132
   

Why do people deny evolution?

Forums: Evolution, Science, Religion, Mental Health, Inquiring Minds
Email this Topic • Print this Page
 
 
martinies
 
  0  
Mon 20 Apr, 2015 08:13 am
@Ionus,
Ha. Good on ya .can see you will be soon be on my side in this debate ionus.
Ionus
 
  1  
Mon 20 Apr, 2015 08:14 am
@martinies,
I'm enjoying not being called names .
0 Replies
 
FBM
 
  1  
Mon 20 Apr, 2015 08:28 am
@Ionus,
Ionus wrote:

I'm not so certain, FBM . Multiple universes ? Unaccountable dimensions ? The true nature of time ? Some of it is getting supernatural in its gooblyspeak .


Are the physicists pointing to a supernatural source? Careful of the g0d-of-the-gaps and argumentum ad ignorantiam thingies. There will be perforce unexplained phenomena for the foreseeable future, but that doesn't lend even the least support to a supernatural explanation. The supernatural claim has no genuine (non-fallacious) supportive evidence that I'm aware of. None has been presented in this thread or this forum that I'm aware of. Or anywhere else, as far as I know.
Ionus
 
  0  
Mon 20 Apr, 2015 08:39 am
@FBM,
Quote:
Are the physicists pointing to a supernatural source?
No, they are explaining the very nature of the universe but the concepts can quite legitimately be called supernatural and have been up till the physicists took over the concept .
FBM
 
  1  
Mon 20 Apr, 2015 08:45 am
@Ionus,
Seems that now we're getting into a problem of semantics. The term "supernatural" implies magic that in principle can never be explained by mundane sciences. A violation of all current and potential physical laws, rather than an as-yet-undiscovered physical law. I don't know of any physicist who takes that option seriously. Do you?
Herald
 
  0  
Mon 20 Apr, 2015 01:14 pm
@FBM,
FBM wrote:
A violation of all current and potential physical laws, rather than an as-yet-undiscovered physical law.
     What are you talking about the laws of physics - there is no physical and non-physical law that the Big Bang 'theory' is not in violation of.
     Would you apply the law for conservation of energy onto the 'appearance' of the Singularity 'out of Nowhere and out of Nothing'? Would you apply the Boyle-Mariotte law onto the moment right before and right after the Big Bang 'theory'? Would you apply the second law of the thermodynamics onto the moment of the Big Bang ... just to establish that onto that moment the Universe has had much more information and much more intelligence then you will ever would be able to imagine ... with or without the help of your personal problems with the aliens.
layman
 
  0  
Mon 20 Apr, 2015 09:31 pm
@FBM,
Quote:
The term "supernatural" implies magic that in principle can never be explained by mundane sciences. A violation of all current and potential physical laws, rather than an as-yet-undiscovered physical law.


What "physical law" would explain an infinite number of "parallel universes" in god only know how many dimensions? Where are these located? For all contact that kind of crap has with nature, as we know it, you might as well listen to some L. Ron Hubbert tale or listen to monks talk about nivana and reincarnation. Just a wild-ass tale anybody could dream up--nothing in nature will support it. It's all beyond nature (supernatural) including these wild speculations by physicists.
0 Replies
 
layman
 
  1  
Mon 20 Apr, 2015 09:46 pm
@Ionus,
Quote:
Some of it is getting supernatural in its gooblyspeak .


Quote:
Full Definition of SUPERNATURAL
: of or relating to an order of existence beyond the visible observable universe


Dark matter, for just one of many supernatural explanations these so-called "physicists" (which they ain't, they're mathematicians) come up with, eh, Ionus?
0 Replies
 
Ionus
 
  1  
Mon 20 Apr, 2015 10:20 pm
@FBM,
Quote:
I don't know of any physicist who takes that option seriously. Do you?
Yes, many . All of today's sciences were yesterday's black magic, superstitions, supernatural occurrences, etc . The trick is to sort out today's black magic and supernaturals from potential areas of new science . The list of yesterday's 'magic' include germs, atoms, flight, space travel, the nature of stars and many more .

Quote:
Seems that now we're getting into a problem of semantics.
Isnt that appropriate for a debate on one word ?
FBM
 
  1  
Mon 20 Apr, 2015 10:26 pm
@Herald,
Herald wrote:

FBM wrote:
A violation of all current and potential physical laws, rather than an as-yet-undiscovered physical law.
     What are you talking about the laws of physics - there is no physical and non-physical law that the Big Bang 'theory' is not in violation of.
     Would you apply the law for conservation of energy onto the 'appearance' of the Singularity 'out of Nowhere and out of Nothing'? Would you apply the Boyle-Mariotte law onto the moment right before and right after the Big Bang 'theory'? Would you apply the second law of the thermodynamics onto the moment of the Big Bang ... just to establish that onto that moment the Universe has had much more information and much more intelligence then you will ever would be able to imagine ... with or without the help of your personal problems with the aliens.


I've taught you this before. What sort of brain malfunction prevents you from remembering things you've already been taught? http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CF/CF001.html
FBM
 
  1  
Mon 20 Apr, 2015 10:29 pm
@Ionus,
Ionus wrote:

Quote:
I don't know of any physicist who takes that option seriously. Do you?
Yes, many . All of today's sciences were yesterday's black magic, superstitions, supernatural occurrences, etc . The trick is to sort out today's black magic and supernaturals from potential areas of new science . The list of yesterday's 'magic' include germs, atoms, flight, space travel, the nature of stars and many more .


Please list some physcists who claims that magic is a legit explanation for observed phenomena.

Quote:
Quote:
Seems that now we're getting into a problem of semantics.
Isnt that appropriate for a debate on one word ?


It's appropriate to clarify definitions, yes, but not to use the word ambiguously. What's your definition of 'supernatural.' We may very well be talking about different concepts.
Herald
 
  0  
Mon 20 Apr, 2015 10:33 pm
@FBM,
FBM wrote:
I've taught you this before.
     Liar - where? Would you quote the post. BTW you are neither the discoverer of the second law of thermodynamics, nor the educator having made its original physical interpretation.
Ionus
 
  0  
Mon 20 Apr, 2015 10:34 pm
@FBM,
Quote:
Please list some physcists who claims that magic is a legit explanation for observed phenomena.
Why would I support something you worded ?

Quote:
What's your definition of 'supernatural.'
Anything not explained by our current knowledge on the natural . So there are many things that remain supernatural and are awaiting our knowledge base for inclusion .
FBM
 
  1  
Mon 20 Apr, 2015 10:34 pm
@Herald,
Herald wrote:

FBM wrote:
I've taught you this before.
     Liar - where? Would you quote the post.


Here's an idea: Use your brain's memory function for once. I'm not repeating myself at your amusement, Mr. Alien/ILF/god-of-the-gaps.
FBM
 
  1  
Mon 20 Apr, 2015 10:36 pm
@Ionus,
Ionus wrote:

Quote:
Please list some physcists who claims that magic is a legit explanation for observed phenomena.
Why would I support something you worded ?


Because you said that you could. I doubt your claim, so I'm asking for evidence.

Quote:
Quote:
What's your definition of 'supernatural.'
Anything not explained by our current knowledge on the natural . So there are many things that remain supernatural and are awaiting our knowledge base for inclusion .


OK, then we are working with different definitions. For me, 'supernatural' connotes magic. Your definition for me would be 'the unknown.'
Herald
 
  0  
Mon 20 Apr, 2015 10:40 pm
@FBM,
FBM wrote:
Here's an idea: Use your brain's memory function for once.
     Forget about my memory functionS - name the post in which you discover the second law of thermodynamics and make its original physical interpretation to the world - or just confess that you don't even know what you are talking about.
Ionus
 
  -1  
Mon 20 Apr, 2015 10:40 pm
@FBM,
Quote:
Please list some physcists who claims that magic is a legit explanation for observed phenomena.
I never used that wording . I believe it is twisting my words and asking me to defend your wording .

Quote:
For me, 'supernatural' connotes magic. Your definition for me would be 'the unknown.'
I can see both definitions as viable parts of a whole .
FBM
 
  1  
Mon 20 Apr, 2015 11:41 pm
@Herald,
Herald wrote:

FBM wrote:
Here's an idea: Use your brain's memory function for once.
     Forget about my memory functionS - name the post in which you discover the second law of thermodynamics and make its original physical interpretation to the world - or just confess that you don't even know what you are talking about.


There's this thing called a mouse. When you hover over a url, like the one I provided in that post, press down with your index finger. Don't forget to turn on your memory function, Mr. Alien/ILF/g0d-of-the-gaps.
FBM
 
  1  
Mon 20 Apr, 2015 11:43 pm
@Ionus,
Ionus wrote:

Quote:
Please list some physcists who claims that magic is a legit explanation for observed phenomena.
I never used that wording . I believe it is twisting my words and asking me to defend your wording .


Hence the explanation of my intended connotation of 'supernatural.

Quote:
Quote:
For me, 'supernatural' connotes magic. Your definition for me would be 'the unknown.'
I can see both definitions as viable parts of a whole .


If you accept the connotation of 'magical' in the word 'supernatural,' then please give an example of a physicist who accepts the connoted magic aspect as an explanation for observed phenomena.
martinies
 
  -1  
Tue 21 Apr, 2015 12:30 am
@FBM,
The phenomena of the the stationary observer to c the speed limit of the universe . Theres a piece of consciousness magic for one.
 

Related Topics

Intelligent Design Theory: Science or Religion? - Discussion by wandeljw
Latest Challenges to the Teaching of Evolution - Discussion by wandeljw
U.S. Lags World in Grasp of Genetics and Acceptance of Evolution - Discussion by Robert Gentel
Is the theory of evolution correct? - Question by kampung
More (much more) dinosaur soft tissue turning up - Discussion by gungasnake
Miss USA delegates on evolution in schools - Discussion by hingehead
Is Evolution a Dangerous Idea? If so, why? - Discussion by edgarblythe
Future of evolution - Question by elletheduck
Don't tell me there's no proof for evolution - Discussion by aperson
Armored fish: yet another body blow to evolosers and evoloserism - Discussion by gungasnake
 
  1. Forums
  2. » Why do people deny evolution?
  3. » Page 289
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.17 seconds on 11/23/2024 at 04:01:33
▲ ▼