76
   

Intelligent Design Theory: Science or Religion?

 
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Wed 29 Aug, 2018 07:34 pm
@farmerman,
Quote:
Hell, even many physicists who deal with string theory in their careers have no fuckin idea what theyre even talking about.
Quote:

That was educational and funny!
brianjakub
 
  1  
Reply Thu 30 Aug, 2018 11:49 am
@Setanta,
Chemistry existed before biochemistry. Are you saying you can explain why and how chemistry works without QM?

And you can explain how gravity created matter in stars when matter is an emergent force from matter. Or in other words what started the big crush before the Big Bang if there was no matter before that?
brianjakub
 
  1  
Reply Thu 30 Aug, 2018 11:54 am
@cicerone imposter,
Somehow some matter had to come into existence without gravity. There must be a quntum creation event as Alan Guth suggested but promised he would spend the rest of his life explaining away because it suggests a creator.

Physicist cant explain string theory because they don’t try to picture what their math is depicting in a physical and real way.
0 Replies
 
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Thu 30 Aug, 2018 01:16 pm
@brianjakub,
No, I have no interest in explaining to you the fantasies you work up when you read things you don't understand. You are a perfect example of the dictum that a little knowledge is a dangerous thing.
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Thu 30 Aug, 2018 01:30 pm
@Setanta,
Here, BJ, I thought I'd remind you of this:

Setanta wrote:
Utter bullshit--perhaps you can give us a short bibliography of those works on biochemistry which you have read and which lead down that alleged path.


As always, you are long on BS claims--but you're not short on evidence. That's because, as always, you provided absolutely no evidence. I frankly don't believe you've read a single, reliably authoritative work on quantum mechanics, and certainly nothing which links quantum mechanics with biochemistry. You're just whistling past the graveyard.
0 Replies
 
brianjakub
 
  1  
Reply Thu 30 Aug, 2018 01:33 pm
@Setanta,
Quote:
I have no interest in explaining to you the fantasies you work up
My point is the theory that the big bang created matter before there was matter to cause gravity is a fantastic theory that does not seem possible. That point right there (that the big bang cant create matter because it is a gravity induced event and gravity requires matter to exist) shows the need for an uncaused cause.

So I can see why you don't want to explain the unexplainable fantasy of the big bang being the start of the universe where matter was created. But that's not my fantasy, that's mainstream science's fantasy.
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Thu 30 Aug, 2018 01:43 pm
@brianjakub,
First, this thread is about the distinction between evolutionary theory and the fantasy known as "intelligent design." It is not about the possible singularity, the probable existence of which lead a Belgian Catholic priest to coin the term "big bang." Second, you seem to have completely failed to appreciate that all the physical laws of our cosmos came into existence at the time of the singularity event, idiotically referred to as "the big bang." Third, you also completely fail to establish that any such "mainstream science's" fantasy exists.

No one is obliged to untangle the silly fantasies you cobble together when you watch some idiot youtube video, and either take to heart the witless propaganda embodied therein, come up with a confused narrative, all your own, born of your ignorance and confusion.

Back to the topic of the thread for once, OK?

If you expect anyone to take you seriously, you need to provide evidence for your claims, and no matter what you say here, your confused babble about quantum mechanics and chemistry constitutes an unsubstantiated claim.

You still have not given even a brief bibliography of reliable books on quantum mechanics and chemistry which you have read.
brianjakub
 
  1  
Reply Thu 30 Aug, 2018 01:59 pm
@Setanta,
If that priest thought that those laws came into existence without intelligence guidance he did not believe in Catholic doctorine. I suspect he did though.

How do you kn ow they came into existence then. We do not know what happened inside the event horizon of the Big Bang. We were not there. We are assuming that it was a hot singularity with no order. It could as likely have been a compact perfect universe containing all the matter we now observe.

Considering the Second Law of Thermal dynamics and Pauli’s exclusionary principle if we run the clock backwards the Big Bang could have been a transition from a compact perfect universe where the laws of physics already existed “perfectly”. But to start from perfection is pretty unreasonable if it is an event driven by a randomly driven cause rather than intelligence.

But considering the science we should consider Pauli’s principle always existed.

The microwave background radiation is the after glow of all the energy that was released by the destruction of matter as the perfect universe started to die. The question is,”what broke the perfection?”

Another good question is “how big is a perfect universe?” Probably not infinitely small.
0 Replies
 
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Thu 30 Aug, 2018 02:06 pm
Your remarks are not on topic. Your English is poor. You have not provided any evidence for the claims you continue to make about physics.

For as long as you babble on without providing any substantiation for your idiotic claims, I will continue to point that out. Don't bother asking me any more questions, because I'm not going to play your arrogant, bullying game of trying to make others answer questions and make explanations while you answer no questions and provide no explanations.

There is no reason to consider you an authority on any subject.
camlok
 
  1  
Reply Thu 30 Aug, 2018 02:40 pm
@Setanta,
Quote:
You have not provided any evidence for the claims you continue to make about physics.


In bold yet, Setanta!!

What a stunning hypocrite you are!!
0 Replies
 
brianjakub
 
  1  
Reply Thu 30 Aug, 2018 02:53 pm
@Setanta,
I just gave you the evidence. It’s the same evidence they use for the Big Bang and inflation. Just a different interpretation. Even Alan Guth recognized it is an alternative interpretation. He mentioned it in passing though in a letter to a science magazine. He doesn’t discuss it anymore for some reason. Maybe it doesn’t fit his world view.
farmerman
 
  1  
Reply Thu 30 Aug, 2018 03:43 pm
@brianjakub,
Quote:
I just gave you the evidence
no you didnt. The point I brought up that you nicely glommed, is recognized to be not even a hypotheses. NO EVIDENCE surrounding QM and biochem. Its a mind game that, until, and IF some experiments or evidence shows up, its merely in the same game as string theory, ie, "Mathturbation"
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Thu 30 Aug, 2018 09:51 pm
@Setanta,
Thank you.
0 Replies
 
brianjakub
 
  1  
Reply Fri 31 Aug, 2018 02:50 pm
@farmerman,
Macroevolution and abiogenisis without intelligent initiation would both fall under mathurbation. Both are statistically impossible if knew information is added from a non intelligent source.
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Fri 31 Aug, 2018 03:44 pm
@brianjakub,
Care to do the math for us? Can you show your work?
farmerman
 
  1  
Reply Fri 31 Aug, 2018 03:57 pm
@Setanta,
An excellent way to communicate ones hypothesis. "show yer work" We all remember that magisterial demand, dont we?
brianjakub
 
  1  
Reply Fri 31 Aug, 2018 04:03 pm
@Setanta,
Just like string theory, the math for evolution is already done. It proves that evolution and the multiverse are really happening. Neither one explains how and why they happened exactly like they were supposed to. For some reason its is scientific to believe in luck, or magic, or a bunch of universes we can’t see to improve the chances for our dumb luck.

Like farmer pointed out though the math needed for the multiverse which is in turn needed to make the odds possible for what we observe to happen without guidance (though i think irreducible complexity even rules out those odds too) are mathurbation. So... how do you talk about this in a common sense way?
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Fri 31 Aug, 2018 04:10 pm
@farmerman,
You might not think it with history, but it was as rigorous or more so. When we turned in a paper, we also had to turn in a bibliographical list (listing books which we did not quote as well as those we did). We had to turn in the outline we were required to produce for every paper. We had to turn in the 3 X 5 cards with quotations we used, we had to turn in the 3 X 5 cards we had filled out when compiling a reading list for the works we intended to consult. As one of my professors put it: "Any university educated person should be able to take your cards, outline and bibliography, and write the same paper, even if they were to come to different conclusions.

J. B. Bury, the great Irish historian and philologist wrote: " ". . . she (history) is herself simply a science, no less and no more"--a sentiment with which I do not agree, but I understand fully why he said it. In his inaugural lecture as Regis Professor of Modern History at Cambridge in 1902, he prefaced his remarks with this statement: I may remind you that history is not a branch of literature. The facts of history, like the facts of geology or astronomy, can supply material for literary art; for manifest reasons they lend themselves to artistic representation far more readily than those of the natural sciences; but to clothe the story of human society in a literary dress is no more the part of a historian as a historian, than it is the part of an astronomer as an astronomer to present in an artistic shape the story of the stars

All disciplines, whether scientific or otherwise, should be rigorous.
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Fri 31 Aug, 2018 04:24 pm
@brianjakub,
You don't talk about anything in a common sense way.

Do the math for us. Show your work.
camlok
 
  1  
Reply Sat 1 Sep, 2018 12:27 pm
@Setanta,
Quote:
Do the math for us. Show your work.


Oh, good dog almighty, Set, what stunning hypocrisy!!!!
 

Related Topics

 
Copyright © 2019 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.07 seconds on 05/23/2019 at 07:10:42