32
   

Intelligent Design vs. Casino Universe

 
 
FBM
 
  1  
Reply Sun 18 Jan, 2015 09:13 pm
http://i1330.photobucket.com/albums/w561/hapkido1996/10923539_10152700398101275_8590437914756641479_n_zps7697a01c.jpg
0 Replies
 
Herald
 
  1  
Reply Sun 18 Jan, 2015 09:59 pm
@FBM,
FBM wrote:
Which breaks down into something like this:
45% goes to either:
a) God
b) meta-intelligence
c) String Theory
d) s.th. (?)
     So what - if it is not the Big Bang, and if it is not another ILF it must be something else, and this something else might be God/meta-intelligence/String Theory/ or s.th. (?) - that is not yet discovered or considered seriously - what in particular is your problem? Without the assumptions the things look like that - when and if you succeed to find the assumptions the things might be changed.
FBM wrote:
I recommend you choose one before pursuing this 45% any further.
     Why? Why should I choose among things that are not well studied yet - incl God, for God is not studied seriously in terms of what has happened actually, but rather the Word of God (which by itself is interpretation) is interpreted further to infinity by verious commercial people on the TV.
FBM wrote:
How is this distinct from the "meta-intelligence" in the 45% answers
     'Meta' is beyond (the known and perceivable intelligence) - the unknown part of the Intelligence.
FBM wrote:
Can't have it both ways.
     But you don't know how it is done either - so what is the problem.
FBM wrote:
Math doesn't work like that.
     The Math for a Chat is at that level - this site is not for applied math and the theme is not directly related to formal models - if it was not the fase construct of the Big Bang 'theory' this issue would not be discussed here at all.
     Besides that there are various branches of Applied Math, Cognitive Science, and Information Science - there is no way for you to know (and to use them) all - let alone to comment them casually and to pronounce on their ligitimacy of use.
     Why don't you show us how exactly 'math works' - by the conceptualization and assigning truth values to the assumptions of the Big Bang 'theory', for example. Your 'math' is even worse - you assume a priory & without any reasonable ground that it is either God or the Big Bang 'theory' who/that have 'created' the Universe (which might have always existed), and you are thinking that if you destroy the hypothesis of God (with aggression, cheating, misrepresentation, irrelevant references, etc.) the fake theory of the Big Bang will automatically become somehow No.1 truth of the last resort ... and you call this Applied Math - WFM.
FBM
 
  1  
Reply Sun 18 Jan, 2015 10:01 pm
Argumentum ad ignorantiam in a nutshell, then.

Herald, what's your assessment of the Mormon beliefs? Are they equally credible as those of the Scientologists?
FBM
 
  2  
Reply Sun 18 Jan, 2015 10:05 pm
This thread needs less contention and more humor:

http://i1330.photobucket.com/albums/w561/hapkido1996/10882350_830768026982457_1851802428106320277_n_zps785884f0.jpg
0 Replies
 
Herald
 
  1  
Reply Sun 18 Jan, 2015 10:15 pm
@FBM,
FBM wrote:
Herald, what's your assessment of the Mormon beliefs? Are they equally credible as those of the Scientologists?
     ... and where is your brilliant math formal model of the assumptions of the Big Bang 'theory', with the real way in which the math is working?
FBM
 
  1  
Reply Sun 18 Jan, 2015 10:19 pm
@Herald,
Herald wrote:

FBM wrote:
Herald, what's your assessment of the Mormon beliefs? Are they equally credible as those of the Scientologists?
     ... and where is your brilliant math formal model of the assumptions of the Big Bang 'theory', with the real way in which the math is working?


For once, I wasn't being sarcastic. I was just wondering how you viewed such diverse claims.
FBM
 
  1  
Reply Mon 19 Jan, 2015 10:08 am
The sub-culture of science denialism endangers us all: http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2015/01/sick-privilege-wealthy-anti-vaxxers-are-driving-outbreaks-of-deadly-19th-century-diseases/#.VLsAZ-BUAr0.facebook

Quote:
Sick privilege: Wealthy anti-vaxxers are driving outbreaks of deadly 19th century diseases
RORY CARROLL, THE GUARDIAN
17 JAN 2015 AT 10:17 ET


In Orange County, California, wealthier, better-educated parents are less inclined to immunise their children. Doctors warn of a public health time-bomb

Travel north to south in Orange County, a coastal strip of 34 cities in southern California which includes Disneyland, and the growing size and opulence of the houses show people getting richer.

Trawl medical records, and you notice something else: children getting fewer vaccinations.

“The rate of immunisation falls as you go north to south. It tracks the socio-economic statistics in the county,” said Matt Zahn, medical director of Epidemiology and Assessment for the Orange County Health Care Agency.

At Capistrano Unified school district, for instance, there was a 9.5% rate of children not fully vaccinated because of parents’ beliefs. At the nearby, poorer Santa Ana Unified district, in contrast,only 0.2% of kindergartners had exemptions on file .

A measles outbreak at Disneyland , stemming from an unvaccinated young woman dubbed patient zero, has shone a light on such dichotomies. Officials have confirmed at least 32 cases, almost all of them unvaccinated.

It is a strange first-world irony that wealthier, better-educated parents are the ones reducing infant vaccination rates, said Zahn. “Many people in this country have never seen a case of measles,” he said. “We’re a victim of our own success.”

The outbreak has triggered recrimination towards an eclectic group of activists who are accused of sabotaging immunisation campaigns by peddling medical myths.

“If we get to a few thousand cases in this country we’ll start seeing deaths. That’s unconscionable,” said Paul Offit, chief of infectious diseases at Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia.

Related: Measles outbreak spreads in US after unvaccinated woman visits Disneyland

Patient zero became sick and contagious on 28 December, while at Disneyland. She flew to Snohomish County in Washington state for a few days, then returned to Orange County on 3 January. Health officials announced the outbreak on 7 January.

Her proximity to crowds at the theme park and airports and on planes helped spread the the extremely contagious virus: state health departments in Colorado, Utah and Washington have confirmed cases.

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) calls measles, a virus that lives in the nose and throat, the “most deadly of all childhood rash/fever illnesses”. About 90% of those who are not immune will become infected if they come close to an infected person, according to the CDC.

An estimated 20 million people worldwide contract measles each year. In the US, the CDC typically expects only 220 cases. Last year there were 644, a nearly two-decade high.

Measles vaccines are said to be 99% effective but anti-vaccine sentiment is growing in the US, especially in wealthy areas. In California more than 150 schools have exemption rates of 8% or higher for at least one vaccine. All are in areas with incomes averaging $94,500, nearly 60% higher than the county median, according to a Los Angeles Times study last year .

The virus’s relatively low prevalence in the US has emboldened parents to eliminate or delay children’s vaccinations, said Zahn, because they assume the risk of infection is negligible thanks to widespread vaccinations. “You’re riding on the immunisation rates in your community,” he said.

If enough parents do it, the system breaks down. But increasing numbers appear to be doing so over concerns about vaccine safety.

A debunked and withdrawn 1998 Lancet report linking vaccines to autism still lingers in some parents’ minds along with other worries, such as overloading a child’s immune system with multiple, simultaneous vaccinations – a concern lacking scientific basis, said Zahn.

“It’s a grab-bag of issues,” he said.

Related: US has seen nearly 600 measles cases this year, CDC says

High-profile opponents of existing protocols include the actor Jenny McCarthy, the non-profit National Vaccine Information Center and an Orange County doctor, Bob Sears, who is famous for authoring The Vaccine Book: Making the Right Decision for Your Child, which has sold hundreds of thousands of copies since 2007.

Sears declined an interview request for this article but directed the Guardian to a Facebook blog in which he played down the gravity of the latest outbreak, saying complications from measles were treatable and that the risk of fatalities in the US was close to zero.

Officials needlessly fanned anxiety about measles by giving “just the part of the truth that they want you to believe”, he wrote. “Don’t let anyone tell you you should live in fear of it. Let’s handle it calmly and without fear or blame.”

Offit, who battled a measles epidemic in Philadelphia in 1991, accused Sears of recklessness, ignorance and doing harm.

“In an ideal world, which this is not, he would be censured by the Californian medical state licensing board, by a medical ethics board, by the American Academy of Pediatrics,” he said. “I find it unconscionable that a man in his position puts out incorrect information about measles.”

Offit assailed Sears in a 2009 article for the official journal of the American Academy of Pediatrics.

Sears declined to respond to the accusations and pointed the Guardian to his published response to Offit.

On Friday, the LA Times published an editorial and letters excoriating the anti-vaccine movement.

“Ignorance cannot dictate public health,” wrote Richard Wulfsberg, a Studio City-based physician. “No unvaccinated child should be allowed to enter public school.”
Quehoniaomath
 
  0  
Reply Mon 19 Jan, 2015 10:41 am
@FBM,
Quote:
The sub-culture of science denialism endangers us all


What idiocy!
Calm down, mate! You are completely wrong!

Science has ( and will ) go down
0 Replies
 
parados
 
  1  
Reply Mon 19 Jan, 2015 10:54 am
@Herald,
The math for the standard model can be found here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Standard_Model_%28mathematical_formulation%29

The math predicted the Higgs boson. In 2012, CERN found what appears to be the predicted particle
http://home.web.cern.ch/topics/higgs-boson
Quehoniaomath
 
  0  
Reply Mon 19 Jan, 2015 11:36 am
@parados,
Quote:
The math for the standard model can be found here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Standard_Model_%28mathematical_formulation%29

The math predicted the Higgs boson. In 2012, CERN found what appears to be the predicted particle
http://home.web.cern.ch/topics/higgs-boson


What do you think that it means if you can predict something?
parados
 
  1  
Reply Mon 19 Jan, 2015 11:44 am
@Quehoniaomath,
When an hypothesis predicts something and that something is found to be true then it supports the hypothesis. If the prediction is found to be not true then the hypothesis needs to be changed or discarded.
Quehoniaomath
 
  0  
Reply Mon 19 Jan, 2015 11:46 am
@parados,
Quote:
When an hypothesis predicts something and that something is found to be true then it supports the hypothesis. If the prediction is found to be not true then the hypothesis needs to be changed or discarded.


Are you really really really sure? Just think about it logically!!
parados
 
  1  
Reply Mon 19 Jan, 2015 11:50 am
@Quehoniaomath,
Let me think logically about my hypothesis that you are just an attention seeking blowhard. You claimed you were putting me on ignore. I predicted you would still respond to me so you weren't actually going to put me on ignore since it would require you to not seek attention which goes directly against why you are here.

It seems my prediction was correct. You didn't ignore me as you stated but instead continue to respond to me as I predicted. I predict you will say you are putting me on ignore again and will then respond to me after you claim you have me on ignore again. (This has now happened at least 4 times.)
Quehoniaomath
 
  0  
Reply Mon 19 Jan, 2015 11:51 am
@parados,
Quote:
Let me think logically about my hypothesis that you are just an attention seeking blowhard. You claimed you were putting me on ignore. I predicted you would still respond to me so you weren't actually going to put me on ignore since it would require you to not seek attention which goes directly against why you are here.

It seems my prediction was correct. You didn't ignore me as you stated but instead continue to respond to me as I predicted. I predict you will say you are putting me on ignore again and will then respond to me after you claim you have me on ignore again. (This has now happened at least 4 times.)


Yes, you still ARE on ignore.
However , once ina while I take a look at a posting of you to see if anything has changed. It hasn't! Wink

QED


And predicitions doesn't mean a blody thing!

Quote:
The problem of induction[edit]
Joel Feinberg and Russ Shafer-Landau note that "using the scientific method to judge the scientific method is circular reasoning". Scientists attempt to discover the laws of nature and to predict what will happen in the future, based on those laws. However, per David Hume's problem of induction, science cannot be proven inductively by empirical evidence, and thus science cannot be proven scientifically. An appeal to a principle of the uniformity of nature would be required to deductively necessitate the continued accuracy of predictions based on laws that have only succeeded in generalizing past observations. But as Bertrand Russell observed, "The method of 'postulating' what we want has many advantages; they are the same as the advantages of theft over honest toil".[6]
parados
 
  2  
Reply Mon 19 Jan, 2015 12:00 pm
@Quehoniaomath,
Quote:
And predicitions doesn't mean a blody thing!

Especially when it is you that is predicating.
0 Replies
 
Herald
 
  1  
Reply Mon 19 Jan, 2015 01:07 pm
@FBM,
FBM wrote:
For once, I wasn't being sarcastic. I was just wondering how you viewed such diverse claims.
     You might really be not sarcastic, but you took immediately out of the sleeve some red herring - which is even worse than sarcasm.
Herald
 
  1  
Reply Mon 19 Jan, 2015 01:33 pm
@FBM,
FBM wrote:
The sub-culture of science denialism endangers us all: ... In Orange County, California, wealthier, better-educated parents are less inclined to immunise their children. Doctors warn of a public health time-bomb
     You are taking out (of nowhere) some extreme pathology and present it as average case scenario. Pathologies and deviations can be found everywhere and with everything - starting with the illegal experiments at the Institude of Psychotronics & Mind Control, going through the illegal production and sales of fake medications (incl. on the net), after that passing through the greed and stupidity of some restaurant chefs, selling fries with three carcinogenic nano-plastics and ending up with the arrogance of the fossil fuel climate 'skeptics' that are pouring promiscuously at the speed of light in vacuum all kinds of toxins into the atmosphere ... and into the river ... and into the ocean in the end.
     We are living in a risky world - the risks may be found everywhere - they might be in the concealed information by some unscrupulous scientists, or in the misinterpretation of the world by some fake theories like the Big Bang & the Evolution, the aim of which is to spread the illusion that no matter how much we f'ck up the biosphere and the life-support renewable resources of the Earth, the Big Bang and the Evolution will fix everything, as they have always done - they will take care. They will take care and even how ... by wiping out some species from the face of Earth, including species that are thinking that have caught the jackpot to the raincoat.
0 Replies
 
Quehoniaomath
 
  0  
Reply Mon 19 Jan, 2015 02:26 pm
@Herald,
Quote:
Public understanding of science would be much enhanced by scientists’ understanding of the public”.


LOL

Will NEVER happen! Most scientist are idiotics and myopic! AND most have OCD! It is indeed ridiculous to take them seriously.
0 Replies
 
FBM
 
  1  
Reply Mon 19 Jan, 2015 08:38 pm
http://www.earthmagazine.org/article/science-denialism-problem-just-wont-go-away

Science denialism: The problem that just won’t go away

We have just finished a year of tremendous scientific achievement. Human organs can be 3-D printed, exoplanets were spotted by the score, robot geologists roam the surface of Mars, and the cells of an extinct frog were brought back to life. We are living in a golden age of insight and technology. Science is changing our perceptions of the natural world and allowing us to do things of which our ancestors could only dream. As a means of sorting the real from the unreal, nothing beats science. Yet the science-deniers persist: It seems they just don’t like reality.

I gave a talk recently at a Road Scholars event, a learning experience intended to be intellectually stimulating for senior citizens. I spoke about the “Snowball Earth” hypothesis, an idea that ties together geology, chemistry, climate and the evolution of life into a single compelling story.
...
Among my audience were several vocal opponents of the notion that people have been responsible for much of this buildup. And although I spelled out the chain of evidence and asked them to pick out what they felt were the weak links, they were unwilling to accept the answer at the chain’s end. They had already embraced an alternate conclusion.

Another person asked about the origins of life. While science explains a few things about the self-organization of chemical components and the spontaneous rise of complexity, I told her, we still don’t know exactly how life began. Like the Snowball Earth, it’s an area of active research. Afterward, a second woman came up, dismayed by my answer. She wanted to quiz me about “how people could come from frogs.” Unsatisfied with my response, she asserted that the Bible was the inerrant word of God and evolution was invalid. She threw up her hands when I pointed out that from a scientific standpoint, biblical stories were in much the same class as Greek mythology or the oral traditions of the Australian Aboriginal dreamtime — ontological stories with no supporting evidence. Their ideas are not disproved by science, but they’re certainly extraneous to it. Disgusted, she dismissed me by saying, “I’ll be praying for you!”

At the college where I teach, I also routinely encounter students who hold nonscientific worldviews. Those who believe evolution to be false are also quite likely to dismiss humanity’s role in changing the global climate, which is part of the reason that the National Center for Science Education, which previously focused mainly on fighting anti-evolution movements, has now also turned its attention to climate change deniers. In both cases, the lack of empirical validation is seen as irrelevant; the conclusion is the cherished thing.

In a recent class, I contrasted catastrophism with uniformitarianism, and noted how science had repeatedly shown religious claims to be untrue: an Earth-centered universe, a global flood, a young Earth, for example. Afterward, a student remained: “I guess it just comes down to faith,” she said. “There’s a reason they call it faith.” In other words, the conclusion is sacrosanct; logic be damned.

Could there be a less compelling argument? Should juries convict people for murder if the prosecuting attorneys said they have faith that the accused were guilty?

Often in our culture, science is rendered disposable if it stomps on a cherished claim; faith trumps reality.
This attitude is internally inconsistent: Atomic theory is OK when we use it to X-ray our teeth or build a nuclear power station, but invalid when it comes to assessing the age of the planet. Evolutionary insight is OK when it guides the production of our annual flu shot, but deniers refuse to let it tell them from whence they came. Science is the way forward, but not for people who don’t want to go forward.

This year, science has given us new, more precise temperature reconstructions that show unprecedented warming in the past 150 years, and fossils of the oldest-known ape, evidence that confirms molecular estimates of our ancestors’ evolutionary split from monkeys about 25 million years ago. The more science examines climate change or evolution, the more solid each idea becomes. Our origins and the repercussions of our acts are important issues. Humanity asks, “What are we doing here? And what are we going to do about it?” Science can aid us in answering these questions — but will we let it?

Callan Bentley
Bentley is a geology professor at Northern Virginia Community College, an avid geo-blogger, a frequent EARTH contributor (both writing and drawing cartoons) and has been known to take on the anti-evolution movement. The views expressed are his own.
Herald
 
  1  
Reply Mon 19 Jan, 2015 09:53 pm
@parados,
parados wrote:
The math for the standard model can be found here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Standard_Model_%28mathematical_formulation%29
     This is not the math model of the Big Bang - this is the math model of the quantum theory (claiming that your mind can be concurrently in two different places on both sides of the Universe at one and the same time). The quantum theory is another story ... claiming some other mind-blowing things that are theme of a new thread.
parados wrote:
The math predicted the Higgs boson. In 2012, CERN found what appears to be the predicted particle
     Which spoiled the beautiful number of 16 of the elementary particles and made them 17 which threw the physics, astrophysics, quantum mechanics and the cosmology into the Dimension X ... for the nearest next beautiful number is 25. Now we are hearing that the String Theory will explain everything from the very beginning (whatever that is supposed to mean).
 

Related Topics

Intelligent Design - Question by giujohn
What is Intelligent Design? - Discussion by RexRed
Do *ANY* creationists understand evolution? - Discussion by rosborne979
The Bed Bug/Parasite Plant Theory - Question by TeePee38
dna worlds - Discussion by Syamsu
DD VERSUS EVOLUTION - Discussion by Setanta
The Evil of god - Discussion by giujohn
 
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.1 seconds on 12/22/2024 at 10:14:50