fripro Posted October 29, 2007 Posted October 29, 2007 UNIVERSE'S INTELLIGENT DESIGN via EVOLUTION is a new and exciting thread. It covers many Controversys The Scientific Controversy Five of the scientific ambiguities among many that puzzle the Earth's people and their scientists are:***** *** #1. Does the Universe have an ether atmosphere (dark matter, dark energy, particles)?** #2. Is the Universe eternal?* *** #3. Was the Universe created out of nothing during a Big Bang?* *** #4. Did a God create the Universe?** *** #5. What is the origin of life? What say you about any of the above?
Mr Skeptic Posted October 29, 2007 Posted October 29, 2007 What say you about any of the above? That this thread will become worthless within 5 posts or less.
Martin Posted October 29, 2007 Posted October 29, 2007 #2. Is the Universe eternal?* *** #3. Was the Universe created out of nothing during a Big Bang?* *** #4. Did a God create the Universe?** Dear fripro, Your proposed thread does not come across as limited to questions which can be settled by empirical science. It touches on areas of speculative opinion. Therefore I have moved it to what I hope is a more appropriate forum. I don't wish to discuss these questions with you myself, but you asked our opinions and I can certainly give you my personal opinion on a few of them: 2. I have seen no evidence to suggest that the Universe is not eternal. As far as I know that is a possibility which cannot be ruled out. 3. I have seen no serious scientific paper claiming that the Universe was created out of nothing at the Big Bang. (I have seen creationist claims that some scientists say this, but I think creationists may unwittingly be spreading misinformation. Or using it as a straw donkey, if that is the word for it.) Numerous scientific papers attempt to reconstruct or infer conditions prior to the big bang---none I know of say it was "nothing"---some of the current research is pretty interesting IMO. 4. I don't think that is a well-defined scientific question, and may not even be something you can properly call speculation. I think you can believe what you wish about that, and define the terms to suit yourself. Perhaps others will have different views, and you can get a discussion going. Good luck.
fripro Posted October 30, 2007 Author Posted October 30, 2007 Wow! I am suprised at your remarks, perhaps others will coment Martin I forgot to ask where did you move this thread?
ghstofmaxwll Posted October 30, 2007 Posted October 30, 2007 What do you mean by the word "ether" here? Is that which we students from England know as Aether? Can you expand on what you mean? please.
fripro Posted October 30, 2007 Author Posted October 30, 2007 What do you mean by the word "ether" here? Is that which we students from England know as Aether? Can you expand on what you mean? please. The Hubble telescope observations imply that dark matter ether must exist, as only about 4 percent of the mass of the Universe (as an estimate) can be accounted
ghstofmaxwll Posted October 30, 2007 Posted October 30, 2007 The Hubble telescope observations imply that dark matter ether must exist, as only about 4 percent of the mass of the Universe (as an estimate) can be accounted Yes I know about wimps and machos, etc. I just dont know what you mean by "ether". Over here "Aether" is known as an out-dated explanation for Lorentz's measurements of space contraction.
iNow Posted October 30, 2007 Posted October 30, 2007 What say you about any of the above? Your overall point, if you truly have one at all, appears to be this: "The Universe being is a living conscious organisism, the same as the Earth." However, all of your inputs are circumstantial as well as circular and self-referencing and, while somewhat interesting as a point of conversation, this isn't science. Then again, it is already in the P&S forum, so carry on. For those who haven't seen this before, I have, and I've already come to my conclusions. http://www.fripro.com/AIDE.html
fripro Posted October 30, 2007 Author Posted October 30, 2007 Your overall point, if you truly have one at all, appears to be this: "The Universe being is a living conscious organisism, the same as the Earth." However, all of your inputs are circumstantial as well as circular and self-referencing and, while somewhat interesting as a point of conversation, this isn't science. Then again, it is already in the P&S forum, so carry on. NASA's Office of Space Science published in The Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics: Scientists are hesitant to modify the known "laws" of physics–especially something like Einstein's theory of gravity, which has been very well tested over the past century. But with something as perplexing as dark energy, it is important to leave no stone unturned. Several leading scientists are now investigating the possibility that the most cherished laws of physics may need to be modified. It is possible this may signal a new aspect of the law of gravity that Einstein overlooked. An ether atmosphere of the Universe fits the above theory
ghstofmaxwll Posted October 30, 2007 Posted October 30, 2007 What do you mean by a frigging ether atmosphere? You will have to elaborate if you want people to take you seriously. ??Can someone else from the bible sector give us non bible jigglers an explanation of what you mean by ether?
fripro Posted October 30, 2007 Author Posted October 30, 2007 Your overall point, if you truly have one at all, appears to be this: "The Universe being is a living conscious organisism, the same as the Earth." However, all of your inputs are circumstantial as well as circular and self-referencing and, while somewhat interesting as a point of conversation, this isn't science. Then again, it is already in the P&S forum, so carry on. For those who haven't seen this before, I have, and I've already come to my conclusions. http://www.fripro.com/AIDE.html I was very suprised to see my manuscript posted as I had no intentions of placing this URL log on in this forum. Little did I think that anyone one would see it prior to my book publisheding date in 2008. Thank you for you interest, sure would like to hear your well founded conclusions. However as the topic of the URL is over 200 pages and many different threads etc. You could, limit your thoughts to this thread . Sincerely What do you mean by a frigging ether atmosphere? You will have to elaborate if you want people to take you seriously. ??Can someone else from the bible sector give us non bible jigglers an explanation of what you mean by ether? The Universe's atmosphere is a mixture of many other radiations and gases such as plasma, dust particles, ice, and many chemical mixtures, depending where one measures. Newton's ether (perhaps dark matter) is particles. This is the atmosphere light waves navigate. Radiation photons cannot navigate empty space; they must have a medium to traverse. Particles may make up the elusive dark matter to which so many scientist have referred.*
ghstofmaxwll Posted October 30, 2007 Posted October 30, 2007 The Universe's atmosphere is a mixture of many other radiations and gases such as plasma, dust particles, ice, and many chemical mixtures, depending where one measures. Newton's ether (perhaps dark matter) is particles. This is the atmosphere light waves navigate. Radiation photons cannot navigate empty space; they must have a medium to traverse. Particles may make up the elusive dark matter to which so many scientist have referred.* OK that is been out since Einstein found the revised explanation to Michelson-Morley. How did you bible guys latch onto it? and why adopt an outmoded concept when there are plenty of contemporary ones to corrupt into creationist teachings?
fripro Posted October 30, 2007 Author Posted October 30, 2007 I am an agnostic and I first posted this thread in the Science Forum, however the moderator transfered it to this string. I believe it belongs in science -however I am not the one who makes those decisions., I guess it rest with the readers and their coments. I'll bet this will raise afew coments
mooeypoo Posted October 30, 2007 Posted October 30, 2007 UNIVERSE'S INTELLIGENT DESIGN via EVOLUTION is a new and exciting thread. It covers many Controversys The Scientific Controversy Five of the scientific ambiguities among many that puzzle the Earth's people and their scientists are:***** *** #1. Does the Universe have an ether atmosphere (dark matter, dark energy, particles)?** #2. Is the Universe eternal?* *** #3. Was the Universe created out of nothing during a Big Bang?* *** #4. Did a God create the Universe?** *** #5. What is the origin of life? What say you about any of the above? These are not controversies. #1 was a MISCONCEPTION - a hypothesis that was discovered to be false. #2 is a question in need of elaboration. Since the "big bang" is hypothesized to be what *created* time itself, there is no meaning to the term "before" the big bang. Does that still mean it is "eternal"? #3 is a plain old strawman. The Big Bang theory does *NOT* state the universe started out of nothing. Taht's something creationists state way too often to confuse ignorant people. #4 is an irrelevant question to science. Which God? Define God.. even if we take the Christian God, the entire point of it is that it's "Outside" the laws of physics. This automatically takes it AWAY from proper dealing of science and into emotion. #5 is in further need of elaboration as well: What life? Plant life, single-celled? intelligent life? What would you define as intelligent? What would you define as a beginning.. etc. "Origin of life" has some hypotheses in science, and they're actually quite substantiated (amino-acid created... all that.. I'm not extremely well versed in them, but I'm sure you can find out in a simple Google search). I am not sure if this is out of experience or out of paranoia, but your "arguments" sound like they're building towards a trap. Either that, or you don't *quite* understand what controversies are, or what the scientific method is. No offense, but you should separate between logical fallacies and true scientific controversies. And don't mix religion, belief, and SCIENCE together (God has nothing to do with science. Nothing. By definition.) Specifically not in a SCIENCE forum. ~moo For those who haven't seen this before, I have, and I've already come to my conclusions. http://www.fripro.com/AIDE.html Apparantly - my gut feeling *was* out of experience. Not surprised at *all*. Fripro, I don't mind debating with you (I'm arguing creationist/intelligent-design-proponents very often) but you will have to avoid logical fallacies first. And probably move this debate to the religion forums.. that's not my call, though... it's the moderators'. I'm not sure what is up with religion/vs/science arguments I just know they've moved from this forum. Or.. correct me if I'm wrong..? Oh.. yes, one more thing: Fripro, you need to understand that when you post a thread with the term "Intelligent Design" on it, you are BOUND to have people go at it with the "WTF" attitide. You are in a *SCIENCE* forums, not religion forums or mythological-storytelling forum, and we are not as silly as to approach intelligent design arguments without suspicion. For years creationists(oh.. sorry.. "intelligent designers".. whatever) twisted what scientists SAY (hence 'strawman'), the experiments or results and denied empirical proofs to use logical fallacies on the unsuspecting, lay-man masses to blatantly LIE to them about science. Don't expect any rational scientific-minded individual to come hugging this subject. Really. With all due respect. I wouldn't. ~moo
DrDNA Posted October 31, 2007 Posted October 31, 2007 For those of you who think that this is bible based or creationist. It is definitely not....... It is new age total crap.
mooeypoo Posted October 31, 2007 Posted October 31, 2007 For those of you who think that this is bible based or creationist. It is definitely not....... It is new age total crap. Yea not conventional creationism but the 'eternal matter energy power' stuff. I know. All irrational people are the same to me. ~moo
fripro Posted October 31, 2007 Author Posted October 31, 2007 These are not controversies. #1 was a MISCONCEPTION - a hypothesis that was discovered to be false. ANSWER: The hypothesis is not false and it is a scientific fact. The Universe has an ether atmosphere (dark matter, dark energy a particle atmosphere)?**This is what light travels on, the same as sound travels in the atmosphere. #2 is a question in need of elaboration. Since the "big bang" is hypothesized to be what *created* time itself, there is no meaning to the term "before" the big bang. Does that still mean it is "eternal"? ANSWER: There was a hypothesized big bang but it was a local bang, and there are many other big bangs that have occurred both before and after the so called Big Bang that occurred in our Milky Way galaxy of the Universe where Earth resides.. The many other big bang type super galactic explosions have been recorded in deep space by the Hubble telescope's photographs. Big bangs did not start time as time is eternal. #3 is a plain old straw man. The Big Bang theory does *NOT* state the universe started out of nothing. Taht's something creationists state way too often to confuse ignorant people. Answer: If the Big Bang created the Universe as the some scientist believe, it could not have occurred out of nothing. As the Universe was there then, now, and forever. #4 is an irrelevant question to science. Which God? Define God.. even if we take the Christian God, the entire point of it is that it's "Outside" the laws of physics. This automatically takes it AWAY from proper dealing of science and into emotion. ANSWER:I am an agnostic and The theory of the Universe's Intelligent Design via Evolution (UIDE), is a guiding means (a road map) of Newton's Universe's ether sea construction and operation. This Intelligent Design (ID) and Intuitive Intelligence (II) is not to be mistaken with the suggested religious version of Intelligent design (Id), which leaves Evolution out of the human enlightenment. #5 is in further need of elaboration as well: What life? Plant life, single-celled? intelligent life? What would you define as intelligent? What would you define as a beginning.. etc. "Origin of life" has some hypotheses in science, and they're actually quite substantiated (amino-acid created... all that.. I'm not extremely well versed in them, but I'm sure you can find out in a simple Google search). ANSWER#5:To further understand the origin of life on Earth scientists have studied where life exists on Earth. For example, microbes have been found in acid flows, in the down vents of volcanoes, in lakes of soda, an on the under side of the polar ice, arranging the planet for the rest of creation. Scientists have detected bacteria living contentedly in high clouds, procreating, some seeding the water vapor and causing raindrops or hail. Who knows what kind of bacteria is then deposited on Earth's land or oceans. These low life forms of bacterial life are contributing to the vitality of Earth. Earth is a living organism. Bacteria thrives in Yellowstone's hot springs and rocks and at the bottom of Lake Yellowstone. These strange marine like creatures survive in extreme heat and without oxygen. The Universe (ID)sends commands to these creatures through DNA and download programming. Question: I am not sure if this is out of experience or out of paranoia, but your "arguments" sound like they're building towards a trap. Either that, or you don't *quite* understand what controversies are, or what the scientific method is. No offense, but you should separate between logical fallacies and true scientific controversies. ANSWER: No trap--however do we individual humans even have the brain power to know and understand the Universe's true mechanism? If our brains, through evolution (Refer to baby Lucy), do reach the point when we can handle the vast computations required to understand, how would it affect the human intelligentsia? Just because Lucy lived on Earth three million years ago does not mean all humans now residing on Earth, developed on Earth. Soon the interconnected brains of millions of humans When connected through an Internet like networks can better understand the Universe and the Earth we reside on, than the individual can. STATEMENT BY MOO: And don't mix religion, belief, and SCIENCE together (God has nothing to do with science. Nothing. By definition.) Specifically not in a SCIENCE forum. ~moo ANSWER: Where is the religion, as I am agnostic. UIDE is science. ''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''' Apparantly - my gut feeling *was* out of experience. Not surprised at *all*. Fripro, I don't mind debating with you (I'm arguing creationist/intelligent-design-proponents very often) but you will have to avoid logical fallacies first. And probably move this debate to the religion forums.. that's not my call, though... it's the moderators'. I'm not sure what is up with religion/vs/science arguments I just know they've moved from this forum. Or.. correct me if I'm wrong..? ANSWER: Wrong UIDE is science of and eternal Universe, religion was createdby man ................................................................... Moo: Oh.. yes, one more thing: Fripro, you need to understand that when you post a thread with the term "Intelligent Design" on it, you are BOUND to have people go at it with the "WTF" attitide. You are in a *SCIENCE* forums, not religion forums or mythological-storytelling forum, and we are not as silly as to approach intelligent design arguments without suspicion. For years creationists(oh.. sorry.. "intelligent designers".. whatever) twisted what scientists SAY (hence 'strawman'), the experiments or results and denied empirical proofs to use logical fallacies on the unsuspecting, lay-man masses to blatantly LIE to them about science. Don't expect any rational scientific-minded individual to come hugging this subject. Really. With all due respect. I wouldn't. ~moo ANSWER: MOO please seperate ID from Id. Thank you for your informative and interesting, thought provoking questions. FRIPRO
iNow Posted October 31, 2007 Posted October 31, 2007 ANSWER: MOO please seperate ID from Id. You quoted the entire post. Which section that Mooeypoo posted was it to which you are responding? Also, I'm very uncertain of how you mean for us to seperate "ID" from "Id." Can you elaborate? Thanks for your help.
ParanoiA Posted October 31, 2007 Posted October 31, 2007 How interesting. The locals beating up the new kid. Gee..that's new... I saw no references to "the bible" except by "the scientists" in this thread. Fripro never mentioned it. He also said "A" god...not "god". Seems like a mass hysterical strawman by all parties involved, thus far, in reference to the OP. If I didn't know any better I'd think you all had a chip on your shoulder... My hat's off to fripro for handling himself with class. There was no reason to answer his OP with animosty - none at all.
iNow Posted October 31, 2007 Posted October 31, 2007 How interesting. The locals beating up the new kid. Gee..that's new... We've crossed paths before. Just give it time. You'll enjoy how he misses context, quotes your post and says nothing even closely relating to it, and uses circular reasoning to support claims. As I said, give it time. It's like talking to cassette tape after a while.
ParanoiA Posted October 31, 2007 Posted October 31, 2007 We've crossed paths before. Just give it time. You'll enjoy how he misses context, quotes your post and says nothing even closely relating to it, and uses circular reasoning to support claims. As I said, give it time. It's like talking to cassette tape after a while. I appreciate your experience with him, but he hasn't done this yet. So, while you're probably right (my money's definitely on it), I think it would be more productive to lead by example and be consistent with your scientific, objective approach. After all, this is why science trumps ID.
fripro Posted October 31, 2007 Author Posted October 31, 2007 You quoted the entire post. Which section that Mooeypoo posted was it to which you are responding? Also, I'm very uncertain of how you mean for us to seperate "ID" from "Id." Can you elaborate? Thanks for your help. A very enlighting question... The theory of the UNIVERSE'S, INTELLIGENT DESIGN via EVOLUTION (UIDE)© is a guiding road map of Newton's Universe's ether sea construction and operation. Intelligent Design (ID) and Intuitive Intelligence (II) is not to be mistaken with the suggested religious version of Intelligent design (Id), which leaves evolution out of the human enlightenment. Syndicated press columnist Paul Varnell, on August. 21, 2005 said: "Fundamentalists desperately want creationism and Intelligent design (Id) to be true." Which it is not.
D H Posted October 31, 2007 Posted October 31, 2007 Naming one's pet theory in BLOCK CAPITALS, copyrighting the name, and dropping the names of luminaries such as Newton and Einstein are all signs of psychoceramics. fripro, do you also go by the name of Farsight?
fripro Posted October 31, 2007 Author Posted October 31, 2007 Naming one's pet theory in BLOCK CAPITALS, copyrighting the name, and dropping the names of luminaries such as Newton and Einstein are all signs of psychoceramics. fripro, do you also go by the name of Farsight? Newton not me was the father of the ether atmosphere of the Universe , and thousands of other scientist hold the same opinion. String theory is out ether is in. Astronomer researcher from Johns Hopkins University Baltimore (James Jee) using NASA's Hubble Space Telescope discovered a ghostly ring of dark matter that formed long ago during a titanic collision between two massive galaxy clusters. The ring's discovery is among the strongest evidence yet that dark matter exists. Astronomers have long suspected the existence of the invisible substance as the source of additional gravity that holds together galaxy clusters. Such clusters would fly apart if they relied only on the gravity from their visible stars. Although astronomers don't know what dark matter is made of, they hypothesize that it is a type of elementary particle that pervades the Universe. Credit: NASA http://www.physorg.com/news98450367.html. You quoted the entire post. Which section that Mooeypoo posted was it to which you are responding? Also, I'm very uncertain of how you mean for us to seperate "ID" from "Id." Can you elaborate? Thanks for your help. All of them #1 thru #5,(I am told the message is too short so I have made it longer)
Recommended Posts