Intelligent Design vs. Casino Universe

@spendius,

spendius wrote:

Quote:
Instruments are only developed as they are needed

Bollocks. Design at billion dollar instrument and you buggers will do what it tells you because it is a billion dollar instrument.

And you will break the Treasury long before you get anywhere near actuality.

I have seen them with the latest thing in new instrumentation. Many times. It is an aspect of the NSA's excursion into unconstitutional territory.

I assume you are referring to the higs research?

Well first of all we didn't just randomly decide to build the device. It was built upon by previous instruments and colliders. Which were in turn built upon my smaller instruments. But to test for the higs these other devices were not capable of generating the necessary power and sensitivity that was required.

So once again your ignorance and flippant lack of research or reasoning has proven once again that you are completely and utterly incapable of making a reasonable argument for anything.

But you know the funny thing in your stupidity is the higs has been confirmed. It was the math that predicted that it should exist and it was the instrument that confirmed it's existence.

How you come to your conclusions is simply baffling. In fact the universe should be sad that you exist within it. You know a real piece of work would be to find out how a person like you could be such an idiot. Because it is just absolutely amazing that you can be so dumb so consistently.

2 Replies

@farmerman,

I have nothing against Giotto. I didn't mention Caravaggio. And I've nothing against Rembrandt. What would be the point?

The Chemistry Lab is Rembrandt. There is eating protein and peptides to consider. Getting some sizzling on a griddle.

If the universe is wheeling how do you know that the earth is not at the precise centre of rotation of the gravitation field and moves around the sun to maintain that position.

1 Reply

@Krumple,

Quote:

Well first of all we didn't just randomly decide to build the device.

You're damned we didn't. First "we" heard of it $15 billion had gone and it was "too big to fail". They got Prof. Cox, the darling of the wannabee research assistants and knitting brigade, to front up the explanation. And a good job he did too I must admit.

They bought it would you believe. 15 billion smackeroonies and we might find out what happened very extremely immediately after the Big Bang, assuming such an event, if it might be called an event, and realise, after much head shaking, that the boson got us all here and we can all grin sheepishly at each other for being taken in by other explanations.

And the same lot who are using the massive generating power, enough for a country like Chad, on this important project , are also telling us that power generation is set to see us off.

And the cafes and wine-bars of Geneva and district are merry with the talk of quarks, quirks, quanks, quincks and quims. On our dough.

"We" had nothing to do with it. Apart from picking up the tab.

0 Replies

@Herald,

Quote:

2. The 'coming together' follows a pattern, and this is not called coming together, but rather execution of a code.
3. The execution of a code is called pre-design and determinism ... and is not a stochastic process ... and needs intelligence, or at least some information control structure at a higher level.

No, it doesn't need an intelligence. Carbon combines with 2 oxygen atoms to create CO2. Oxygen combines with 2 hydrogen atoms to create water. No intelligence was needed for it to be so. That is your interpretation after the fact not the requirement before it happened. One could argue that Carbon is coded to combine with 2 oxygen atoms. But that is not evidence of a code. It is only evidence that the universe follows certain rules.

1 Reply

@parados,

excellent way of putting it Parados.

1 Reply

@spendius,

Quote:

I have nothing against Giotto. I didn't mention Caravaggio. And I've nothing against Rembrandt. What would be the point?

You are the one who brought the subject up. Now you abandon your previous lines entirely?
Nothing Id expect more, so when you go all postal about "failing to answer your questions", Ill remind you of your very short attention span. Sorta like a Golden Retriever.

1 Reply

@Krumple,

Quote:

So once again your ignorance and flippant lack of research or reasoning has proven once again that you are completely and utterly incapable of making a reasonable argument for anything.

That's charming I must say coming from one who claimed that "we" made a calculated choice and then it is not "we" who generate the power but the "other devices".

From what I know of that aspect of the universe which is capable of such things as sadness it must be quite beside itself with joy and jumping up and down with glee that there's a lot like you in it.

Do you think, Krumpie, that capitalist, scientific industrialism is congruent with our evolved nature or are we having to adapt to its exigencies which run in opposition to that nature?

There is only one way the Higgs' Boson is of interest to you. It is in learning those two words off by heart and popping them into conversations as a sign that you are one step ahead of us.

I saw Higgs interviewed and he said the particle was invented so some equations would balance and implied that whatever was needed to balance them was the Boson. Finding the G-Spot is quite beyond most scientists.

0 Replies

@farmerman,

Quote:

You are the one who brought the subject up. Now you abandon your previous lines entirely?
Nothing Id expect more, so when you go all postal about "failing to answer your questions", Ill remind you of your very short attention span. Sorta like a Golden Retriever.

I have abandoned nothing. Not even slightly. I simply thought, you being into art, that the existence of the intellectual chasm between Giotto and Rembrandt would be something you would understand.

Sort of Mrs fm worming sheep and Mrs fm in the art gallery.

0 Replies

@farmerman,

farmerman wrote:

... excellent way of putting it Parados.

Where is the 'excellence', for I don't see it.
Don't you both make yourself sound like idiots. The reply there concerned the bio-structures not the CO2 and the H2O chemical structures.
BTW CO2 and the H2O are formed as a result of minimising the energy of the configuration and the bonds of C + O2 and 2H2 + O2 respectively.
Not to mention that you both have not even the slightest idea why nature always strives to minimise the energy of the structures & the bonds.
Do you have any evidences that the proteins are configured 'automatically' from the amino-acids as a result of minimising the energy of the structure and the bonds ... or you are talking just so, to avoid felling asleep?
FM, you may follow this one.
If you put a drop of water into a solution of sulfuric acid it does not replicate itself (by making new water molecules by means of copying its own pattern of encoding), it does not extract the H2 and O2 from the sulphuric acid and does not precipitate the sulphur on the bottom of the glass tube.
It simply doesn't work that way, FM (as it should work if your theory of the things that are 'just happening' was true).
Even if you somehow succeed to prove (of which I doubt) that the marcomolecules of the proteins are formed 'automatically' as a result of minimising the energy of the bond and of the structure as a whole, you could hardly be ever able to explain how they replicate ... and why.

4 Replies

@Herald,

Good topic. bm

1 Reply

@cicerone imposter,

cicerone imposter wrote:

Good topic. bm

I am not Bachelor of Medicine, but FM is hardly half of that level.
What do you think abouf Kepler 186f, Mr. C.
Will FM ever be able to start underswtanding that things are not just happening the way he imagines them?

1 Reply

@Herald,

FYI, 'bm' means book mark. It allows one to stay on topic such as this one by making a post to it.

1 Reply

@cicerone imposter,

cicerone imposter wrote:

FYI, 'bm' means book mark.

O.K. I am not so good with the neo-chat abbreviations.
Happy Easter!

0 Replies

@Herald,

Quote:

CO2 and the H2O are formed as a result of minimising the energy of the configuration and the bonds of C + O2 and 2H2 + O2 respectively.

We call this an "exothermic reaction" with a known release of energy per mole.Whats yer point? Youre just gum flapping while trying to avoid addressing that the earth is "designed.

ANY diatonic molecules of H or O or a single molecule of C, will react exothermically together and release a specific molar energy.
Unknown to you, You've just made our point that "design" isn't built into chemical reactions (unless you consider catalysis as ONLY human induced0
IN PLANTS chlorophyll and xanthophyll are CATALYSTS so the C and C4 plants can produce glucose and Oxygen (Oxygen is that annoying
substance that rose in the Proterozoic to "contaminate" the planet)

Quote:

If you put a drop of water into a solution of sulfuric acid it does not replicate itself

WHAAAAAAT/ wtf are you even talking about?
Try staying on topic rather than flitting about with irrelevant bullshit.

PS, pouring water into concentrated sulfuric acid is an example of what? How many joules are released?

3 Replies

@farmerman,

farmerman wrote:

PS, pouring water into concentrated sulfuric acid is an example of what?

Incredible foolhardy stupidity.

0 Replies

@farmerman,

farmerman wrote:

Whats yer point? Youre just gum flapping while trying to avoid addressing that the earth is "designed".

I don't know whether the Earth is designed or not, but I can tell you for sure that the guys that are printing biocode with the laser printer from the ACGT & U bases don't know what they are doing.
The only thing that has saved us for now is that they haven't succeeded to make anything functional.
In order to play with such 'a toy' one should have some vague idea what will happen with the rest of the bioshere when in it is introduced this and this bio-processing unit. Shall we mention 'the incident' with the retro virus of the 80s?

So and so you are watching aminoacids throughout the galaxy (as you claim) have you seen anything that can be interpreted as bio- on Kepler 186f - the bio-code of any bacteria ... with or without nitrogen?

0 Replies

@farmerman,

farmerman wrote:

PS, pouring water into concentrated sulfuric acid is an example of what?

... of heavy burns on the skin. Nobody has said 'concentrated'. It might be a homeopathic solution of 10^-18 ... behind a blastproof window if you are so afraid.
If you insist on 'concentrated' you should drop the acid into the water.
In any case scenario you cannot replicate the water.

1 Reply

@Herald,

you never pose any clear discussions. If I would have said dilute you woulda said concentrated.
Now what about your exothermic reactions ? what was your point there?
You realize that youre all over the map and I think people can see that you've got little idea of what your presenting .
Im still waiting for your slam dunk argument for Creation.
Is it one of the following?
1You cant make something out of nothing

2The world is so ordered it must reflect an "Intelligent Designer"

3Everything science is doing is wrong.

You know, Im seeing a disturbing trend in that the number of Creationists from the UK is on a marked increase. I always thought those European folks were a little too smart to be taken over by fairy tales.

I don't think that youre advancing any kind of positive argument.Youre merely spending time with random clips of irrelevant value. e can discuss the energy releases of exothermic reaction, or possible water covered planet 500 million liht years away but that doesn't help us get anywhere in the "Culture wars"

Come up with something relevant please. This is getting boring.

3 Replies

@Herald,

Quote:

Not to mention that you both have not even the slightest idea why nature always strives to minimise the energy of the structures & the bonds.

Nature doesn't strive to do anything. If the energy needed to create bonds was high then there would be few bonds because there wouldn't be enough energy. Energy can be neither created or destroyed.

Quote:

If you put a drop of water into a solution of sulfuric acid it does not replicate itself (by making new water molecules by means of copying its own pattern of encoding), it does not extract the H2 and O2 from the sulphuric acid and does not precipitate the sulphur on the bottom of the glass tube.

If you put DNA in sulfuric acid it doesn't replicate itself either. All chemical reactions require the right environment to take place. By creating an environment where a chemical reaction doesn't take place you are only showing you have to be disingenuous to make an argument.

0 Replies

@farmerman,

farmerman wrote:

you never pose any clear discussions. If I would have said dilute you woulda said concentrated.

O.K. enough with that sulfuric acid. You may use whatever you wish and you will not be able to replicate any chemical substance (pouring some of it into s.th. and making more of it from the solution) ... and don't forget to read the Material Safety Data sheets before that ... for the finding of which you may use Google search.

farmerman wrote:

You realize that youre all over the map and I think people can see that you've got little idea of what your presenting.

The replication of the biological macro-molecule is not chemical reaction. There is no chemical substance (organic or inorganic) with replication properties.

farmerman wrote:

Is it one of the following?
1. You can't make something out of nothing

Actually I believe in that.

farmerman wrote:

2. The world is so ordered it must reflect an "Intelligent Designer"

Even Einstein has believed in that.
I cannot say whether it is Intelligent Designer or some kind of information control of higher order, but in any case it is not stochastic. There is nothing stochastic in burning C into CO2. Everything is predictable. I read your comments about oxygen herein above and obviously you don't understand something. The system carbon – oxygen, when the carbon is buried under the ground and the oxygen is into the air is 'charged with potential chemical energy'. The CO2 is like a discharged and empty battery - Rien ne va plus & Game Over.

farmerman wrote:

3. Everything science is doing is wrong.

No, I have never claimed that and I don't believe it.
What I believe about science is that:
1. Over 90% of the scientific discoveries may never see the light of the day on the ground of 'security considerations' (of any kind ... and of any interpretation).
2. With enough money and enough computational power and enough time any code can be broken and any scientific discovery and any information may be used for 'alternative purposes'.
3. When the money and power sing the solo, the science keeps the refrain of the choir.
4. The different sciences do no validate their own knowledge against the knowledge of the other sciences ... as a result of which there is no integrity in the scientific knowledge.
5. Any scientific discovery can be used for good, but as a rule it is used for bad at first.
etc.

farmerman wrote:

I don't think that youre advancing any kind of positive argument.

I said to you that I am agnostic ... which supposes stagnation in the beliefs. It is exactly what you are observing ... and you are greatly disappointed that you couldn't make me believing in your theory that everything is just happening on autopilot ... and unfortunately Kepler 186f is the Game Over of your stochastic understanding of the world.
There is no evidence of any life on a planet, which is almost perfect replica of the Earth ... for over 10 Bya.

3 Replies

Intelligent Design vs. Casino Universe

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know