know how and in what way it was ment, now didn´t you?

0 Replies

@Herald,

So you called on your BS, and ran out for definitin9s, which you have now mangled. What you referred to--the quote of Poe--was not a metaphor. You're an idiot.

0 Replies

@Quehoniaomath,

Quehoniaomath wrote:

... only all the science that came when einstein came on the stage until now.

I didn't understand whether you include Einstein (within your understanding of science) or not, for in my view you should include him as well. His General Theory of Relativity in terms of indicator falseness is outperforming even the Big Bang theory. The only thing that it saving it is the fact that more than 99% of the people reading it don't understand anything. I wonder whether he believed in it at all or used it only for amusement of the ladies of the high class. Actually he is more famous by the time being as a PR of science on the TV rather than any serious scientist. Most of his 'ingenious ideas' are 'borrowed' from the patents that he has entered into the archive.

1 Reply

@Herald,

Quote:

I didn't understand whether you include Einstein (within your understanding of science) or not, for in my view you should include him as well. His General Theory of Relativity in terms of indicator falseness is outperforming even the Big Bang theory. The only thing that it saving it is the fact that more than 99% of the people reading it don't understand anything. I wonder whether he believed in it at all or used it only for amusement of the ladies of the high class. Actually he is more famous by the time being as a PR of science on the TV rather than any serious scientist. Most of his 'ingenious ideas' are 'borrowed' from the patents that he has entered into the archive.

I agree totally on the PR , and for the rest, as I have stated, science is all bogus and yes, indeed also relativity theory.
The most stupid thing ever 'invented'

0 Replies

re quahog, I see from your posts you think science is bogus, but gigantic holes in the earth which lead to a huge hollow earth with immense lands inside is not. Science is bogus, but popes are invested in office with satanic rites, or English royals hunting naked teenagers thru the woods to their death is not. Get a bit more in touch with the real world before you declare science, which is based on actual cold hard observation and experiment is bogus.

2 Replies

@MontereyJack,

MontereyJack wrote:

... which is based on actual cold hard observation and experiment is bogus.

     No wonder for a science made on 10.6 % only (observational studies & lab experiments) of all possible scientific methods to be really bogus.
     What about qualitative and quantitative data acquisition; dividing the data into appropriate samples; developing advanced instruments for data collection and data analysis; level of accuracy of the used methods; various case studies (not only direct and/or negative examples); computer simulations; quasi-experiments; self-report inventory ... verification & validation of test results and hypotheses; testing theories in terms of plausibility and feasibility ... by means of different data and methods from the ones that they have been derived from, etc.
     Observations - what century are we. What about the ability of the observers to make fit and worthy interpretations that are not based on various interests, 'national security' considerations, and personal gain considerations.

0 Replies

@MontereyJack,

Quote:

re quahog, I see from your posts you think science is bogus, but gigantic holes in the earth which lead to a huge hollow earth with immense lands inside is not. Science is bogus, but popes are invested in office with satanic rites, or English royals hunting naked teenagers thru the woods to their death is not. Get a bit more in touch with the real world before you declare science, which is based on actual cold hard observation and experiment is bogus.

You clearly haven't researched anything of the above and your BELIEF about science is just that, ILLOGICAL BELIEF.

You wrote:

Quote:

Get a bit more in touch with the real world before you declare science, which is based on actual cold hard observation and experiment is bogus

You clearly haven't used logic on 'science' it self.

science is A logical, it has too, and is NOT, I repeat NOT based on what you called:

Quote:

based on actual cold hard observation and experiment

Please use some logic towards the religion called 'science'!

Oh oeps, sorry logic on a religion? can't do!

Just simple start researching this idiotic thing called 'science'

You will find out that: THE EMPEROR HAS NO CLOTHES AND IS NAKED.
very very vry naked.

0 Replies

You're not doing "research", quahog. You're merely READING preposterous nutball stories from people who have zero credibility. You aren't cross-checking them against FACT. As it happens, I do know a fair amount about the Arctic, from a variety of angles, and YOUR HOLES DON'T EXIST. You'rer dealing in conspiracy theories and cults, not facts. Ditto with your whinging about science. When people from a variety of disciplines, with a variety of methodologies and approaches, ALL come up with compatible conclusions, and the nay-sayers are just bitching and have no facts at their disposal, I'll go with the scientific consensus rather than the conspiracy theory every time.

Incidentally, I believe it was you who claimed fossils gave us nothing more than a location and a time stamp. If it wasn't you it was Herald. This is one of the most completly bogus a-factual statements I think I've ever heard in the debate. Fossils give us a smorgasbord of data, which support evolution and cannot reasonably be gainsaid. First, they are in fact dateable--there are a number of dating techniques, most prominently radioactive decay ones , which are eiather right, or everything else we've ever learned is wrong (and it's not wrong). Secondly, they provide a wealth of data on the structure of the entity that was fossilized, which you apparently totally disregard. If you know a damned thing about anatomy, for example, you know at a glance that Lucy the australopitecine was fully bipedal (yet had a cranial capacity not much beyond that of a chimp). And that theriopods, the ancestors of birds, were bipedal as well. And you can tell that the appropiaTE lineages had feathers, and porous bones, and flow=through breathing systems, all precursors to avian flight, and all there in the fossil record. And you get a TIMELINE of change, species that came before, and came after, many which have gone extinct, And the succeeding species, NEVER occur before the antecedents. You (or Herald) are just flatout wrong.

Tell Farmerman to tell you again about the search for Tiktalik, a falsifiable, testable hypothesis, which was tested and proved to be the case. That's the definition of science, it worked, and it's far more than the bitching you've come up with.

3 Replies

@MontereyJack,

Q and Herald must have gone to the same school! They both don't understand the fundamentals of science or evolution. Trying to discuss anything at a high school level is like talking to five year olds who have not been exposed to science or evolution.

They need to grow up! Or, find another religion. LOL

1 Reply

@MontereyJack,

MontereyJack wrote:

You'rer dealing in conspiracy theories and cults, not facts.

... and what are the 'facts' about the inapplicability of the physical laws to the Big Bang theory, for example.

MontereyJack wrote:

When people from a variety of disciplines, with a variety of methodologies and approaches, ALL come up with compatible conclusions

Can you name some of these 'variety of methodologies' and 'conclusions' confirming the Big Bang 'theory', for example? Let's take the math logic: Nothing can exist even as a theory construct (we are not talking about the feasibility - ability to exist in the physical world - yet), if it has contradictions in the self. How does that apply to the Big Bang 'theory'?

MontereyJack wrote:

I'll go with the scientific consensus rather than the conspiracy theory every time.

Where you intend to go with the Big Bang is a matter of personal convictions and decisions, based on personal beliefs ... and logical fallacies like 'Appeal to Tradiction'; 'Argument from Authority'; 'Bandwagon Fallacy'; 'Argumentum ad Ignorantum'; 'Confirmation Bias' ; 'Confusing Correlation and Causation'; 'Excluded Middle'; 'Half Truths'; 'Observational Selection'; 'Two Wrongs Make a Right'; etc. ... presented as 'scientific consensus'.

MontereyJack wrote:

... rather than the conspiracy theory every time.

     Unfortunately it is not only a theory (unjustified and unproved hypothesis), but sooner an objective reality with evidences.
     by Def.: Conspiracy (civil), is a secret agreement between persons to deceive, mislead, or defraud others of their legal rights ... or of the results from scientific research with ... the aim to gain an unfair advantage.
     1. The very fact that the telephone lines and the computer communications are tapped 24/7 and nobody has the vaguest idea of what happens with the 'excessively collected (at random) information' - that is not related to breaching of any law (but can easily acquire twisted interpretation for doing so) - who, how, for what purposes and why can use such information - means that secret agreement exist. One of the components of the conspiracy 'theory' is actually indisputable fact.
     2. How many people are aware of what the system 'money as debt' actually is ... and when they have learned that. Another conspiracy fact. Nobody has ever asked the people and tried to achieve any consensus about the financial system. It has been imposed as conspiracy - fact.
     3. If from time to time, here and there appear some concealed, with expired classification and scheduled for destruction clinical reports with uncomfortable results of clinical trials with medications, what is the guarantee that such vicious practices are not currently ongoing as well? The classification of documents of any type and for any purposes is a conspiracy - a fact.
     4. What about the energy sector - how much 'cheaper' is the pumping of petroleum into the sands to extract oil in comparison to some green technologies. What about the 'clean coal' - how much clean is the 'clean coal' ... and isn't that very phrase itself a contradiction in the self. Where is the wide scientific consensus (actually the status quo which for any age has always been very convenient).
     So the vicious practices of defrauding the society with the aim of personal gain exist - hence these are another two validated components of the conspiracy 'theory'. Three validated components is more than the validated components which the Big Bang 'theory' will ever be able to achieve.

0 Replies

@MontereyJack,

Quote:

You're not doing "research", quahog. You're merely READING preposterous nutball stories from people who have zero credibility

I raally think this is a big wish of you. Wink

And credibility? who? physics profs? don't let me laugh boy! They have no credibility at all!!! of course not, physics is a 'fairy tale' , nothing substantial.

0 Replies

@cicerone imposter,

cicerone imposter wrote:

They both don't understand the fundamentals of science or evolution.

... and you understand that fundamentals, don't you? In the capacity of a great savvy haven't you paid attention that science and evolution are at different levels of conceptualization and one cannot attach them so frivolously by and. Science is systematic and fundamental approach for knowledge acquisition and evolution is simply a theory (I am not going to dispute whether it is fake or not). When you make such grand statements the verbal phrases in the and phrase should be at one and the same level of semantics and generalization ... if possible. Otherwise you may spoil the whole statement ... as it has happened.

cicerone imposter wrote:

Trying to discuss anything at a high school level

The laws of physics are not at 'high school level' - they are valid and applicable at any school level. If you are missing some next school levels - this is not my problem.

cicerone imposter wrote:

is like talking ... who have not been exposed to science or evolution

If you feel like 'exposed to science or evolution' the problem is not with our TV.

cicerone imposter wrote:

They need to grow up

How much further will you need 'to grow up', Ci. Besides that don't underestimate the young generation - they are like a fiscal memory with delay death touch - you never know when the boomerang will hit you on the head ... in the near future & sooner than expected.

1 Reply

@Herald,

You wrote (again that proves you fail to understand what science and evolution are),

Quote:

... and you understand that fundamentals, don't you? In the capacity of a great savvy haven't you paid attention that science and evolution are at different levels of conceptualization

Quote:

sci·ence
ˈsīəns/
noun
the intellectual and practical activity encompassing the systematic study of the structure and behavior of the physical and natural world through observation and experiment.

Quote:

ev·o·lu·tion
ˌevəˈlo͞oSHən/
noun
1.
the process by which different kinds of living organisms are thought to have developed and diversified from earlier forms during the history of the earth.
synonyms: Darwinism, natural selection
"his interest in evolution"
2.
the gradual development of something, especially from a simple to a more complex form.

Show us by example(s) why science and evolution are

Quote:

at different levels of conceptualization?

1 Reply

Quote:

the intellectual and practical activity encompassing the systematic study of the structure and behavior of the physical and natural world through observation and experiment.

Niceely writen. But the question is, is it all true? Errr...No!

Use some thinking of your own instead of parroting the official fairy tale, because that is what it is.

0 Replies

Intelligent Design vs. Casino Universe

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know