Intelligent design hijack from Could relativity be incorrect

[Anonymous Participant]

On 8/17/2017 at 0:11 PM, mistermack said:

No you didn't. You knew what was meant but get a pleasurable little kick out of contradicting people.

I certainly don't begrudge you those little moments if it makes you happy.

Ego has no real place in science, neither does belief. Real science does not seek to silence opposing viewpoints by disqualifying them as non mainstream. You could be right if your hypothesis holds water, until someone disproves or falsifies it it is valid as such. I don't agree with your description and basic premise and I can prove to myself and most educated and moderately intelligent individuals that they are incorrect using only facts.

The one thing all exceptionally intelligent individuals understand is what we actually know to be true and what we think is true or are accepted as true by even "the mainstream" are not necessarily the same thing , that is referred to as the bandwagon fallacy.  One of the things I cannot help but notice is that it is those of mediocre intelligence who possess disproportionate large egos who are always sure they are right in their own minds, while those of superior intelligence are open to new ideas and never quite convinced of anything if there are reasonable doubts or contradictions. It is fine to be able to repeat what one has learned , but being able to scrutinize it independently defines true intelligence. Those who possess superior intelligence invite open debate because they shine in such conditions, and those of limited understanding seek to limit intellectual expression to what they think they know, ie what they have been taught. What if you have been intentionally mislead? What proof do YOU have that "quarks" exist or light is a mass-less particle with kinetic energy and there is a "speed limit" associated with mass in any frame of reference?. NONE. None at all. You are relying on the information supplied by others to form your belief system, and that is what it is. It takes big money to run these kids of experiments and access to the process is always limited, there is no really independent confirmation as required by science, science becomes an agenda of those who have he power and influence to steer it where they want it to lead, which in the case of post 19th century science is the singular belief that the universe is a random happenstance and there is no meaning to our existence.

I came to this forum with the intent of introducing the concept of intelligent design, because in my understanding I cannot explain the universe in any other way or the fact that the scientific process works to describe it. Just the fact that relativity "works" to make predictions through complex mathematical interaction supports this idea. I have much to contribute to those who have an open mind and who are not indoctrinated. The best explanations are always those that everyone understands the same way, and as can be ascertained by reading this forum it is easy to see all of you believe you know what you're talking about and understand the concepts involved, but doesn't it make you wonder why there is so little consensus and so much dissension? Like maybe that was the intent? Just a bunch of egos clashing.

The important thing to understand about the theory of relativity is that it is a completely mathematical construct that incorporated observations into its foundation. It cannot be wrong within that context because it was created as a mathematical expression of the observations, that is it can be used to predict and quantify effects  but this does not mean it's basic premise is correct.  In my own opinion if you are reluctant to consider anything that conflicts with your own beliefs and seek to silence those with conflicting viewpoints or information to share, you have no place in the intellectual discipline that is science.

[Manticore]

12 minutes ago, Anonymous Participant said:

The one thing all exceptionally intelligent individuals understand is what we actually know to be true

Ego detector overload alert Captain.

[Anonymous Participant]

37 minutes ago, Manticore said:

Ego detector overload alert Captain.

Read the first line in the post you replied to. I can't help but notice the sig at the bottom of your post. Talk about ego! Anyone who disagrees with you is subhuman.

rac·ist

ˈrāsəst/

noun

noun: racist; plural noun: racists

1. 1.

   a person who shows or feels discrimination or prejudice against people of other races, OR who believes that a particular race is superior to another.

Comparing present day sub Saharan Africa to Rome 2000 years ago or a graph of the bell curve illustrating and comparing intelligence of whites , blacks, and Asians should illustrate to you well that the races are not equal and some are inferior to others in a variety of areas. To impose impossible equality degrades and undermines society. It might not be politically correct but it is factually correct and it doesn't have to mean you dislike or are prejudice against another race. I think the races (and us as individuals) have strengths and weaknesses that invariably make us unequal and yes, superior or inferior to other races.

Edited September 6, 2017 by Anonymous Participant

[studiot]

59 minutes ago, Anonymous Participant said:

I came to this forum with the intent of introducing the concept of intelligent design

Preaching is unwelcome here, most especially in a section entitled Modern and Theoretical Physics.

[Anonymous Participant]

Just now, studiot said:

Preaching is unwelcome here, most especially in a section entitled Modern and Theoretical Physics.

And yet that is exactly what every one of you who is seeking to silence this opposing viewpoint is doing. Promoting the idea of intelligent design is not supporting a religious belief system, it is supporting all of the observable empirical data and information., but imposing atheistic ideas on science is indeed preaching a belief system.

[studiot]

3 minutes ago, Anonymous Participant said:

And yet that is exactly what every one of you who is seeking to silence this opposing viewpoint is doing. Promoting the idea of intelligent design is not supporting a religious belief system, it is supporting all of the observable empirical data and information., but imposing atheistic ideas on science is indeed preaching a belief system.

I would honestly say that far from seeking to silence you, a great deal of patience has been expended on your behalf, waiting to see if you had anything coherent to say.

Edited September 6, 2017 by studiot

[Manticore]

16 minutes ago, Anonymous Participant said:

Comparing present day sub Saharan Africa to Rome 2000 years ago or a graph of the bell curve illustrating and comparing intelligence of whites , blacks, and Asians should illustrate to you well that the races are not equal and some are inferior to others. It might not be politically correct but it is factually correct and it doesn't have to mean ou dislike or are prejudice against another race.

Typical racist bullshit. There is in fact only one race of humans - the human race.

1 minute ago, Anonymous Participant said:

Promoting the idea of intelligent design is not supporting a religious belief system,

Yes it is.

[Anonymous Participant]

Again, I challenge anyone here to provide a single piece of empirical proof or evidence that the universe is not an intelligent design.

[studiot]

1 minute ago, Anonymous Participant said:

Again, I challenge anyone here to provide a single piece of empirical proof or evidence that the universe is not an intelligent design.

That presupposes it was 'designed' at all.

Can you prove that?

[Anonymous Participant]

2 minutes ago, studiot said:

I would honestly say that far from seeking to silence you, a great deal of patience has been expended on you behalf, waiting to see if you had anything coherent to say.

By coherent you mean in agreement with yourself, and your belief system of pseudo scientific atheism. See the problem here?

[Manticore]

1 minute ago, Anonymous Participant said:

Again, I challenge anyone here to provide a single piece of empirical proof or evidence that the universe is not an intelligent design.

The fact that "Intelligent Design" proponents exist seems pretty good evidence to me.

[Strange]

6 minutes ago, Anonymous Participant said:

And yet that is exactly what every one of you who is seeking to silence this opposing viewpoint is doing.

No one is silencing you. You were asked to provide evidence. You were unable to do this. You have, effectively, silenced yourself.

2 minutes ago, Anonymous Participant said:

By coherent you mean in agreement with yourself, and your belief system of pseudo scientific atheism.

Atheism is not a belief system. Creationism/ID is based on a belief system (one that takes a number of metaphorical myths as being literally true.)

And atheism has nothing to do with science. There are, and always have been, many religious scientists.

[studiot]

6 minutes ago, Anonymous Participant said:

By coherent you mean in agreement with yourself, and your belief system of pseudo scientific atheism. See the problem here?

Actually, no.

All I have done so far is examine the consistency of your assertions with your premises and found the chain of reasoning wanting.

So I consistently pointed out this lack of coherent reasoning.

So far, I have not ventured my own personal; world view.

Edited September 6, 2017 by studiot

[MigL]

"It takes big money to run these kinds of experiments, and access to the process is always limited"

General Relativity was based solely on thought experiments ( there were no elevators in free fall in 1916 ), and it cleared up some inconsistencies with Newtonian gravity at the time, such as irregularities in Mercury's orbit, the problem of 'action at a distance', and finally put to rest absolute time and space ( and the aether ).

GR in effect, filled in gaps which were becoming apparent with Newtonian gravity, and is consistent with Newtonian gravity in those areas where both are applicable.
Electrostatic attraction between dissimilar charged particles as a gravitational model fails immediately as non charged particles ( and even massless particles like photons ) interact gravitationally.
your subsequent mention of Intelligent Design is even more absurd, and the mental equivalent of 'grasping at straws' because you have no other explanation.
If the universe is so complex that it requires an intelligence to design it, then the designer must be vastly MORE complex.
Doesn't the designer, then, require a designer ( by your logic ).
And so on, and so on...
( turtles all the way down )

It was you who stated "you have no place in the intellectual discipline that is science", not any of us.
Presumably because we are 'close minded' and not 'open to new ideas', but actually, we are simply resisting ideas that do not pass scientific scrutiny.

[Anonymous Participant]

1 minute ago, studiot said:

That presupposes it was 'designed' at all.

Can you prove that?

Proving it is an intelligent design proves it was designed.If all of the empirical evidence indicates it is, then as scientists we are require to accept that it is. This is exactly why every single notable scientist in history that predates Einstein  believed in an intelligent design and sentient superior designer. Even Einstein believed this, ironically. It's a logical conclusion that only a hard headed moron (like a religious fanatic) would deny

[Phi for All]

!

Moderator Note

These posts have been split from a mainstream topic. I post them here to show how ID proponents mislead and obfuscate any discussion with poor logic, semantics tactics, and constantly avoiding any actual support one could call reasonable. It's the same old creationist hogwash, and they decided to use the word "intelligence" instead of the actual concept.

 

[DrP]

11 minutes ago, Anonymous Participant said:

Again, I challenge anyone here to provide a single piece of empirical proof or evidence that the universe is not an intelligent design.

 

Laryngeal nerve in mammals...  particularly the giraffe.   If that WAS designed then it was far from intelligent.

[studiot]

3 minutes ago, Anonymous Participant said:

Proving it is an intelligent design proves it was designed.If all of the empirical evidence indicates it is, then as scientists we are require to accept that it is. This is exactly why every single notable scientist in history that predates Einstein  believed in an intelligent design and sentient superior designer. Even Einstein believed this, ironically. It's a logical conclusion that only a hard headed moron (like a religious fanatic) would deny

But you haven't proven anything.

 

All you have done is made some further exaggerated statements and one plainly false one.

You should read Russell "Why I am not a Christian"

[DrP]

17 minutes ago, Anonymous Participant said:

And yet that is exactly what every one of you who is seeking to silence this opposing viewpoint is doing. Promoting the idea of intelligent design is not supporting a religious belief system, it is supporting all of the observable empirical data and information., but imposing atheistic ideas on science is indeed preaching a belief system.

No one is seeking to silence it....   but you need to provide proof for your claims... otherwise we will think you are just another deluded brainwashed creationist spouting what they have been taught from a very out of date book full of errors. Why should anyone take you seriously at all? 

 

[swansont]

3 hours ago, Anonymous Participant said:

Again, I challenge anyone here to provide a single piece of empirical proof or evidence that the universe is not an intelligent design.

!

Moderator Note

That's not how this works. You need to provide evidence in support of your assertion. If you do not, this will be closed. If you go off-topic, this will be closed.

 

[Area54]

@Anonymous Participant

I am presidposed to accept intelligent design. A better way of stating that would be to say I would delighted if it turned out to be valid. Why? It would overturn much of our thinking and thereby offer an exciting new era of investigation and discovery. (Not that things aren't currently pretty exciting.)

So I would relish even as little as a sound hint as to the validity of ID. I don't need a full blown confirmation. Equally, I don't wish to knock down a perfectly good dwelling house simply because someone has a sketch of an even grander mansion they will erect on the site. I want to see proper plans and costings.

So too with ID. Rather than point out the weaknesses in current theories, or identifying areas we know little about (any fool can do that) I'd like to see some solid evidence to support the concept. You seem an enthusiast for it. I imagine you must have some solid arguments or evidence in support of it. I'm ready to read them, when you are ready to write about them.

[seriously disabled]

There is no evidence to support intelligent design. Absolutely nada.

The way I see it there is no creator or designer that actually cares about humans, otherwise this world will not be so cruel and hard for many people every day.

If there was a God or an intelligent designer then people would not get cancer or diabetes or Parkinson's disease or multiple scelerosis.

The fact that good people are suffering on this planet and many of them even dying every day to me kinda proves that there is no God or an intelligent designer.

Edited September 6, 2017 by seriously disabled

[Area54]

17 minutes ago, seriously disabled said:

There is no evidence to support intelligent design. Absolutely nada.

The way I see it there is no creator or designer that actually cares about humans, otherwise this world will not be so cruel and hard for many people every day.

If there was a God or an intelligent designer then people would not get cancer or diabetes or Parkinson's disease or multiple scelerosis.

The fact that good people are suffering on this planet and many of them even dying every day to me kinda proves that there is no God or an intelligent designer.

Even if I accept the argument that the difficulties of the world disprove a benign God (and I don't) that would not disprove an intelligent designer. A cruel and heartless world would be evidence for a malevolent intelligent designer.

[Itoero]

Why do people call it intelligent design? Why not just 'design'?

[beecee]

9 hours ago, Anonymous Participant said:

Again, I challenge anyone here to provide a single piece of empirical proof or evidence that the universe is not an intelligent design.

Simply because any inference/belief that the universe was intelligently designed or magically created, means that there was a designer and creator: Then of course if you are courageous enough, you will ask the next obvious question...who designed the designer? And then again, who designed the designer that designed the designer? add infinitum. And of course since we have come a long way since the time we thought the Earth was the center of the universe, to real empirical evidence that we are nothing more then one planet, around an unimportant average star, residing in the outer suburbs of an average galaxy, among countless of other galaxies, and since we have come along way in accepting that Adam and Eve were created by this mythical designer and from there the human race has sprung, to irrefutable proof that life actually evolved from the most insignificant mould to many distinct species including us, and since we have shown that light is not instantaneous but has a finite speed, and consequently space and time are   variable quantities, and since we have shown that stellar systems such as  our solar system are not magically created, but evolve after gravitational collapse into a star/s and planets, asteroids, comets etc, I therefore contend that science has pushed the ignorantly inspired mythical deity of any persausion, into near oblivion, at least to t+10-43 seconds.

Now I also contend that you and your ilk can continue on this ignorant path into myth, for as long as you like, but what I would really like to know, is why you seem obsessed with conducting your obvious evangelistic crusade on a science forum, rather then standing up in the pulpit of your local church. Why annoy us with your mythical nonsense? 

10 hours ago, Anonymous Participant said:

I came to this forum with the intent of introducing the concept of intelligent design, because in my understanding I cannot explain the universe in any other way or the fact that the scientific process works to describe it.

The simple solution to alleviate your obvious ignorance in being unable to explain the universe any other way then through mythical ID, is to read some reputable material that shows this assumption of yours to be entirely fictitious at best. A basic recommendation is a book released in the eighties by Stephen Hawking, called "Brief History of Time"  

Edited September 6, 2017 by beecee