Intelligent Design vs. Casino Universe

@Herald,

And the creation of the universe by whatever means still has absolutely nothing to do with evolution of life on earth.

@Herald,

Herald wrote:

FBM wrote:
If neither of two arguments gives a 100% certainty, that does not make them equally strong arguments.
Obviously you don't understand something - the assumptions of the Big Bang 'theory' and the assumptions of the Universe created (if has been created) by God (if exists) are actually one and the same set of assumptions. There is no way for them to be more valid and stronger in terms of one of the options, and more invalid and weaker in terms of the other.

Bullshit. There's tons and tons of falsifiable empirical evidence and necessary inference for the scientific model and none whatsoever for god/alien/ILFs. That makes the former stronger and the latter so weak as to be dismissible. Just like there's tons and tons of evidence for anthropogenic global warming and none in support of climate change denialists. I reject your supernaturalist claims regarding cosmogony for the same lack of evidence. Hence:

4:0

1 Reply

@Herald,

Herald wrote:

...the Big Bang 'theory'...

http://i206.photobucket.com/albums/bb192/DinahFyre/11054443_10153102680981605_7832779259903094078_n.jpg

0 Replies

@FBM,

FBM wrote:

There's tons and tons of falsifiable empirical evidence and necessary inference for the scientific model and none whatsoever for god/alien/ILFs.

     What do you mean by 'falsifiable'? Why don't you use the real words - confirmable and verifiable to become evident that your 'empirical evidence' is neither confirmable nor verifiable.

     Where is the verification test of the Infinite Temperature for example. Where have you proved that Infinite Temperature is able to exist as a physical interpretation in the real world and that the Temperature in the general case may exist without any material carrier ... and that Infinite Gravity may exist without the force carrier and may happen in reverse: appear out of Nothing and out of Nowhere, and create after that the causality - the force carrier and the reverse collapse of the matter (whatever this might mean).
     There is no physical reason for you not to be able to swim upstream the Niagara falls, but in the real world this event is impossible. In the very same way the appearance of the Infinite Gravity in reverse is impossible or at least highly improbable.
     If reverse events been always possible you should have been able to jump backwards with a parachute from the ground to the door of the airplane. The falling with the parachute is no evidence that any backward jump of the kind is and has ever been possible ... let alone confirmable & verifiable. Anyway.

     Let me quote something by Foreigner to you:

          Blinded by science, I'm on the run
          Blinded by science, where do I belong?
          What's in the future, has it just begun
          Blinded by science, I'm on the run

          I worry 'bout the world that we live in
          I'm worried by all the confusion
          I wonder 'bout the lies I've been reading
          I wonder where this madness is leading

          Is this a road going nowhere?
          Or is someone leading us somewhere?
          I can't believe we're here for no reason
          There must be something we can believe in

          Blinded by science, I'm on the run
          I'm not an appliance, so don't turn me on
          What's in the future, has it just begun
          Blinded by science, I'm on the run

2 Replies

@Herald,

Here's all I need to refute that attempt at a rebuttal:

Quote:

God of the Gaps
God of the Gaps arguments are a discredited and outmoded approach to apologetics, in which a gap in scientific knowledge is used as evidence for the existence of God.

Before the scientific revolution of the last four centuries, such arguments were commonplace and widely accepted, presumably because the "gaps" were large and showing no signs of shrinking. A lightning bolt crashes down, the peasants working in the field cross themselves and say "well, we don't understand that, so it must be God."

Problems with God of the Gaps

From a philosophical point of view, the inherent problem with a God of the Gaps apologetic is that it relegates God to only a portion of creation the portion that we don't understand yet. It places the apologist at a disadvantage by ignoring how the underlying patterns in the things we understand speak to the work of the Creator God. It also denies, in effect, the Christian view of science, which is that science is "thinking God's thoughts after him"; it does this by suggesting that we can only see God in the areas of nature which we do not understand, rather than seeing him most clearly in those which we do understand.

From a pragmatic point of view, the main problem with a God of the Gaps apologetic is that the gaps are getting smaller with every passing year. No one felt this more keenly than Isaac Newton, a religious man (in the end a Deist) who closed more gaps than any other scientist. As recorded in the General Scholium^[1]^, Newton struggled to find a gap big enough for God. He eventually settled on gravity's action at a distance, unwilling to believe that a simple force could act across vast empty spaces and penetrate to matter in the center of the planets. That gap, of course, has long since disappeared from classical and relativistic physics.

http://www.theopedia.com/God_of_the_Gaps

0 Replies

@Herald,

How does your alien/god/ILF-of-the-gaps explain these?

http://i206.photobucket.com/albums/bb192/DinahFyre/1-thefirstever.jpg

http://i206.photobucket.com/albums/bb192/DinahFyre/planck-composite-all-sky.jpg

http://i206.photobucket.com/albums/bb192/DinahFyre/141222111603-large.jpg

http://i206.photobucket.com/albums/bb192/DinahFyre/info-animalss_1024.jpg

Your competing hypothesis has no explanatory power whatsover.

4:0

0 Replies

@parados,

parados wrote:

And the creation of the universe by whatever means still has absolutely nothing to do with evolution of life on earth.

So your special theory of the things is that the biosphere on the Earth would have existed, with or without the water, with or without the chemical elements ... and even with or without the Earth itself - can you prove that?

2 Replies

@Herald,

Herald wrote:

parados wrote:
And the creation of the universe by whatever means still has absolutely nothing to do with evolution of life on earth.
So your special theory of the things is that the biosphere on the Earth would have existed, with or without the water, with or without the chemical elements ... and even with or without the Earth itself - can you prove that?

You missed the key word "means" in his sentence. Or better yet the small phrase within his sentence, "by whatever means". This suggests or is attempting to suggest that the "cause" behind the formation of the universe is separate than that of how life arose on Earth. I think you misunderstood his comment.

1 Reply

@Herald,

Your comments prove you still have no valid argument against evolution and have to deflect to before life to try to argue against a theory that doesn't care how life formed but only that there is life.

1 Reply

@Krumple,

Krumple wrote:

This suggests or is attempting to suggest that the "cause" behind the formation of the universe is separate than that of how life arose on Earth.

Just a second, for it starts becoming interesting. You are talking as if you know what has been the cause for the creation of the Universe and what has been the cause for the creation of Life in the Universe: can you specify those causes in plain English, in no more than 25 words per cause?

1 Reply

@parados,

parados wrote:

Your comments prove you still have no valid argument against evolution

I am not collecting any evidences against the Evolution. I am simply verifying its claims in terms of their truth value (what is the probability for them to be true). So far the results are mind-blowing.
In one of the previous posts I asked you a specific question: how much is 4% over 70,368,744,177,664 different possible chromosome combinations - this is the 'positive mutation' needed for the change in the chromosomes in order to make a brand new species - to transform the Heidelberg Human into Homo Neanderthalis, for example. How much is 0.04 x 70,368,744,177,664 ... and how does that happen?

1 Reply

@Herald,

So, a 4% variation is needed to create a new species? Where did you get that number from? Are modern humans the same species as chimpanzees?

1 Reply

@FBM,

Herald wrote:

...because in the theory of Evolution only the predators survive ...

Solid comedy gold...

http://i1330.photobucket.com/albums/w561/hapkido1996/35_zps521e2402.gif

2 Replies

@parados,

parados wrote:

So, a 4% variation is needed to create a new species? Where did you get that number from?

Perhaps it is some kind of statistics. You both with FBM are waiting like some spiders on the web just to see any number and to jump at it disputing it. If I ask you how much differences in the genome are enough to distinct a brand new species as such you will start developing some theories about your ingenuity and my ignorance. I am sure that you both cannot find any number on the theme for ages ... especially when you are not looking for it. What is your number for the distinction of the species?

parados wrote:

Are modern humans the same species as chimpanzees?

... and why the present day Chimpanzees have not evolved into other species of Humans for so many years?

1 Reply

@FBM,

FBM wrote:

Solid comedy gold...

This is a mockery at your simplistic way of thinking and naivistic understanding of the world, but unfortunately you will never start perceiving it, as long as you are publishing and repeating to infinity irrelevant references without even understanding what they are saying. Why don't you read again carefully the whole comment with the adjacent context from the previous posts instead of cherry-picking only the things that you can misrepresent.

1 Reply

@Herald,

Herald wrote:

Krumple wrote:
This suggests or is attempting to suggest that the "cause" behind the formation of the universe is separate than that of how life arose on Earth.
Just a second, for it starts becoming interesting. You are talking as if you know what has been the cause for the creation of the Universe and what has been the cause for the creation of Life in the Universe: can you specify those causes in plain English, in no more than 25 words per cause?

You must have a major difficulty in reading comprehension.

0 Replies

@Herald,

Herald wrote:

...because in the theory of Evolution only the predators survive ...

Herald wrote:

FBM wrote:
Solid comedy gold...
This is a mockery at your simplistic way of thinking and naivistic understanding of the world, but unfortunately you will never start perceiving it, as long as you are publishing and repeating to infinity irrelevant references without even understanding what they are saying. Why don't you read again carefully the whole comment with the adjacent context from the previous posts instead of cherry-picking only the things that you can misrepresent.

I read it all and it is in proper context as it is. You know incredibly little about the scientific process or any of the theories you so feverishly attack. If you don't want to be ridiculed, stop making ridiculous statements for a change.

0 Replies

@Herald,

There is only a 1% difference between the human and chimpanzee genome. That is why I was questioning your 4% number. If you start off with at least a 400% error in what is needed to define a species then your math will be off by quite a bit.

Let me put this in perspective for you. Humans have a variation of about .1% in their genome. Chimpanzees vary from humans by 1%. That means humans are 10% of the way to a different species just with our variations within the species.

1 Reply

@parados,

parados wrote:

There is only a 1% difference between the human and chimpanzee genome.

O.K. How much is 1% over 70,368,744,177,664?

parados wrote:

Let me put this in perspective for you. Humans have a variation of about .1% in their genome. Chimpanzees vary from humans by 1%. That means humans are 10% of the way to a different species just with our variations within the species.

... and what does that mean as a number of variations in the DNA?

2 Replies

@Herald,

Herald wrote:

O.K. How much is 1% over 70,368,744,177,664?

That would be 703 billion. But what is the reference number? Is that how many chromosomes or legitimate combinations of amino acids?

Herald wrote:

and what does that mean as a number of variations in the DNA?

Your question doesn't really make sense, or to put it another way it is vague. The reason it is vague is because are you asking variations within what is considered to be "human" DNA or DNA as a whole? The first one is very difficult to actually determine. The second would be far easier to calculate but I doubt that is what you had in mind.

0 Replies

Intelligent Design vs. Casino Universe

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know