Another hijack from Reconciling science and religion

[studiot]

40 minutes ago, Anonymous Participant said:

I mean what particular scientific fact do you know of that does not have an intelligence inherent in it?

You will find when you look at it objectively that science is the study of the intelligence of the universe. It seems nonsensical to call yourself a scientist and deny the universe is an intelligent construct.

I think you are arguing at cross purposes with the public in general and members here in particular.

Science often takes a common word and imparts a specific restricted meaning to it for the purposes of scientific analysis/discussion.

To me, and to most others, Intelligent Design is associated with some sort of motivation or intention.

Everything is a 'design', adding the word Intelligent adds this motivation leading to the structure of that design
The opposite is, of course, non intelligent design which does not necessarily mean unintelligent (ie stupid or unsuccessful) design.

Remember that Science in general does not address motivation. It can tell us how to get to the Moon and something of what we might expect when we get there, but not should we go or do we want to go.

So I understand Intelligent Design to mean that something (or someone) desires it so.
That presupposes the something or someone acting as stage director.

 

As regards to your request for an example,

Are you prepared to discuss the response of living animals to a sudden, unresolvable and extended food crisis?

 

Edited September 12, 2017 by studiot

[Prometheus]

4 minutes ago, Anonymous Participant said:

What evidence? All that has changed is science has been throttled around the neck by an agenda of secular humanism and atheism

Is that the same hundred years or so that has seen the most scientific, technological and medical advances in humanity? 

Planes fly. Get over it.

[Strange]

13 minutes ago, Anonymous Participant said:

Wrong, it is an observation based upon my knowledge of science

Sorry, that doesn't work. You have already demonstrated with your comments on the Big Bang theory that you are almost totally ignorant of the science. 

[Silvestru]

As predicted:

7 minutes ago, Silvestru said:

I am sure you will say Newton and I will give you a God of the Gaps argument.

 

3 minutes ago, Anonymous Participant said:

Newton's conception of the physical world provided a stable model of the natural world that would reinforce stability and harmony in the civic world. Newton saw a monotheistic God as the masterful creator whose existence could not be denied in the face of the grandeur of all creation

Do you also believe in Alchemy? Mysticism? Because Newton sure did. 

Quote

It appeared to Newton that the Solar System is unstable, and he thought that every 200 years or so, God would have to intervene by putting the planets back in their place. Fortunately, the 'God hypothesis' turned out to be unnecessary. Pierre-Simon de Laplace demonstrated that to first order, the Solar System is indeed stable; the mean motion of all bodies remain invariant with time.^[13] 

 

[Anonymous Participant]

2 minutes ago, Prometheus said:

Is that the same hundred years or so that has seen the most scientific, technological and medical advances in humanity? 

Planes fly. Get over it.

Planes flying or computers functioning have nothing to do with nor are they dependent on atheistic pseudoscience.

2 minutes ago, Strange said:

Sorry, that doesn't work. You have already demonstrated with your comments on the Big Bang theory that you are almost totally ignorant of the science. 

According to your opinion, which is totally irrelevant. It's not what you can say that has any significance or relevance in a debate, it's what you can prove.

2 minutes ago, Silvestru said:

As predicted:

 

Do you also believe in Alchemy? Mysticism? Because Newton sure did. 

 

In the future what now see as scientific fact or theory will be ridiculed just as these things are now. I am absolutely certain of it

[Strange]

4 minutes ago, Anonymous Participant said:

Planes flying or computers functioning have nothing to do with nor are they dependent on atheistic pseudoscience.

So you agree that quantum theory and special relativity are  not examples of "atheistic pseudoscience".

Good. We maybe making some progress.

[Silvestru]

4 minutes ago, Anonymous Participant said:

In the future what now see as scientific fact or theory will be ridiculed just as these things are now. I am absolutely certain of it

While that is certainly a possible case for some theories, the fact that you can fit all your scientific "knowledge" on a post stamp give you no right to say that.

You are dismissing science because you do not understand it. 

[Anonymous Participant]

3 minutes ago, Strange said:

So you agree that quantum theory and special relativity are  not examples of "atheistic pseudoscience".

Good. We maybe making some progress.

I never said anything regarding those two ideas as of yet and neither has anything to do with aircraft or computers regardless of what so called popular science claims.

[Silvestru]

"In medieval times, no one understood how planets and stars could move in their orbits, so angels were thought to guide them in paths along crystal spheres circling the earth. But with the work of Copernicus, Kepler and Newton, the motion of the planets was explainable by the action of gravitation.

Isaac Newton, even though he was the one who first discovered the law of gravitation and applied it to the motion of planets, still thought that a supernatural being was required to periodically adjust orbits. But later French mathematician Pierre Simon Laplace showed that the instabilities that Newton worried about would iron themselves out."

Do you see a pattern here? We introduce God whenever we fail to find a reasonable explanation or a logical answer. It's natural. 

(I am not dismissing the great work of the above scientists in any way shape or form) I am just trying to prove a point.

[studiot]

I don't know if you saw my previous post in the recent flurry but here is a true story I was looking at yesterday.

 

In my part of the world it is hilly and often rainy.

A man refurbishing a cottage wanted fancy oak faced flooring in the hallway.

That is a deliberate design by an intelligence (I'm not saying great or small intelligence, just some intelligence)

Unfortunately he also wanted fancy entrance doors flush with the outside.

Yesterday it rained heavily and the water gushed down the hill behind the entrance, flooding into the hall and damaging all that expensive flooring beyond repair.

 

Please comment on the intelligence of that design.

Edited September 12, 2017 by studiot

[Anonymous Participant]

2 minutes ago, Silvestru said:

While that is certainly a possible case for some theories, the fact that you can fit all your scientific "knowledge" on a post stamp give you no right to say that.

You are dismissing science because you do not understand it. 

If you ask any two people in the world to give their rendition of a pseudoscience theory no two will have the same understanding.  That has been my consistent observation. Read this forum , the titles on those subjects and you will see ZERO consensus exists. I understand them as well as you or anyone else does or is supposed to.

[Strange]

Just now, Anonymous Participant said:

I never said anything regarding those two ideas as of yet and neither has anything to do with aircraft or computers regardless of what so called popular science claims.

Another impressive demonstration of ignorance. I can assure you that without quantum theory and special relativity, your computer would not exist. This is based on a long career actually designing the components in computers, as well as some understanding of the theory.

Sad, really.

(And without general relativity, the internet would collapse.)

[Anonymous Participant]

5 minutes ago, Silvestru said:

"In medieval times, no one understood how planets and stars could move in their orbits, so angels were thought to guide them in paths along crystal spheres circling the earth. But with the work of Copernicus, Kepler and Newton, the motion of the planets was explainable by the action of gravitation.

Isaac Newton, even though he was the one who first discovered the law of gravitation and applied it to the motion of planets, still thought that a supernatural being was required to periodically adjust orbits. But later French mathematician Pierre Simon Laplace showed that the instabilities that Newton worried about would iron themselves out."

Do you see a pattern here? We introduce God whenever we fail to find a reasonable explanation or a logical answer. It's natural. 

(I am not dismissing the great work of the above scientists in any way shape or form) I am just trying to prove a point.

We? Speak for yourself. Newton believed in an architect of the universe like every other notable scientist in history. They believed this because there is no other rational explanation for all of the observations they were making. It's not what they couldn't explain, it's what they could see.

2 minutes ago, Strange said:

Another impressive demonstration of ignorance. I can assure you that without quantum theory and special relativity, your computer would not exist. This is based on a long career actually designing the components in computers, as well as some understanding of the theory.

Sad, really.

(And without general relativity, the internet would collapse.)

Be specific and explain how special relativity or quantum theory applies to computer hardware. Good luck

 

 

CHECK

Edited September 12, 2017 by Anonymous Participant

[Strange]

8 minutes ago, Anonymous Participant said:

Be specific and explain how special relativity or quantum theory applies to computer hardware. Good luck

Jesus H Christ.

The design of the transistor was based on quantum theory. It is very unlikely it could have been developed by trial and error. Modern quantum theory incorporates special relativity (thanks to Dirac). Pretty much every advance in semiconductor technology depends on an understanding of quantum theory. For example, the flash memory in your computer relies on quantum tunnelling.

[beecee]

15 hours ago, Anonymous Participant said:

I simply acknowledge the reality that the universe is an intelligent arrangement and there is an inherent intelligence evident in everything about it. I am not sure of the origin of the intelligence but suspect it has always existed and the way we perceive it is a result of our own conscious interpretation. I also think anyone who calls themselves a scientist who denies the universe is an intelligent arrangement is delusional about one or the other.

No, the universe is nothing more then a sheer accident.....a quantum fluctuation in the quantum foam, perhaps among other fluctuations and maybe BBs...it is the story of the emergence of gravity from the first Planck instant to shaping the universe that we know of today...it is the story of chemistry and abiogenisis and evolution...it is the story of how we arose from star stuff...it is the story of entropy, complexity and chance.

https://www.ted.com/talks/david_christian_big_history/transcript?language=en#t-78936

 

Edited September 13, 2017 by beecee

[Anonymous Participant]

Just now, beecee said:

No, the universe is nothing more then a sheer accident.....a quantum fluctuation in the quantum foam, perhaps among other fluctuations and maybe BBs...it is the story of the emergence of gravity from the first Planck instant to shaping the universe that we know of today...it is the story of chemistry and abiogenisis and evolution...it is the story of how we arose from star stuff...it is the story of entropy, complexity and chance.

 

Sounds like a BS "theroy" to me

Lmao!

Again, the universe has most likely always existed, as has life. Time is an artificial construct, as some famous head of science once said ,time exists in our own conscious to keep everything from happening at once, but it does nevertheless. Somewhere a star is dying and a star is being born, and somewhere life is emerging from the "primordial ooze" and somewhere else a planet's life is gasping it's last dying breath, an endless cycle with no beginning or end necessary. A LIVING SENTIENT BEING undergoing the "biological" processes of "life".

Imagine, no need to explain the origin of the universe, which is impossible anyway. The logical conclusion is it must have always existed. We will live and die never answering the most fundamental question everyone is born asking...how the f*** did I get here and why? That is what every real scientist wonders in the deep recesses of his mind. What I want to do now is explain what light is, so can we get on with it?

[beecee]

7 minutes ago, Anonymous Participant said:

Sounds like a BS "theroy" to me

Lmao!

Again, the universe has most likely always existed, as has life. Time is an artificial construct, as some famous head of science once said ,time exists in our own conscious to keep everything from happening at once, but it does nevertheless. Somewhere a star is dying and a star is being born, and somewhere life is emerging from the "primordial ooze" and somewhere else a planet's life is gasping it's last dying breath, an endless cycle with no beginning or end necessary. A LIVING SENTIENT BEING undergoing the "biological" processes of "life".

Imagine, no need to explain the origin of the universe, which is impossible anyway. The logical conclusion is it must have always existed. We will live and die never answering the most fundamental question everyone is born asking...how the f*** did I get here and why? That is what every real scientist wonders in the deep recesses of his mind. What I want to do now is explain what light is, so can we get on with it?

Understandable obviously taking account of your stance elsewhere with regards to your silly bullshit comment.  No the universe/spacetime as we know it, had a beginning and we can logically describe that from t+10-43 seconds. Speculatively speaking though, if anything did exist before the BB [quantum foam, nothing] that may have existed for eternity: That as yet is unknown.And time is real, just as space is real, and spacetime. Whether it is fundamental or not is unknown.

Edited September 13, 2017 by beecee

[Anonymous Participant]

7 minutes ago, beecee said:

Obviously taking account of your stance elsewhere. No the universe/spacetime as we know it, had a beginning and we can logically describe that from t+10-43 seconds. Speculatively speaking though, if anything did exist before the BB [quantum foam, nothing] that may have existed for eternity: That as yet is unknown.And time is real, just as space is real, and spacetime. Whether it is fundamental or not is unknown.

You see any stars getting further away? You DO know the big bang boom theory is loosely based on the hubble constant, do you know what that is? 10^43 seconds INDEED!

Using the apparent doppler shift , astrophysicists and astronomers concluded the further away a celestial body is the faster it is moving away....because there is an apparent drop in frequency of light...what if there is another more logical reason why the further away sometime is the less energetic the light reaching us from it is? Could it be over billions of years it looses energy by some natural process?

 

The fact that the universe is expanding if indeed it is does not prove that the beginning of this expansion was its genesis moment anyway. What is much more likely is it is a part of an never ending cycle of expansion and contraction

Edited September 13, 2017 by Anonymous Participant

[beecee]

Just now, Anonymous Participant said:

You see any stars getting further away? You DO know the big bang boom theory is loosely based on the hubble constant, do you know what that is? 10^43 seconds INDEED!

Using the apparent doppler shift , astrophysicists and astronomers concluded the further away a celestial body is the faster it is moving away....because there is an apparent drop in frequency of light...what if there is another more logical reason why the further away sometime is the less energetic the light reaching us from it is? Could it be over billions of years it looses energy by some natural process?

 No I don't see any stars moving away from me: But I also do not see any stars outside of the Milky Way galaxy. Let me continue the science lesson.  You see the expansion of the universe is only observed over large scales; On smaller scales such as walls of galaxies, groups of galaxies and galaxies themselves, gravity decouples us from that expansion rate...understand? Then over even smaller scales, the EMF and strong and weak nuclear play there part in keeping planets together and beings such as you and me.

On your ignorant comment "maybe there is another logical reason" then OK, tell me, what is that other logical reason that explains better then the explanation we have now...Hmmm, I'm smelling that agenda again. 

[Anonymous Participant]

1 minute ago, beecee said:

 No I don't see any stars moving away from me: But I also do not see any stars outside of the Milky Way galaxy. Let me continue the science lesson.  You see the expansion of the universe is only observed over large scales; On smaller scales such as walls of galaxies, groups of galaxies and galaxies themselves, gravity decouples us from that expansion rate...understand? Then over even smaller scales, the EMF and strong and weak nuclear play there part in keeping planets together and beings such as you and me.

On your ignorant comment "maybe there is another logical reason" then OK, tell me, what is that other logical reason that explains better then the explanation we have now...Hmmm, I'm smelling that agenda again. 

The most logical reason for the red shift is a loss of energy over time.

[beecee]

Just now, Anonymous Participant said:

The most logical reason for the red shift is a loss of energy over time.

Tried light? Don't be daft, that has been debunked by better people then you or I.

Or if you have any new evidence to support it, then you know what to do, don't you?  

Your claims on this or any other forum changes nothing with regards to mainstream tried and tested theories. You are simply wasting your time, some cyber energy that in a short amount of time, will be lost in cyber space forever. Bye anyway, its been fun debunking your nonsense although in reality I see others have  done that before me. bye again, things to do, places to see. 

[hypervalent_iodine]

!

Moderator Note

I think we're done here too.