Intelligent Design vs. Casino Universe

@Herald,

Quote:

The problem with some 'great' theories is that because the universe is so huge (big bang) and the time scale is so large (evolution) the inapplicability of the laws of physics and the contradictions with the math logic could somehow be ignored.

The laws of physics are somehow affected by large time scales? Do you have evidence to support that statement? We know that the laws of physics haven't really changed in our lifetimes. Do you stop to think about how your own arguments are undermined by your own arguments? That we can't see changes in our lifetimes only matters to you when it comes to evolution but feel you can make blanket statements about the laws of physics without any evidence of change in that same time period?

What contradictions with math logic? You don't seem to understand math at all. Earlier you proposed that it would be impossible to create a butterfly image using random numbers in an image and only keeping those that were correct. I showed that it could be done in 400 turns or less and you then ignored my post. I will be happy to provide a simple macro in excel that will allow anyone to show that your math was wrong.

0 Replies

@Herald,

Herald wrote:

You don't have the long-exposure of geology and fossils ...

The Earth is approximately 4.3 Billion years old, with fossils interspersed within geologically identified layers for at least 3 Billion years of that time. That's pretty "long-exposure". I'm not sure what you are objecting to. Do you doubt the scientific understanding of the age of the earth? Or is it something else you are objecting to?

Herald wrote:

...you don't have direct and indisputable evidences that this process even exists.

We have direct and indisputable evidence that the scientific understanding of Cosmology is correct and reasonably accurate based on the degree to which the theory matches the testable environment and is able to make predictions which have been confirmed. The same can be said for Biological Evolution except to an even greater degree of accuracy. I suspect that you don't have a good idea of what is considered "direct and indisputable evidence" in science. Can you give us an example of what you would consider direct and indisputable evidence.

2 Replies

@rosborne979,

Quote:

Can you give us an example of what you would consider direct and indisputable evidence.

That evolutionists have failed to answer the question of what is the evolutionary advantage of truth over error is indisputable evidence that they are not scientific and are picking and choosing from the evidence in order to pretend that they are for political reasons rather than scientific ones.

They are thus cheats and if ever they come to power they will cheat without let or hindrance and will drop science as soon as it is in their interests to do so.

3 Replies

@spendius,

Stupidest thing I've ever heard

Remarkable how much I say that with you

0 Replies

@spendius,

I have here a secretly made tape of spendi

spendius wrote:

Quote:
Can you give us an example of what you would consider direct and indisputable evidence.

That evolutionists have failed to answer the question of what is the evolutionary advantage of truth over error is indisputable evidence that they are not scientific and are picking and choosing from the evidence in order to pretend that they are for political reasons rather than scientific ones.

They are thus cheats and if ever they come to power they will cheat without let or hindrance and will drop science as soon as it is in their interests to do so.

0 Replies

@spendius,

So science is bad because you fear all scientists think like you? Interesting.

1 Reply

@parados,

They have only one way to think. In certainties.

I can think what that way of thinking is like and what its logical outcome will entail if we are daft enough to allow it to get its grubby hands on the levers of power.

Were hands ever grubbier than Darwin's.

1 Reply

@spendius,

Quote:

They have only one way to think. In certainties.

It seems you don't understand science.

1 Reply

@parados,

Everybody tell me that. Most omit any seeming.

It's the old RIC again. The reverse invidious comparison. It rhymes with tic, thick, brick, trick, dick, prick, crick, (in the neck), and wick.

It's not very well hidden hidden meaning is that the spouter does understand science which is thought to be a virtue and thus it's a claim to be a superior person.

The evidence for the assertion is usually pretty skimpy as is only to be expected.

2 Replies

@spendius,

Everyone tells you that because it's so obviously true. You try to spew your pseudo-intellectual nonsense and it honestly doesn't fool anyone..

1 Reply

It's not that spendi doubts the science. He doubts human ability to handle the truth and so fights to obscure it.

1 Reply

@JimmyJ,

Not again surely. And so soon too.

Hi Ric!! Not a pseudo- intellectual are you? Fancy that.

You must be an intellectual then?

Whodathowtit? Your posts don't even hint at such a thing.

Are you shy?

I don't blame you. Everybody knows that intellectuals are the nastiest critters that ever walked the earth.

0 Replies

@edgarblythe,

Quote:

It's not that spendi doubts the science. He doubts human ability to handle the truth and so fights to obscure it.

That's right ed. The truth would render us extinct in short order. Which would not matter of course except for the process of getting there. That would be quite messy imo.

0 Replies

@rosborne979,

rosborne979 wrote:

That's pretty "long-exposure". I'm not sure what you are objecting to.

1. We don't have 4.3 BN ... to think over the current problems (population overgrowth, energy crises, climate hazards, acidification of everything, etc.) and obviously nobody is 'evolving' and adapting ... to the pollution of the environment, for example.
2. Our body is 57% water ... and you don't even have the slightest idea about the source of the terrestrial water - where did it all come from ... here down on the Earth ... only?
Why there is much more water on the Earth than on the other planets of the Solar System? How does that happen?

further wrote:

We have direct and indisputable evidence that the scientific understanding of Cosmology is correct and reasonably accurate based on the degree to which the theory matches the testable environment.

I was not asking about the Cosmology. Big bang is based on a black box ... full of undefined variables. I was asking about the evolution - do you have any direct evidences that this process (evolution) is even feasible ... let alone being in operation during the last 4.3 BN years or so?

further wrote:

The same can be said for Biological Evolution except to an even greater degree of accuracy.

Absolutely. It is also is based on a black box full of undefined ... and unknown number of variables.
I am not sure what exactly do you mean by 'even greater degree of accuracy' ... in terms of a black box ... and what is that 'the same can be said' pseudo-analogy supposed to mean.

further wrote:

Can you give us an example of what you would consider direct and indisputable evidence.

You take the DNA of the present humans and trace it back on a computer down to the earth worms or to the blue-green algae or whatever, not only to one female human (where everything ends).
OR
You assemble the big picture without any contradictions with math logic, physics and biology, for example.
OR
You can exclude with some convincing degree of probability that all the other explanations are either impossible or unfeasible (cannot exist).
This similarity of feathers is not serious. My pen is also made of 'similar' feathers, but this does not mean that the ink in it 'has evolved' from the blood of the birds, notwithstanding that it might be blue. Saying that the ink is actually blood, but is based on copper rather than on iron is called 'not serious'.

3 Replies

@Herald,

Still trying to figure out who is the bigger moron in this thread: you are or spendius.

2 Replies

@JimmyJ,

It's you James. Maybe you've got a bit over-excited looking through a microscope or seeing litmus change colour.

Your biology professor has more life support systems that an astronaut on a space walk. It's just that he doesn't know it. He would be as helpless as a budgie which escaped its cage in the natural world of the pure biological realm.

Most book learning is caused by physical weakness which would be eliminated in the absence of artificial social props of the sort religion has provided.

You are using a dilettante interest in science to beat people up with. It's aggression at bottom.

1 Reply

@Herald,

Herald, acting like he even knows of what he speaks declaims that he will "believe" in evolution if a few thing are shown him
SUCH AS:

Quote:

You assemble the big picture without any contradictions with math logic, physics and biology, for example.

No, you show me where there RE any contradictions in physics, biology, chemistry, math, etc. Its on your plate to define the problem areas that you don't understand

Quote:

take the DNA of the present humans and trace it back on a computer down to the earth worms or to the blue-green algae or whatever, not only to one female human (where everything ends).

Theres a bunch out there. They are called Cladograms. A good computer based one is called PAUP (Phylogenetic Analysis Using Parsimony).
Its a good student tool .

Quote:

This similarity of feathers is not serious

The development of "feather stages" in the embryology of birds compared to the feathers of ancient dinosaurs cannot be denied by the religious luddites. Even the hrd core Creationits keep their mouths shut on this so as not to appear really stupid. Why not join them?

Quote:

this does not mean that the ink in it 'has evolved' from the blood of the birds, notwithstanding that it might be blue. Saying that the ink is actually blood, but is based on copper rather than on iron is called 'not serious'.

A pen isn't a living organism so your attempts at falsification don't even work. Blood can and has been traced phylogenetically throughout the animal kingdom and there are some basiv=c "routes" that have been taken , Copper based and Iron based . Homologous structures of hemoglobin in chimps and humans are virtually identical. The functional differences (ickle cell etc) are acquired through the time since humans and chimos separated from a common ancestor.
Blood is easy to conduct phylogenetic analyses. To deny it is just silly because you wont read anything that would open your mind.

You are fixed in the mythology of Abraham

2 Replies

@farmerman,

Heres a clip of CHAPTER 5 of

DISORDERS OF HEMOGLOBIN

hapter 5 is a discussion of the evolution of hemoglobins in the animal kingdom and common ancestry .
http://www.bx.psu.edu/~ross/pubs/OrgEvolGlbGenes_DisordersHb_wFigs.htm

0 Replies

@JimmyJ,

JimmyJ wrote:

Still trying to figure out who is the bigger moron in this thread: you are or spendius.

... and what about you - do you have any indisputable evidences ... or you prefer to make fast and easy 'scientific' & unclouded career ... by driving on the 'royal road'?
The people that were driving before you on that road relied on that there have been no means of 'off-line' control & how to establish whether some results from clinical trials, for example, are 'incompletely read' ... or 'get lost in the administration'.
If you are curious to know, as a researcher your assignor are the tax-payers, and in the capacity of being their contractor & fiduciary you are obliged to announce to the public all the information that you may find throughout the research activities, where 'all' means without any exceptions and without any omissions and considerations ... & excludes any cherry picking and biases of any kind.

2 Replies

@farmerman,

farmerman wrote:

No, you show me where there RE any contradictions in physics, biology, chemistry, math, etc.

RE: the creation & evolution of the stars in cosmology
- Where did the big bang get all the energy from ... to create the mass (and the momentum) of the universe?
- How did the big bang (and from where) acquire the information to control the process ... which is which and which causes what?
- Can any stochastic explosion create any-D space ... not to say Time as well?
- Can you name at least one law of the classical physics that the big bang is not in violation of?

RE: the Evolution
You don't know whether there is another ILF in the universe or not? ... Whether we are the first (whether no other ILF ever existed before us in the universe or not)? ...
The Congress announced this issue to be agnostic: the truth values of this claim (that we are not alone in the universe) and any claims related to it are unknown or unknowable, hence the black box of the evolution is officially recognized, hence any logic (and any theory in the capacity of special case of logical inference) grounded on that black box ... falls like a house of cards.

1 Reply

Intelligent Design vs. Casino Universe

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know