Intelligent Design vs. Casino Universe

@Herald,

They don't do tax-payers Herald. They are an elite donchaknow?

0 Replies

@Herald,

BIG BANG. (Is a theory, evidence that supports it)
v=H* D; {[He3 x He4 xH2 x Li7]}/{H1} =~1; microwave background radiation and the shape of the Universe

EVOLUTION

1If there is , or is not another ILF in the Universe would have to do with what? I don't understand how you can deny one thing when we don't know anything about the other. That is dumb logic.
Its like "My cows wont give milk so how will this effect my alfalfa crops"

2

Quote:

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.

"LOGIC" and our Congress are often mutually exclusive concepts. (In this case Im gonna go out on a limb with your above statement because
THE HOUSE COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY

A) Has A chairman who claims that Global Warming is NOT occurring

B) HAs a "Science" Subcommittee Chairman who publically states that the THEORY OF EVOLUTION and BIG BANG are "lies straight from the pit of Satan"

C) Recently held a hearing on extraterrestrial life

D) ALL of the above.

(Had you guessed D, youd be dead right)

Im sorry , Im not holding the House Science and Technology Committee up as any kind of an "Authority". There are a few GOPers in the House that will say in private that such idiocy is dangerous when it comes to maintaining a leadership role in science in a changing world.

If you want us to develop a science curriculum for our kids that is somewhere South of Uzbekhistan's, youre on the right track Herald.

B

1 Reply

@spendius,

spendius wrote:

Everybody tell me that. Most omit any seeming.

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

You don't understand science because you claimed it worked in certainties. It does no such thing. It works using the best answer based on the current evidence. That is not a certainty. It allows for changes all the time.

It has nothing to do with RIC. It has to do with your claiming science does something it clearly doesn't. Either you don't understand science or you are intentionally misrepresenting what science is. That is why I put "seems" in my statement. There are other possible reasons for you to make your claim and scientifically I don't have all the evidence to make a strong determination at this point. You can fill in the blanks for us.

1 Reply

@Herald,

Herald wrote:

Why there is much more water on the Earth than on the other planets of the Solar System? How does that happen?

The Earth was formed in a different zone around the Sun, so it's composition in relation to the other planets is not surprising.

Herald wrote:

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?

Yes. Among other things it is mathematically obligate given the conditions of Reproduction, Variation and Selection. Beyond that we have incredible piles of physical evidence which exactly matches theoretical predictions. We also have short term observable evidence which also matches theoretical predictions. We have convergent evidence across multiple scientific disciplines which also match theoretical predictions. And we have absolutely no evidence of anything which conflicts with or invalidates theoretical predictions (no precambrian bunny rabbit skeletons for example).

Herald wrote:

Absolutely. It is also is based on a black box full of undefined ... and unknown number of variables.

No it's not. Just what is this "black box" you are talking about and what unknown variables are you talking about?

Herald wrote:

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).

Many of the basic morphological structures which we depend on are derived from very simple life forms all the way back to the earliest vertebrates. That has already been tracked. Are you choosing to ignore all that and just demand that we go back even further to a bacterium? Because many of those structures are also going to show up in the DNA as basic cellular functionality.

Herald wrote:

OR
You assemble the big picture without any contradictions with math logic, physics and biology

The Theory of Evolution is already a big picture without any contradictions with math, logic, physics and biology. If any contradictions existed the theory would already have been discarded.

Herald wrote:

OR
You can exclude with some convincing degree of probability that all the other explanations are either impossible or unfeasible (cannot exist).

Science doesn't work by excluding all other possibilities because all other possibilities have not been identified. To date, many other possibilities have been proposed, but none of them has matched the data/evidence as well as Evolution has.

Herald wrote:

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'.

I don't know what you are talking about with "feathers", I've never mentioned anything about feathers, so you will have to explain what you're talking about if you want me to be able to respond.

1 Reply

@rosborne979,

Quote:

The Earth was formed in a different zone around the Sun, so it's composition in relation to the other planets is not surprising.

That's an informative answer to Herald's question I must say. Young ladies would normally content themselves with "Because!!".

0 Replies

@spendius,

Quote:

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

In another thread you told me I didn't have an understanding of the English language.

In the English language it's important to separate a statement from the person you are addressing with a comma.
For example:

It's you, James.

All your talk about professors and knowledge means literally nothing to me. Trying to discredit education (like you have been doing this entire time) only makes you look like an uneducated twat, which you are.

1 Reply

@Herald,

You are a pseudo-intellect just like spendius lol.
Pens and feathers? Did you try to make that comparison? /facepalm

You should be ashamed.

1 Reply

@JimmyJ,

Two people on this thread have given Herald ample responses to his posts (ros and FM).

However, I expect he'll just ignore them. He's remained ignorant for this long in his life. Why would he change his ways now?

0 Replies

@parados,

I did not claim that science worked in certainties. Nor would I. I said--

Quote:

They have only one way to think. In certainties.

The "they" being the scientists you referred to in the previous post. All the scientists are not science. The person in them likes certainties and fears uncertainties. Control freaks get unbalanced at uncertainty. Having life laid out for them in a simple gant chart is right up their street. 3.5 billion years in a nutshell.

1 Reply

@JimmyJ,

Quote:

In the English language it's important to separate a statement from the person you are addressing with a comma.

It is not. The inflexions in my inner voice had no pause between "It's you" and "James". I don't think the tone of "It's you James" is the same as "It's you, James" The latter is too headmistressy for the friendly conversational style I intended.

I would far rather be an uneducated twat than an educated one.

1 Reply

@spendius,

You should google "comma rules".

It doesn't matter if you didn't intend a pause.

1 Reply

@JimmyJ,

yeh excellent post ros. It should be recognized for its own internal factuality.

2 Replies

@spendius,

So your argument is that the people that practice science don't really practice science. Sure, that makes a lot of sense. Drunk

1 Reply

@farmerman,

ros's reply certainly didn't take any risks did it fm?

0 Replies

@parados,

Quote:

So your argument is that the people that practice science don't really practice science.

I think most of them are being "treated in the community".

You guys don't have much idea of the modern world.

Quote:

Know then thyself, presume not God to scan

The proper study of Mankind is Man.
Placed on this isthmus of a middle state,
A Being darkly wise, and rudely great:
With too much knowledge for the Sceptic side,
With too much weakness for the Stoic's pride,
He hangs between; in doubt to act, or rest;
In doubt to deem himself a God, or Beast;
In doubt his mind or body to prefer;
Born but to die, and reas'ning but to err;
Alike in ignorance, his reason such,
Whether he thinks too little, or too much;
Chaos of Thought and Passion, all confus'd;
Still by himself, abus'd or disabus'd;
Created half to rise and half to fall;
Great Lord of all things, yet a prey to all,
Sole judge of truth, in endless error hurl'd;
The glory, jest and riddle of the world.

Go, wondrous creature! mount where science guides,

Go, measure earth, weigh air, and state the tides;
Instruct the planets in what orbs to run,
Correct old time, and regulate the sun;
Go, soar with Plato to th’ empyreal sphere,
To the first good, first perfect, and first fair;
Or tread the mazy round his followers trod,
And quitting sense call imitating God;
As Eastern priests in giddy circles run,
And turn their heads to imitate the sun.
Go, teach Eternal Wisdom how to rule—
Then drop into thyself, and be a fool!

Alexander Pope.

2 Replies

@spendius,

Pope would have been flummoxed with beer that is pasteurized but you are more than happy to drink it safely while pretending science had nothing to do with it. The modern world seems to be hidden from you spendi.

0 Replies

@spendius,

The real scientists today are studying man and what they are finding will make the hair on your heads, or on the back of the neck in fm's case, stand stiff and vertical and twanging whilst slowly turning white. And they'll get Jack Nicholson to explain it on TV.

Boring old rocks and bone shaped stones are for cranks and eccentrics. What does anybody see in either except what has been seen before many times? Changing the rocks and changing the stone bones offers nothing new. Finding out that a picture of a lingerie clad young lady shown for too short a time to register on the consciousness during a video on stress and load factors in steel structures is an example of modern science finding something new and interesting.

Most oil wells now are drilled as near other oil wells as the regulations allow. What are the rules on non-vertical drilling fm?

1 Reply

@spendius,

Quote:

Finding out that a picture of a lingerie clad young lady shown for too short a time to register on the consciousness during a video on stress and load factors in steel structures is an example of modern science finding something new and interesting.

Would you like to rephrase that so it makes sense?

2 Replies

@parados,

hes doing his 20 oz curls

0 Replies

@farmerman,

farmerman wrote:

v=H* D; {[He3 x He4 xH2 x Li7]}/{H1} =~1; microwave background radiation and the shape of the Universe

And what is this equation (of the cosmic background radiation - the oldest light in the universe) supposed to prove.
FM, you are missing the assumptions - the preconditions.
Example 1
Precondition: the ground is solid rock
Theory: 'one can dig the rock to find fossils ... or to build a skyscraper' is true
Example 2
Precondition: the ground is quicksand
Theory: 'one can dig the rock to find fossils ... or to build a skyscraper' is false
Example 3
Precondition: the ground is unknown
Theory: 'one can dig the rock to find fossils ... or to build a skyscraper' is undefined.
When the preconditions are unknown (or unknowable) any theory based on such assumptions is undefined ... with or without the microwave background equation.
Not only you don't know what was there 'before the oldest light' ... but you don't even have the vaguest idea of what it might have been.
Besides that you cannot tell for sure whether the information in the universe can be lost or not.
Suppose you have a beautiful planet (like ours) with rocks of the right type, containing lots of beautiful fossils that can be used as evidence (for evolution or whatever).
At some point of time an ugly event appears on the event horizon - the star system of this planet is engulfed by Sagittarius. Everything, the star and its planets, is turned into light & energy.
Question: Is the info of the fossils preserved in the light emitted by the black hole ... and is it knowable (can it be decoded down to the data of the fossils) ... to us, and as a general rule?
If the information in the universe is lost or can become unknowable, what theories do you think you are making?

further wrote:

If there is , or is not another ILF in the Universe would have to do with what?

This changes everything. It changes the preconditions ... and hence the validity of the whole theory.

further wrote:

That is dumb logic.

It is called predicate logic.

further wrote:

RE: the curriculum

I don't want anything, but you cannot claim false, unknown, and unknowable things on the net and present them as truth of the last resort. If you are seeking for the truth just state what you think ... not what is convenient or safe or appropriate for your career or profits or promotion or whatever there it might be.

2 Replies

Intelligent Design vs. Casino Universe

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know