20
   

Evolutionry/religious nonsense

 
 
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Mon 8 Jan, 2018 06:38 am
It's not germane to the topic, and I'm not going to long put up with your snotty remarks. Take your idiotic bullshit to your own thread, Slick.
jerlands
 
  1  
Reply Mon 8 Jan, 2018 06:39 am
@Setanta,
let's start with baby steps...
0 Replies
 
jerlands
 
  1  
Reply Mon 8 Jan, 2018 06:40 am
@Setanta,
what is crime?
0 Replies
 
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Mon 8 Jan, 2018 06:41 am
Start your own thread, asshole.
jerlands
 
  1  
Reply Mon 8 Jan, 2018 06:45 am
@Setanta,
here's one definition of crime.
Quote:
an action or activity that, although not illegal, is considered to be evil, shameful, or wrong.
0 Replies
 
jerlands
 
  1  
Reply Mon 8 Jan, 2018 06:47 am
@Setanta,
Now here's one definition of insanity.
Quote:
the state of being seriously mentally ill; madness
0 Replies
 
jerlands
 
  1  
Reply Mon 8 Jan, 2018 06:48 am
@Setanta,
let's put these two together...
Quote:
A mental defect or disease that makes it impossible for a person to understand the wrongfulness of his acts or, even if he understands them, to distinguish right from wrong.
0 Replies
 
jerlands
 
  1  
Reply Mon 8 Jan, 2018 06:56 am
There is order to the Universe. I think it just a matter of recognizing it.
hightor
 
  1  
Reply Mon 8 Jan, 2018 07:25 am
@jerlands,
Quote:
I think it just a matter of recognizing it.

Or imposing it.
jerlands
 
  1  
Reply Mon 8 Jan, 2018 07:30 am
@hightor,
Let's see... if life is order then is imposing something on life order or crime?
jerlands
 
  1  
Reply Mon 8 Jan, 2018 07:42 am
@jerlands,
jerlands wrote:

Let's see... if life is order then is imposing something on life order or crime?


I'll answer that with explanation. Man, the crown of creation... can **** up
0 Replies
 
jerlands
 
  1  
Reply Mon 8 Jan, 2018 07:46 am
@hightor,
when we talk about man imposing something we're talking checks and balances.
0 Replies
 
jerlands
 
  1  
Reply Mon 8 Jan, 2018 07:59 am
@hightor,
hightor wrote:

Quote:
I think it just a matter of recognizing it.

Or imposing it.


Interaction in some form or another imposition.
0 Replies
 
brianjakub
 
  1  
Reply Mon 8 Jan, 2018 08:02 am
@farmerman,
Quote:
No butter please, but I have no doubt tht many people of a specific mindset will insist on ID as a scientific explanation. Why dont they seem to be presenting their evidence? Could it be that there is none?
Because they suck at gathering evidence. Everybody stops before they get there. The story has a few twists they can't see because their Protestant bias of "the Bible only can explain their Creator" won't allow them to see the truth.

As I said earlier
Quote:
There is nearly perfect complex order making up the space inside an atom, and in the false vacuum of empty space at distances from matter where gravity becomes negligible. The disorder of Heisenberg's uncertainty principle where matter and space come into contact, is where all our sensors operate. That is why it is so hard for us to detect the order, we mess the order of the false vacuum up with our sensors, and can't observe the order inside an atom because we can't see inside it without destroying it.

We are missing the extra layers of order built into the universe that are being revealed as we unite QM and Relativity with Entropic gravity. We are missing them because the building blocks of space are arranged so precisely they had to be arranged like a machinist building a planetary gear system inside every atom and every portion of space between those atoms. You cannot unite relativity and gravity and explain anything when you can't envision the basic building blocks of space and matter. For that reason, consciousness is required in the establishment of the initial conditions of the universe. The initial hardware (matter and the Higgs field) is complex. The initial operating system (the laws of physics) are revealed by the structure of the hardware, and the algorithm of ecosystems and life are amazingly complex and appear to have been adjusted many times in the past. And by your following quote Intelligence is still affecting the ecosystem:

Quote:
all the available evidence easily shows that evolution is pretty nuch NOT anagenetic and is actually opportunistic and subservient to edaphic and all other environmental factors (including cataclysmic extinction events like that which we are experiencing today and which appears to be entirely under our control).


Maybe it is a later smaller version of the same intelligence that initiated the whole ecosystem in the first place. Maybe we need to try and learn about the initiator so we can figure out how to diagnose and fix the cataclysmic extinction event. Or, we could be biased (because of a bunch of misguided but well meaning people at the Discovery Institute) and throw that option in the garbage because of unfounded biases and keep shooting from the hip because science doesn't even know where gravity comes from let alone how it affects the Higgs field and the temperature of Earth.

Quote:
Ive been in the business 40 years and hqve seen more crap, bad science, and downright criminal BS over "verification of Creationist science".
I agree. And the same is true about atheistic science of Stephen Hawking, Alan Gunth, Stephen Gould and their cohorts. Both sides need to quit calling each other names and see if they both can turn out some science that truly gives an explanation of what space looks like and how it operates rather than coming up with math to explain where needles are pointing.

You can't explain an automobile by just measuring the input rpm of the engine and then coming up with math to explain why the speedometer is reading and then calling that good. What's going to happen to the math when it runs out of gas or someone applies the brakes or shifts into reverse. As you pointed out if intelligence doesn't operate the system correctly damage or even a cataclysmic extinction event can be the result that could otherwise be controlled with intelligence that understands the operation and purpose of the automobile.

I think I figured out the structure of the space inside matter and in the Higgs field 15 years ago, but I am not in the game. (yet?) I am not a genius, it isn't any harder than figuring out what is going on inside a transmission without tearing it apart. But you have to admit that there are gears and planetary gears inside the transmission and rear end housings before you can hypothesize how it is built without taking it apart.


They have to aprroach the search for unification like that or they won't get there.

Quote:
And, if I understand, you take ownership of possible "seeding" of our planet by life from somewhere else as an example of ID?


No, it is not evidence for ID. But, the way I understand ID The Designer is an extraterrestrial that doesn't even need the universe we live in to exist because he initiated it, so I am looking for evidence of that.

Quote:
Im sure that with the few good examples of abiogenesis from the lab are just examples of possible ways that life could have begun.
"Knowing what's true" without any evidence, is more an ID thing, not science.


A scientist reverse engineering in a controlled environment (their own small universe tuned for life) is just proof of intelligence establishing a basic order (hardware and operating system) for the algorithm of life to be established. That would be proving the pattern of ID is still true today (only on a smaller, terrestrial scale).

I think that would be very good science. I hope that future scientist will see what he is looking at when that evidence is finally provided.
farmerman
 
  3  
Reply Mon 8 Jan, 2018 09:15 am
@brianjakub,
1.To me(and I assume others) an algorithm is supposed to be unambiguous sets of calculations. A simple "if then" relationship for one statement aint an algorithm.

2 Your beliefs contain too many "ifs" as if they constitute evidence. Thats neither good science nor good logic. Its pure speculation.

3Your second statement .Ill call it your "manifesto" is inconsistent and Im not spending time with a set of statements that guarantee an answer from a speculative assertion
brianjakub
 
  1  
Reply Mon 8 Jan, 2018 12:00 pm
@farmerman,
Quote:
1.To me(and I assume others) an algorithm is supposed to be unambiguous sets of calculations. A simple "if then" relationship for one statement aint an algorithm..


I agree. The problem is there are about as many interpretations to the math and data in physics as there are physicists and possibilities of abiogenisis as there are biologists. ID will will make it unambiguous. I found it, but I don't have tunnel vision by specializing in one field. I am not asking you and others to believe I am asking you to look in a different way than the Discovery institue and atheistic based science.

Quote:
2 Your beliefs contain too many "ifs" as if they constitute evidence. Thats neither good science nor good logic. Its pure speculation.


Does this quote stating your beliefs fit that category:
Quote:
Im sure that with the few good examples of abiogenesis from the lab are just examples of possible ways that life could have begun.
"Knowing what's true" without any evidence, is more an ID thing, not science.


Or this wiki description of the origin of matter:
Quote:
Matter creation
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article needs additional citations for verification. Please help improve this article by adding citations to reliable sources. Unsourced material may be challenged and removed. (March 2017) (Learn how and when to remove this template message)

This article possibly contains original research. Please improve it by verifying the claims made and adding inline citations. Statements consisting only of original research should be removed. (March 2017) (Learn how and when to remove this template message)
Even restricting the discussion to physics, we do not have a unique definition of what matter is. In the currently known particle physics, summarised by the standard model of elementary particles and interactions, it is possible to distinguish in an absolute sense particles of matter and particles of antimatter. This is particularly easy for those particles that carry electric charge, such as electrons or protons or quarks. In the standard model, it is not possible to create a net amount of matter particles--or more precisely, it is not possible to change the net number of leptons or of quarks in any perturbative reaction among particles. This remark is consistent with all existing observations.

However, similar processes are not considered to be impossible, and in fact they are expected in other models of the elementary particles, that extend the standard model. Actually they are necessary in speculative theories that aim to explain the cosmic excess of matter over antimatter,
such as leptogenesis and baryogenesis and they could manifest themselves in laboratory as proton decay or as creations of electrons in the so called neutrinoless double beta decay.

In a wider sense, one can use the word matter simply to refer to fermions. In this sense, the process inverse to particle annihilation can be called matter creation; more precisely, we are considering here the process obtained under time reversal of the annihilation process. This process is also known as pair production, and can be described as the conversion of light particles (i.e., photons) into one or more massive particles[citation needed]. The most common and well studied case is the one where two photons convert into an electron–positron pair.


What a bunch of speculative contradicting gobbilty gook. Especially this excerpt:

Quote:
This is particularly easy for those particles that carry electric charge, such as electrons or protons or quarks. In the standard model, it is not possible to create a net amount of matter particles--or more precisely, it is not possible to change the net number of leptons or of quarks in any perturbative reaction among particles. This remark is consistent with all existing observations.

However, similar processes are not considered to be impossible, and in fact they are expected in other models of the elementary particles, that extend the standard model. Actually they are necessary in speculative theories that aim to explain the cosmic excess of matter over antimatter
. . .


Scientists are speculating and contradicting themselves with these theories and explanations.

And this one:
Quote:
In a wider sense, one can use the word matter simply to refer to fermions. In this sense, the process inverse to particle annihilation can be called matter creation; more precisely, we are considering here the process obtained under time reversal of the annihilation process. This process is also known as pair production, and can be described as the conversion of light particles (i.e., photons) into one or more massive particles[citation needed]. The most common and well studied case is the one where two photons convert into an electron–positron pair.


How can you study a case of time reversal when:
Quote:
T-symmetry
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
This article is about time reversal symmetry. For time translation symmetry, see Time translation symmetry.

This article includes a list of references, but its sources remain unclear because it has insufficient inline citations. Please help to improve this article by introducing more precise citations. (March 2010) (Learn how and when to remove this template message)
Time
T-symmetry or time reversal symmetry is the theoretical symmetry of physical laws under the transformation of time reversal:

{\displaystyle T:t\mapsto -t.} T:t\mapsto -t.
Although in restricted contexts one may find this symmetry, the observable universe itself does not show symmetry under time reversal, primarily due to the second law of thermodynamics. Hence time is said to be non-symmetric, or asymmetric, except for equilibrium states when the second law of thermodynamics predicts the time symmetry to hold. However, quantum noninvasive measurements are predicted to violate time symmetry even in equilibrium,[1] contrary to their classical counterparts, although it has not yet been experimentally confirmed.


Are you willing to hang your hat on this explanation of the origin of matter?

It will be amazing to see the linguistic back flips they will perform to explain the origins of the structure of space needed to explain Entropic Gravity without a designer.
Setanta
 
  3  
Reply Mon 8 Jan, 2018 02:27 pm
@brianjakub,
You've got a beef, specifically with Wikipedia, on the origin of matter--and yet you seem to think your imaginary friend poofed it all into existence on a whim. You provide not a shred of evidence, yet you scorn the work of scientists who are far better educated than you, and spend their lives researching physics and chemistry. That's pathetic.
brianjakub
 
  0  
Reply Mon 8 Jan, 2018 03:16 pm
@Setanta,
Quote:
You've got a beef, specifically with Wikipedia, on the origin of matter--and yet you seem to think your imaginary friend poofed it all into existence on a whim. You provide not a shred of evidence, yet you scorn the work of scientists who are far better educated than you, and spend their lives researching physics and chemistry. That's pathetic.


I don't have a beef with wiki. Their information is accurate. Comment on my interpretation of the content of the wiki article especially the parts I bold faced. I am not scorning, explain how time running backwards and pure speculation without data or a pattern is good science.

I like to keep speculation to something you can imagine actually happening. I am seeing new ideas enter the universe as you and I type. That is a pattern that I think we can speculate holds true to the beginning of the universe.

You and I can poof an original idea into existence, manipulate the atoms in our brain with that idea, and then type it into this blog. All ideas are poofed by intelligence and then matter has to be manipulated to form patterns (words) intelligent beings can share the ideas. Matter is not intelligence, matter reveals the ideas in a material so intelligent beings can exchange ideas. That is the pattern. I know it is true otherwise you and I couldn't poof new ideas into the universe and share them.

I think we can speculate that in the beginning of the universe God thought of or poofed an idea (just like you and I are now, only on a grander scale) and the living word (Jesus) turned the ideas into physical patterns in matter (words) we call atoms, planets, stars and biology.

It's all about the creation, storage and manipulation of information in patterns. Sounds a lot like an algorithm, running an operating system in hardware doesn't it?
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Mon 8 Jan, 2018 07:51 pm
@jerlands,
It’s the natural process based on the materials within the available environment.
Setanta
 
  3  
Reply Mon 8 Jan, 2018 09:56 pm
@brianjakub,
No, it sounds like purest feedlot bullsh*t. That you claim to see patterns is not evidence that there are patterns there. Your algorithm analogy is a failed analogy, and you've not supported it with logic, let alone evidence.
 

Related Topics

 
Copyright © 2021 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.04 seconds on 06/15/2021 at 01:06:36