Phi for All

The more I think about this, the more I realize it could be correct. If "understanding" is defined as "knowledge with comprehension" , then our "current understanding" represents mainstream science and our best explanations. Religion often rejects those in favor of wild guesses based on nothing tangible or credible, creating things like omnipotent sky fairies who lovingly smite the imperfect things they perfectly created. That's far beyond what mainstream science would think appropriate for conceptualization. It's just that TJ thinks those "things" are good, and I think they're bad.

You can if your motive is to lure everyone away from the very complicated stuff you don't understand that would take a long time to learn, over to the easy-to-watch pseudovideoscience that kinda makes sense to you and takes fifteen minutes. I can't help but see most of these reinventions this way. "Hey, you guys, you don't need to climb the mountain! Just hop across the lake on those chunks of ice! "

From the thread that probably prompted this one:

In some theories, but certainly not the most widely accepted. You say this like it's fact. Right now, what we know is that our eyes can see in two spatial dimensions. A single temporal dimension allows us to perceive movement, which allows our brains to infer a third spatial dimension. We think we see in 3D. String theory, M theory, there are models that use higher dimensions, but from what I've seen, they've fallen out of favor. Relativity uses just four dimensions. I still don't understand what you meant by "transcendal". Transcendental is the closest I could find, but it doesn't make sense. What is it you think dimensions are?

Maybe it was all kink.

! Moderator Note Since that work is the basis of this thread, which is in a mainstream section, please overcome the laziness so the discussion can move from guesswork to solid footing.

Piezochromatic pigments.

Certain compounds change color under pressure. Carbon turns clear under enough pressure.

! Moderator Note I thought about this for the same number of heartbeats as I have fingers on one hand, and decided you're right. Thread closed.

Are they?

This is a great example of why formal study is necessary. You've lived for half a century thinking we don't know how a bomb explodes, or what exactly an explosion is. So of course you're going to think that's a big gap in our knowledge. But it's a wrong assumption. We know a great deal and are always learning more. You can study the physics of it if you're interested, which is a LOT better than assuming that because you don't know it, nobody knows it. Do you understand what I'm saying here? A bad assumption has led you to a false conclusion. Your reasoning has suffered from a lack of knowledge, and that happens to people all the time. You can fix that. It's now a decision. Is it better for you to keep guessing, or just easier? Is it better for you to study so the lack of knowledge gets fixed, and you can reason rather than guess?

A steel edge needs to have the right balance between toughness, which it gets from the iron, and hardness, which it gets from other elements like carbon or chromium. It needs to have an edge that's sharp enough to cut (which is more like 15-20 degrees for a straight razor; 90 degrees wouldn't be good even for a wedge or an axe), but not so brittle that the edge is destroyed the first time you use it. The glass is under no such restrictions. The only job it has at that point is to cut you. It doesn't have to preserve it's razor edge, and it breaks in such a way that the razor edge has smaller razor edges, so a piece of broken glass is like a serrated knife, with tiny little saws along its length. It's extremely efficient at parting skin with little pressure. It won't hold up to much abuse, though. Glass doesn't have a crystal structure the way you might think, iirc. It's an amorphous solid, and it behaves in some interesting ways.

I refuse to enable your laziness. Why did you just post a link? What is this, why is it relevant?

I forget, which one is OUR dimension?

I'm really pleased you took my suggestion in the spirit it was offered. The Khan Academy is a great place online to study the basics in subjects that interest you. Try them out first, see if you like the style they use. I'm actually a lot like you. I didn't study STEM subjects when I had the chance in school, so I've had to learn in the same sort of piecework way. The problem is, science is best understood when you learn how it all connects, when you learn the processes involved, rather than individual bits of information. Reading popular science is fun, but without knowing how it relates to the rest (which is even more difficult if we don't understand the rest), we make far too many assumptions and mistakes. Welcome, fellow student.

! Moderator Note OK, this is not the subject we're discussing. Let's stick to physics books with a more mathematical approach. Please feel free to start a Physics is a Waste of Time thread.

So, money is a tool that can be misused like any other, but perhaps has greater consequences when it is. Still, lots of examples on either side, though I have to think that overall, money has done more good than harm. Maybe that's what we should be discussing, if you disagree. Or, we could talk about an alternative. What would be better than money?

Imagine you're a hunter. You've gone to hunting school, and you've learned the ways of the wild, how animals behave, what plants can kill you or sustain you. You've learned how to camouflage yourself so you can't be seen as you move in the wilderness. You're a highly trained, knowledgeable hunter who is very successful at what you do. You're out in the wild, and you come across a different hunter, one with very different ideas. He tells you he quit hunter school, but has been studying hunting on his own as a hobby, out of interest only. He claims you should wear bright colors and make lots of weird noises when in the woods, because it confuses the animals who have never heard such sounds. The bright colors will paralyze them with fear, he claims, and you should be able to walk right up and kill them with your pocket knife. You think about it. You try to see where he's coming from, try to wrap your brain around his idea. But what you KNOW about hunting, what all your training and knowledge tells you about it, tells you that his idea might seem like it would work (IF the colors really paralyzed), just because it makes sense that bright colors and weird lights can be confusing. But you know that animals are going to run from the sound first, before they see any colors. You know it's impractical to use a pocket knife on them, and you know a thousand other things that are wrong about this ideas. Don't you wish you could tell this guy (who seems very smart, by the way) that he should go back to hunter school?

OK, now John316 is just pasting unattributed and off-topic junk links, after being asked to stick to irreducible complexity, which he failed to support. This is another tactic I hate, particularly as a moderator, because it gets them banned eventually for breaking the rules, but they always claim they're being banned for either their beliefs or their amazing debate skills.

OK, so that's a big NO on sticking to one topic, per the rules. I'm going to close this but recommend another staff member agree that this type of intellectual dishonesty is NOT the way to talk about any subject.

! Moderator Note Moved from Speculations to Other Sciences.

I always assume the creationist poster isn't going to listen if they've come with the typical, oft-refuted claims. It's more about the person who comes afterward, or the person who follows the discussion out of sincere curiosity without posting. We do get some who seem sincere, and they start out asking questions. Hopefully our desire to set the record straight with correct science will be highlighted by the creationist's willfully closed minds. And frankly, as long as the science is presented honestly, I don't care what people believe about the rest.

Hey, this thread is about the creationist claim of irreducible complexity. Abiogenesis is a whole other topic, and I don't want this all muddled together. Please stick with this topic, John316, until we've talked it out. I have to say, you don't bother to acknowledge when someone clearly refutes one of your claims, or pokes holes in the evidence you provide as support for those claims. I can guarantee that when YOU make a good point, it will be acknowledged by every rational person here. How about you give the same courtesy? Or could you send someone else from your church, maybe the guy who is writing your "stuff"?

I'd actually hoped we could use that one to start the thread, answer all the questions about irreducible complexity, and then move on to the next claim. Unfortunately, that poster is just copy-pasting from creationist sites, so we're not really getting a discussion. Too bad. We could still use it, but I don't think we'll invite John316 to discuss the next claim. Hopefully we'll get someone who can talk to us.

I agree. If we do this, I'd like to start with a single thread. If a need for more arises, we can address that, but I don't think there's enough meat on the bone of creation science to warrant more. They have a limited number of claims for which science is the appropriate tool. I don't know if this will work, but it seems like a compromise that opens learning opportunities. And I like that it will be treated as any other speculation, requiring more than waving hands and arguments from incredulity.