1221 replies to this topic

[Antonio2014]

Creative intelligence cannot be explained by a naturalist today.

 

Of course it can be. Please begin here: http://en.wikipedia....Human_evolution

 

 

For that statement to be true and happen by chance something had to happen that when looked at statistically had a very slim if not almost impossible chance of happening.

 

Again and again and again and again... the same basic misunderstanding of what Darwinism is.

 

Please close this timewasting thread.

Edited by Antonio2014, 16 March 2015 - 12:31 PM.

[Russ Maughan]

lol

Genisis is about the birth of a baby. Real simple. You're in the womb. You notice light but have no idea what it is yet. Ok?

Then you notice gravity.

etc etc

 

What book comes after Revelation? TRANSGENISIS, TRANSEXODUS and away we go into the stars to write the next chapters.

Have a nice NOW, forever

[shadowhawk]

 

Gain of function mutation does not have the power to explain the amount of information necessary to account for life as we see it.  Evolution has to explain new information by mutation and then it is selected for by natural selection.  No one denies natural selection and it has never been in dispute.  Where the issue is, is in mutation having the creative power to drive evolution,  Obviously you don't have a clue what ID is and all you can do is call names and run away..

You are making unsubstantiated claims without any references. What are the most cited papers on ID? If there's just a handful of questionable uninfluential crap, ID is pseudoscience. 

 

 

I gave you a whole bunch of sources and you haven't refuted one of them .  All you can do is call names.  ID might be wrong but it will not be because of this kind nonsense.
 

[shadowhawk]

 

Gain of function mutation does not have the power to explain the amount of information necessary to account for life as we see it.  

 

And we're back to just your ignorant opinion which has no peer reviewed study towards it and is not science.

 

I.D. is out.

 

Someone close the thread.

 

Just declare you won without any evidence.  On top of that then you want to declare the topic closed.  I have yet to hear anything but name calling.

 

Gain of function mutation does not have the power to explain the amount of information necessary to account for life as we see it.  

 

And we're back to just your ignorant opinion which has no peer reviewed study towards it and is not science.

 

I.D. is out.

 

Someone close the thread.

 

Just declare you won without any evidence.  On top of that then you want to declare the topic closed.  I have yet to hear anything but name calling.

[shadowhawk]

 

Still nobody has managed to name a single influential paper on ID or creationism, I wonder why... 

.  Creative intelligence cannot be explained by a naturalist today.  What is it in a man's brain that allows us to improve and engineer complex machines and discuss our existence in language in forums with language while no other species can, so far hasn't been explained by science except that our brains are different because we evolved further.  For that statement to be true and happen by chance something had to happen that when looked at statistically had a very slim if not almost impossible chance of happening.  In spite of the long odds, this theory is accepted as possible and argued as the only worth testing by some, because it only uses mechanisms present in nature. (whether we actually observed these mechanisms accomplishing it or not.)

 

Because, ID by nature is making an assumption that there is a mechanism that might not be explained by natural causes, it is not accepted as scientific by naturalists.  They will not peer review it in their publications, because they and their peers defined all causes that cannot be explained by a natural mechanism, are not worthy of review.  Maybe if further research was done science might find the designer is part of nature and is natural.  Maybe they will find evidence the designer is outside of nature and can manipulate and build a quark or an atom like a man assembling an airplane.  

 

If we leave it up to naturalists, and some sort of ID is the truth we will never know.  They don't want science to contemplate it, and then search for evidence.  I wonder why...:-)

 

I will continue posting my hypothesis, i am really busy right now  

 

 

There is ID in our reality right now.  All we have to do is look in the mirror.  What explains it?  We, like all animals show various signs of ID.  What explains us, mutations?  Random Chance?  Is there something else.  ID is obvious, it is where it comes from that is in question.  Good post.
 

[shadowhawk]

lol

Genisis is about the birth of a baby. Real simple. You're in the womb. You notice light but have no idea what it is yet. Ok?

Then you notice gravity.

etc etc

 

What book comes after Revelation? TRANSGENISIS, TRANSEXODUS and away we go into the stars to write the next chapters.

Have a nice NOW, forever

You can LOL but you have no clue of what Genesis is.    This is Incoherent and off topic.

 

[Russ Maughan]

Sorry but the very arguement of Intelligent design is moot. Non-sequitor. Or was until we started designing ourselves. Question everything. Even yourself.

We've all read or seen movies about aliens seeding Earth, or radiation stirring point zero in our evolution.

I dissagree with much of modern psycology but that is another topic. Explain intuition.

And if an All Knowing God created this mess, I'll have a few words for him someday too.

 

[shadowhawk]

Well I question whether you are on topic and interested in the question it poses.    I suppose it is good you go to movies and disagree with Psychology and question intuition and have issues with God and want to tell him so, but this is about ID.  So. do you think there is Intelligent design in the universe?

[shadowhawk]

The only issues are not with ID but Darwinian Evolution has them as well.  Here is a podcast with problems that need to be addressed.

 

http://intelligentde...T17_12_46-07_00

 

 

[Russ Maughan]

Thanks, I'll have a look. Edit this in a bit if it will let me.

Ah yes. I can sympathise with sincere Christians. I still believe in much of why religeon is needed I just can't fully support it and the scientific comunity without feeling like a cheat. My cross to bare.

I've even been asked if I were a preacher/priest. (face to palm)

I still visit church when I can get away with it. Kinda breaks my heart.

 

IF I put myself in you guys shoes for a minute, I suppose, sure. There are indeed enough real parallels in the universe we've uncovered so far to hint there could be some huge secret God is keeping until we prove we are responsible enough to share it.

Edited by Russ Maughan, 17 March 2015 - 01:27 AM.

[shadowhawk]

Russ there are Many Christian Scientists today and I could give you sources but it is off topic here where we are talking about ID.  There are many Christian scientists who are evolutionists and the Roman Catholic Church is not against evolution.  What does evolution mean to you anyway.  What are the driving mechanisms of evolution that explain everything and are there any problems with it?  There are reasons for ID and much of the objection here comes from ignorance and commitment to other ideologies.  You need to know what ID really says before you start thinking you do.

[Russ Maughan]

To me evolution is purely random. Just luck and probabilities. Gravitational flux, solar wind, the black hole in the middle of our galexy warping time in ways we barely comprehend much less understand, it's flight through the universe when it should be stationary, how poorly the human body is actually designed. Lot's of stuff. I could go one for pages.

 

I'd heard the Catholic hierarchy was coming around. Always respected they're nurture of the planet. (cough)

 

Ultimately there can be no explaination of it. I believe the more we learn about our universe the more questions will arise. I think dark matter is simply a part of our universe travelling through time faster or slower than we are, in a seperate continuum, impenatrable until we can navigate time. I probably still haven't answered this as fluently as I could. Sleepytime.

[platypus]

Still nobody can list the achievements and cited papers on ID. It's clearly not a science, please close this thread. 

[Antonio2014]

To me evolution is purely random. Just luck and probabilities.

 

Another person that doesn't understand Darwinism at all. It is NOT a theory about random evolution. Darwinism is not random at all. Its mechanism has two parts: random mutation AND natural selection. Darwinism produces good organisms, they don't evolve randomly at all. Please see the two videos I posted above.

 

I still think that this thread should be closed. It's pointless to discuss Darwinism's truth with people that lack such a basic understanding of it. But, since it will not be closed, I will probably stop posting on it.

[Russ Maughan]

Natural selection is an illusion. It is just as random. If a tiger sees it's favorite meal but isn't hungry it will not attack. If it sees it's least favorite meal but is hungry it will attack.

 

If same tiger wants to mate with larger stronger tiger but isn't in heat it will not mate....

Edited by Russ Maughan, 17 March 2015 - 12:29 PM.

[platypus]

Tally so far for ID:

• Influential (cited) papers = 0
• Breakthroughs or "big accepte4d results" = 0
• Applications or technologies = 0
• Credibility = 0

Clearly it's not a science, let's close the thread and discuss the philosophy of ID in the other threads.

[Russ Maughan]

I haven't written any papers to site. Question everything.

Got you're attention.

Non-sequitor

If you are asking me to parot other scientists, that will rarely ever happen.

 

Pot calling the kettle black too. Prove me wrong with you're own observations. Not someone elses theories.

[Russ Maughan]

Is Intelligent Design Science or is it purely religion?
Pure speculation.


Why is it science?
It isn't.


What makes it science?
It isn't.


If ID contains some Science, how much is science and how much is Religion? Where is the line drawn?
It isn't.


Is ID being used as a tool to bring those outside of the faith in? Is that all it’s good for?
Yes.


How much of the Bible is involved in ID?
100%


How do creationists deal with conflicts regarding other faiths?
War.

[shadowhawk]

Anyone who has studied the Philosophy of science knows there are a number of scientific methods whose use depends upon the subject studied.  Science is a method not a position and there are more than one method.  It is childish to claim a method can't be applied to anything.  So claiming ID can't be the subject of science is ignorant and dumb.  I noticed no one related to my post on evolution.  http://www.longecity...-36#entry719264

Random mutation and natural selection are the two methods of Evolution.  It is amazing how intelligent people do not know this.  ID has a problem with the ability of raw chance to produce what we see.  That is the issue.

[shadowhawk]

Is Intelligent Design Science or is it purely religion?
Pure speculation.


Why is it science?
It isn't.


What makes it science?
It isn't.


If ID contains some Science, how much is science and how much is Religion? Where is the line drawn?
It isn't.


Is ID being used as a tool to bring those outside of the faith in? Is that all it’s good for?
Yes.


How much of the Bible is involved in ID?
100%


How do creationists deal with conflicts regarding other faiths?
War.

Off topic, without substance. 

[brianjakub]

In the following theory I use the term quantum creation event as proposed by Alan Guth.  The term implies creator, but Alan Guth does not believe a QCE needs a cause, though in the theory I am proposing the complexity would be hard to obtain by chance.  I am only presenting the complexity so I can end up with a universe that naturally produces the constants we observe. not to prove or identify a creator, a designer.(for now anyway, though I think there is evidence suggesting some possibilities, none of them (so far being perverted unicorns) 

 

I propose a Quantum Creation Event (QCE) where, the vacuum of space was quantized into I will call scalar bosons.  These scalar bosons are entangled in groups of four and arranged in the shape of a diamond touching each other, I will call a virtual particle, (as it entangles I think a group of four are considered a Higgs Boson). Every scalar boson is spinning at the speed of light with opposite scalar bosons spinning in opposite directions.  Two scalar bosons opposite each other must orbit each other at the speed of light on a reference axis.  This reference axis is then running through the center of the other two other scalar bosons constructing the diamond shape of a virtual particle.    Every reference axis, of every virtual particle is in a 90-degree reference to all other reference axes in the ether.  Every pair of scalar bosons is orbiting around a reference axis in the opposite direction to the pair of scalar boson in the higgs boson next to it.  This allows all higgs bosons to interlock like gears.  But unlike gears that spin on one axis, the scalar bosons of the virtual particle are rotating (pulsating) around each other on two axes, and interlocking like gears in a three dimensional matrix. The following illustration provides a view of two interlocking virtual particles each made up of four scalar bosons .  See figure 1 next page. 

 

figure 1(in figure 1 the scalar bosons are mislabeled virtual quarks)

(when a scalar boson come in contact with an electron it can become an electron it can become a photon)

  T

 

    The four balls represent four virtual quarks, called scalar bosons. (They are not really spherical in shape, they are the shape needed to fill all of space).  Each virtual particle is made up of these scalar bosons, spinning on both its reference axes, at the speed of light.  This makes every virtual particle a three dimensional universe, or space, of its own.  Each pair of points or balls in a virtual particle make up a string.  As, these strings interlock, they will form long strings that carry the gravitational force across the universe. (Which will be discussed later in String Theory.) 

    If you repeat this interlocking pattern throughout our universe, in all 3 dimensional directions, you will have a three-dimensional spatial matrix, of interlocking standing waves, with 90-degree reference axes throughout.  A universe-wide interlocking singularity (it appears as a singularity until the interlock broke by matter).  This universe wide interlocking matrix became an instantaneous Big Bang, of universe wide, uniform order, in a QCE.  A three dimensional, perfectly clean canvas of light, made up of virtual particles formed out of scalar bosons.  This is what scientists call the space-time continuum. This matrix, or the ether, is a universe surrounds and contains matter in the form of atoms and molecules. The ether will seem as a vacuum because virtual particles, scalar bosons, and photons are too small to detect.  (Later in this paper I will talk about Dark Energy, the Graviton, the Higg’s Boson or God Particle, and Super Symmetry, which are theoretical ideas that would provide evidence of the ether.)  The ether must logically be there, whether we can sense it or not, to carry the energy waves we observe as radio waves, light waves, etc...  Hawking tells how James Clerk Maxwell predicted this.

  A Brief History of Time - Stephen Hawking... Chapter 2  Maxwell’s theory predicted that radio or light waves should travel at a certain fixed speed. But Newton’s theory had got rid of the idea of absolute rest, so if light was supposed to travel at a fixed speed, one would have to say what that fixed speed was to be measured relative to.

It was therefore suggested that there was a substance called the "ether" that was present everywhere, even in "empty" space. Light waves should travel through the ether as sound waves travel through air, and their speed should therefore be relative to the ether. Different observers, moving relative to the ether, would see light coming toward them at different speeds, but light's speed relative to the ether would remain fixed. In particular, as the earth was moving through the ether on its orbit round the sun, the speed of light measured in the direction of the earth's motion through the ether (when we were moving toward the source of the light) should be higher than the speed of light at right angles to that motion (when we are not moving toward the source). In 1887Albert Michelson (who later became the first American to receive the Nobel Prize for physics) and Edward Morley carried out a very careful experiment at the Case School of Applied Science in Cleveland. They compared the speed of light in the direction of the earth's motion with that at right angles to the earth's motion. To their great surprise, they found they were exactly the same!  A Brief History of Time - Stephen Hawking... Chapter 2

    Einstein in the special theory of relativity said everything is limited to the speed of light, as Hawking explains.

A Brief History of Time - Stephen Hawking... Chapter 2

The fundamental postulate of the theory of relativity, as it was called, was that the laws of science should be the same for all freely moving observers, no matter what their speed. This was true for Newton’s laws of motion, but now the idea was extended to include Maxwell’s theory and the speed of light: all observers should measure the same speed of light, no matter how fast they are moving. This simple idea has some remarkable consequences. Perhaps the best known are the equivalence of mass and energy, summed up in Einstein’s famous equation E=mc² (where E is energy, m is mass, and c is the speed of light), and the law that nothing may travel faster than the speed of light.  A Brief History of Time - Stephen Hawking... Chapter 2

 

 Since Michelson and Morley, and Einstein made these observations science didn’t think the ether existed. It was the fact that they didn’t imagine the structure of the ether that they came to this conclusion.  If a signal is sent as a wave it must travel around the outside edge of each virtual particle that constructs the matrix of the ether.  But, each of these virtual particles are spinning or pulsating on its reference axes at the speed of light.  That means it is limited by how fast the particles are spinning or pulsating.

    So, why can’t they detect the ether, if it regulates the speed of light?  As in the experiment, no matter how fast a flashlight is moving through the ether, as soon as the light wave leaves the flashlight its speed is relegated to how fast a wave can travel through the ether, which is made up of virtual particles rotating (pulsating) at the speed of light.  As the wave enters the ether it travels around the outside edge of the virtual particles.  The outside edge is rotating at a fixed speed established by God at the creation of the universe.   This established rotational speed of the virtual particles of the ether establishes the speed of light through the medium.

A baseball-throwing machine that uses rubber tires to throw a ball could illustrate this.  No matter how fast you insert the ball into the machine, it comes out the same speed on the other side because it’s relegated to the speed of the wheels.  And you can never insert the ball faster than the wheels are spinning.  For that same reason, nothing can travel through the ether faster than it is pulsating or rotating, which is the speed of light. 

     Light travels through the fluid as a wave.  This wave excites and vibrates the virtual quarks (photons) of the ether, which are particles.  Since, the ether is a fluid-like matrix constructed out of particles, this makes light appear as a particle or photon as the wave travels from one photon to the next through the ether.  So, light is an energy wave traveling through the fluid of the ether, but due to the particle nature of the medium it is traveling through it can appear as a particle to us at times. 

    Michelson-Morley unknowingly showed these properties of the ether (constant speed of light and particle-wave duality) in their experiment.  (This section explains the experiment in a more technical manner, and doesn’t have to be completely understood by the less science minded person who just wants a basic understanding of my theory.) The Michelson-Morley Experiment  

[Russ Maughan]

Does QCE incorporate momentum? Is momentum even relative to pre QCE? Sounds more like a phase to me but that would imply time as we know it existed. I don't think it did. Possibly a type of harmonic continuum? Oscillating back and forth until QCE.

[platypus]

Science results in published articles and increasing level of knowledge where new results build on earlier ones. Pseudoscience does not. Nobody can name even a single influential result that creationism or ID has resulted in since the time of Darwin. 

Edited by platypus, 18 March 2015 - 07:40 AM.

[Russ Maughan]

Sorry but if I published one particular idea I've kept secret for 30 years someone would try the experiment. On Earth. If it went haywire it would stop nuclear reactions over uncountable lightyears of area. Probably need a pocket universe to try it safely.

[brianjakub]

Does QCE incorporate momentum? Is momentum even relative to pre QCE? Sounds more like a phase to me but that would imply time as we know it existed. I don't think it did. Possibly a type of harmonic continuum? Oscillating back and forth until QCE.

I don't know if momentum is relative pre QCE.  We don't know what space looked like before the universe we live in now was established, that is assuming it had a beginning.  I think there is evidence to suggest that the QCE is pre big bang, and the QCE and the Big Bang are not the necessarily the same event.  This is a possibility according to the the BGV singularity theorem..  For now I will concentrate on how matter and space is constructed to give us the constants and other observations we observe today.  I think the QCE established the harmonic continuum.  What I've hypothesized so far is the structure of space possibly initiated at the QCE.  I am going to hypothesize the structure of matter inside the space of the atom so that the constants naturally come out of that structure.  I think the structure of the atom was also established at the QCE. 

[Russ Maughan]

I just got a chill. Does someone believe Genisis is code? It's clever but not based on the physical universe. It is based on the universe in our dreams. That does not invalidate it. Nor does it mean You are God. It is just what it is, a story. It does touch on intuition and emotional infection; can be scarey. A big brother murdering his younger over a psychotic break. Yuk. Was it just a bad dream Cane had? A warning so we wouldn't kill our little brothers? Lots of perspectives but I think the bottom line is like Mr Spock would say. Simplify. Humanistic brainwaves (self awareness) start as early as 6 months in the womb so in theory a person could have memories from as early as 2 or 3 months before birth. Functional maturity of the cerebral cortex is suggested by fetal and neonatal electroencephalographic patterns...First, intermittent troencephalograpic bursts in both cerebral hemispheres are first seen at 20 weeks gestation; they become sustained at 22 weeks and bilaterally synchronous at 26 to 27 weeks. So if you wanted to start at square one of your life story. I mean really really nail it. There you go.

 

Brian I'll get back to you. I hadn't looked at it as pre big bang. I prefer the steady state universe with a loose interpretation of temporal mechanics. When I first met Brokenportal online his nickname fascinated me, took me 20 years to figure out why. Goofy electrons.

[shadowhawk]

Science results in published articles and increasing level of knowledge where new results build on earlier ones. Pseudoscience does not. Nobody can name even a single influential result that creationism or ID has resulted in since the time of Darwin. 

 

Do I hear a parrot.  I bet you want to close the thread. 
 

[shadowhawk]

 

Does QCE incorporate momentum? Is momentum even relative to pre QCE? Sounds more like a phase to me but that would imply time as we know it existed. I don't think it did. Possibly a type of harmonic continuum? Oscillating back and forth until QCE.

I don't know if momentum is relative pre QCE.  We don't know what space looked like before the universe we live in now was established, that is assuming it had a beginning.  I think there is evidence to suggest that the QCE is pre big bang, and the QCE and the Big Bang are not the necessarily the same event.  This is a possibility according to the the BGV singularity theorem..  For now I will concentrate on how matter and space is constructed to give us the constants and other observations we observe today.  I think the QCE established the harmonic continuum.  What I've hypothesized so far is the structure of space possibly initiated at the QCE.  I am going to hypothesize the structure of matter inside the space of the atom so that the constants naturally come out of that structure.  I think the structure of the atom was also established at the QCE. 

 

The dimensions of the cosmos are space/time.  Was there a space/time before the becoming event.  (Notice I didn't use the word "creation." 

[Russ Maughan]

Add the word "definable" to cosmos I'll leave you alone :P

 

I'm mad curious what is beyond our cosmos. Beyond the last galaxy. State of the art would have us believe nothing, no time, no matter. Aint buyin it. There is something there. It is just not in our continuum. Pffff

[shadowhawk]

I see you are a man of faith 

Edited by shadowhawk, 19 March 2015 - 03:56 AM.