32
   

Intelligent Design vs. Casino Universe

 
 
farmerman
 
  1  
Reply Sat 9 Nov, 2013 06:16 am
@farmerman,
I wonder if a god was responsible for all these natural disasters on earth?
0 Replies
 
Frank Apisa
 
  1  
Reply Sat 9 Nov, 2013 06:24 am
@Herald,
Herald wrote:

Quote:
And in any case, like Max...I'd love to get you and your money at a table where I am playing.

You and Max are great poker players as it seems - why don't you both just sit down on a poker table ... and measure what you have there.
It is exactly people like you and Max that have forged the Genesis of the Bible with the Abraham story - people that cannot solve the real problems (and not rarely not even able to understand what the problem is) and in order to show that they are great they replace it with with a straw-man problem - where by relying on some other skills and means of cheating (scamming, fraud, hoax or whatever) they hope to 'prove' that they have better knowledge ... in probability theory (in this case).
I am not fond of sitting on a table where I will be dead on arrival. When I have a computer data center with high-frequency trading and can rely on some 'competitive advantage' ... maybe I will think over.


Okay...let's let that be.

We can go back you your calculations now.

So...since you say the calculations are so easy...and that you should not guess...

...what are the calculations for the two scenarios presented earlier?

Just give us the answer first...and we can talk about how you arrived at them after we see the difference...which I guessed would not be much.
0 Replies
 
spendius
 
  0  
Reply Sat 9 Nov, 2013 06:24 am
@farmerman,
Your concept of "harm" and of "fucked up" are anthropomorphic, learned in childhood, and unrelated to the mysteries of eternal time and infinity. Thus your ideas on an intelligent designer suffer from a disconnect deriving from solipsism.

In eternal time and infinite space the BB is less than the striking of a match. Infinitely less really.

You seem to me to be positing a finite universe and expressing the arrogance of mankind which is found in Christian, Humanist and Atheist philosophies. A denial of our organic inheritance and, if I understand the mystics, our inorganic inheritance as well.

Jesus compared this world to a lightning flash and thus invented modern science. In the world in which Jesus lived that was a serious heresy. A capital offence in Ancient Greece. Which is why their mathematics exhausted itself with Euclid and doomed them to defeat.

Whether our mathematics is exhausted is not a question I am qualified to answer. Quantum theory suggests it is because we cannot separate at the atomic level the observer from the observed. Just as an organism that lives in the dark cannot be seen by us in its natural state and if we shine a light on it, of any sort, it likely feels as we do when we come out of the dark into the blinding sunlight. The ones shown on TV all have a bad headache. And that's lousy PR from the organism's point of view.

Or something like that.

Was the Higgs Boson found simply because it was being looked for and the kit was designed in order to find it and have a good party going when the photo-ops chaps had departed?

I have seen scientists at close quarters. They really are much like everybody else except that they tend to have individualised quirks which don't matter too much.
farmerman
 
  1  
Reply Sat 9 Nov, 2013 06:32 am
@spendius,
Quote:
A denial of our organic inheritance and, if I understand the mystics, our inorganic inheritance as well.

Im sorry to keep butting in but this isn't even a complete sentence is it?

Are you saying that I am denying "Organic and inorganic inheritance" ( ( or Whatever youre coining today).
Is English your first language? or do you speak fluent footnote?
Romeo Fabulini
 
  0  
Reply Sat 9 Nov, 2013 06:46 am
Farmerman said:
Quote:
I wonder if a god was responsible for all these natural disasters on earth?

Yes he is, he openly admitted it to Isaiah-
"The Lord will lay waste the earth and devastate it. It is defiled by its people; they have disobeyed the laws, violated the statutes and broken the everlasting covenant..
Therefore a curse consumes the earth, its people must bear their guilt. The city is left in ruins, its gate is battered to pieces.
The floodgates of the heavens are opened, the foundations of the earth shake. The earth is broken up, the earth is split asunder, the earth is thoroughly shaken. The earth reels like a drunkard, it sways like a hut in the wind, so heavy upon it is the guilt of its rebellion" (Isaiah ch 24)


It's as if God is not a "person" but a Natural Law of the Universe as he hints at with- "I fill heaven and earth" (Jeremiah 23:23/4)
And Carl Sagan wondered the same thing- "If by God one means the set of physical laws that govern the universe, then clearly there is such a God"

So if we regard the universe as a vast delicate 'Dreamweb' in which we're all embedded, things begin to fall into place...
Webs are very fragile things and although the normal state of the web is stable, it begins jangling when people pluck it by radiating bad vibes which trigger an earthquake or tsunami, floods,tornadoes, hurricanes etc anywhere in the world..
"Whatever the natural cause, sin is the true cause of all earthquakes." - John Wesley (1703 - 1791)

spendius
 
  0  
Reply Sat 9 Nov, 2013 06:47 am
@farmerman,
Quote:
Im sorry to keep butting in but this isn't even a complete sentence is it?


It's a rhetorical device fm. Between "philosophies" and "A denial" I took 2 inches off the level of beer in my glass which is more than a colon. I'm not a prescriptivist except when I think I ought to be.

Have you ever heard of the aphrodisiac qualities of sinning? It seems, if I understand the theory correctly, that without sinning there's nothing but limp dicks once the youthful biological enthusiasm becomes jaded.

farmerman
 
  1  
Reply Sat 9 Nov, 2013 06:53 am
@spendius,
no I haven't, sorry. Youll have to play with yourself again
farmerman
 
  1  
Reply Sat 9 Nov, 2013 06:57 am
@Romeo Fabulini,
Quote:
Yes he is, he openly admits it to Isaiah-
"The Lord will lay waste the earth and devastate it. It is defiled by its people; they have disobeyed the laws, violated the statutes and broken the everlasting covenant..
You seem to have all your earth history a bit fucked up. When the real devastations that aided evolution occurred, there were no people.

You give substance to spendis assertion that it is often easier to go with faith than with truth.
0 Replies
 
farmerman
 
  1  
Reply Sat 9 Nov, 2013 06:58 am
@Romeo Fabulini,
Quote:
Whatever the natural cause, sin is the true cause of all earthquakes." - John Wesley (1703 - 1791)



that plus a lot of plate dynamics as the planets land masses pivot about their spreading centers.


Quote:
"If by God one means the set of physical laws that govern the universe, then clearly there is such a God"
Carl was a wise man. He said more in a sentence than Richard Dawkins says in a whole book

Romeo Fabulini
 
  0  
Reply Sat 9 Nov, 2013 07:10 am
Farmerman said:
Quote:
When the real devastations that aided evolution occurred, there were no people

But there were some nasty creatures running around giving off bad vibes, I hear that T.Rex monstrosity was an out-of-control mofo and had to be zapped..

"Sorry kiddo, you're on the way out"
http://i53.photobucket.com/albums/g64/PoorOldSpike/sub3/jes-dino.jpg
0 Replies
 
spendius
 
  1  
Reply Sat 9 Nov, 2013 07:33 am
@farmerman,
Quote:
no I haven't, sorry. Youll have to play with yourself again


firefly's style in Lola's Coffee House suggests that a good part of the joy of sugar and sat. fat confections is derived from the naughtiness.

Don't you think so?

What's the big deal about strippers if they are not naughty? The best strippers revel in it.
0 Replies
 
spendius
 
  1  
Reply Sat 9 Nov, 2013 07:35 am
@farmerman,
Quote:
Carl was a wise man. He said more in a sentence than Richard Dawkins says in a whole book


But Emily Bronte had said it. Properly, in No Coward Soul Is Mine.
0 Replies
 
Romeo Fabulini
 
  0  
Reply Sat 9 Nov, 2013 07:44 am
Spendius said:
Quote:
Have you ever heard of the aphrodisiac qualities of sinning? It seems, if I understand the theory correctly, that without sinning there's nothing but limp dicks once the youthful biological enthusiasm becomes jaded.

Too true mate, I once dated a dowdy woman who just lay there in bed without moving a muscle or making a sound, it was like trying to make love to a corpse, and of course I couldn't perform, yet she had the gall to blame me!
I suggested she glam herself up a bit but she went ballistic and yelled at me "I'm not going to look like a trollop for you!" so we drifted apart.
Drat! I was hoping to talk her into wearing a french maid or Wonder Woman outfit
-----------------------------------------------------
http://i53.photobucket.com/albums/g64/PoorOldSpike/swag80_zps72962e87.gif~original
Herald
 
  1  
Reply Sat 9 Nov, 2013 08:03 am
@farmerman,
farmerman wrote:
"The BIg BAng" was only responsible for the creation of lighter elements.

1. What evidences do you have to this claim. Do you have any evidences about any mechanism of how did the 'BIg BAng' create the lighter elements?
2. Where do you know from that the lighter elements have been 'created' (by whomever/whatever). They may have always existed.
3. If the 'BIg BAng' has 'created' (whatever), isn't the big bang the most authentic creationist theory the world has ever seen? How is it presented as evolution?

farmerman wrote:
Amino acids aren't difficult to create from very simple compounds in the lb. Maybe some sophomore chem major taking an initial organic prep lab can teach you. Its routine

In the lab (by our intelligence) maybe, but in the open space by the big bang theory this is impossible. The famous British astronomer and mathematician, Sir Fred Hoyle, has calculated that the abiogenesis has probability of 10^-40000. Do you know what does that mean? It means 'impossible in any interpretation of the world'.
farmerman
 
  1  
Reply Sat 9 Nov, 2013 08:28 am
@Herald,
Fred Hoyle was a Creationist who was wrong on a lot of areas, so you are only the 8th person who leans on Fred. Next youre going to start "quote mining" scientists.

Herald, if you are so obtuse as to have never read anything but Creationist junk, you've missed an entire education in science and I feel a bit sorry for you.
farmerman
 
  1  
Reply Sat 9 Nov, 2013 08:31 am
@Herald,
Heres a topic for you to begin your journey out of ignorance.
its about nucleosynthesis.

http://astro.berkeley.edu/~mwhite/darkmatter/bbn.html
spendius
 
  1  
Reply Sat 9 Nov, 2013 08:37 am
@Romeo Fabulini,
Quote:
Drat! I was hoping to talk her into wearing a french maid or Wonder Woman outfit


You might have offered to wear the maid's outfit yourself Romeo. Obviously the Wonder Woman is not within your range. You would need acting lessons from the Stanislavsky school for that and I don't suppose Plymouth has one of those.

She possibly meant that patient persuading was her bag.
0 Replies
 
Herald
 
  1  
Reply Sat 9 Nov, 2013 08:48 am
@farmerman,
1. Amino acids & nucleic acids are the building blocks of life - right?

2. Amino acids & nucleic acids come in two forms - spiral left and spiral right.

3. If both forms are generated equally by inorganic chemical processes (without any problems as you say it), how did life have originated having only one of these forms ?!?

Let me ask you this in another way: How did the big bang guessed to make mirrors of the spiral forms. How did it 'unfold' the spiral and curled it in the opposite direction ... and how did it guess to do so?



there is more:

1. Biologists currently estimate that the smallest life form as we know it would have needed about 256 genes (if you intend to dispute the number here is the place and time)
2. A gene is typically 1000 or more base pairs long (+some spaces) so 256 genes would amount to about 300,000 bases of DNA.

3. Since organic molecules can be generated in both forms (direction of the spiral) the chance of obtaining all one form or another in 300,000 bases is one in two to the 300,000 power ... roughly about 10^-90,000.



Perhaps you should have accepted the previous results of Sir Fred Hoyle.
0 Replies
 
Herald
 
  1  
Reply Sat 9 Nov, 2013 08:52 am
@farmerman,
Thank you for the journey. So and so we became all travellers, why don't you throw an eye at this one:
http://www.free-ebooks.com/book/189875/fundamentals-probability-stochastic-processes-rd-ed-solutions-manual-s-ghahramani-ptc-#
0 Replies
 
Herald
 
  1  
Reply Sat 9 Nov, 2013 08:59 am
@farmerman,
Have you read at all the reference that you advise me to read.
Quote:
It is now known that the elements observed in the Universe were created in either of two ways. Light elements (namely deuterium, helium, and lithium) were produced in the first few minutes of the Big Bang, while elements heavier than helium are thought to have their origins in the interiors of stars which formed much later in the history of the Universe.

The key phrases here are:
the elements ... were created
H,He & Li were produced in the first few minutes ...
These 'were created' & 'produced in the first few minutes' seem much more like creationism rather than evolition. Anyway.
 

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 12/23/2024 at 08:56:50