Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
2 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 13/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   A Designer Consistent with the Physical Evidence
hari
Junior Member (Idle past 5489 days)
Posts: 15
From: Harmandar
Joined: 03-10-2009


Message 91 of 327 (502774)
03-13-2009 9:18 AM
Reply to: Message 80 by grandfather raven
03-12-2009 3:51 PM


From your link
quote:
Dembski [an ID theorist] suggested that since (in the limit) as the wavelength of electromagnetic radiation tends to infinity the energy tends to zero, an unembodied intelligent agent could in principle transmit information (designs) to biological entities via an infinite-wavelength zero-energy signal. That sort of conjecture makes physicists of my acquaintance very edgy, invoking as it does . an unembodied agent acting on physical matter via a zero-energy (and therefore zero channel capacity) signal using unfocusable (because of its infinite wavelength) electromagnetic radiation, but that’s something to be worked out later .
. I am known to be an ID critic, and readers may therefore believe that Multiple Designers Theory is presented as a parody of ID. It is not.
lol, beautiful hoax. If signals from an intelligent designer raise concerns about personal privacy, your prayers are answered here
Aluminum Foil Deflector Beanie

Oh don't listen to me, I'm just a girl

This message is a reply to:
 Message 80 by grandfather raven, posted 03-12-2009 3:51 PM grandfather raven has not replied

riVeRraT
Member (Idle past 416 days)
Posts: 5788
From: NY USA
Joined: 05-09-2004


Message 92 of 327 (502786)
03-13-2009 10:10 AM
Reply to: Message 87 by Taq
03-12-2009 5:48 PM


Taq writes:
The fact that my eating hole and breathing hole are one in the same is all I need to know that someone was asleep at the wheel. This is a design flaw.
How is this a design flaw?
Also, I should have said this earlier, but where do we make the assumption that humans were designed as perfect? Also, humans were designed for a purpose. Unless we fully understand that purpose, then we can't judge if the design is flawed or not.
You are saying having two holes would be a better design for living in the physical, but if we are eternal, then it doesn't much matter.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 87 by Taq, posted 03-12-2009 5:48 PM Taq has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 98 by Taq, posted 03-13-2009 11:49 AM riVeRraT has replied

riVeRraT
Member (Idle past 416 days)
Posts: 5788
From: NY USA
Joined: 05-09-2004


Message 93 of 327 (502788)
03-13-2009 10:12 AM
Reply to: Message 88 by lyx2no
03-12-2009 10:49 PM


Re: I'm Not That Fat
lyxno writes:
I'm 100% natural. My atoms are held together by electromagnetic fields.
AKA gravity.
FYI the earth has an electromagnetic field.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 88 by lyx2no, posted 03-12-2009 10:49 PM lyx2no has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 94 by NosyNed, posted 03-13-2009 10:28 AM riVeRraT has not replied
 Message 96 by lyx2no, posted 03-13-2009 10:38 AM riVeRraT has replied

NosyNed
Member
Posts: 8996
From: Canada
Joined: 04-04-2003


Message 94 of 327 (502790)
03-13-2009 10:28 AM
Reply to: Message 93 by riVeRraT
03-13-2009 10:12 AM


Re: I'm Not That Fat
I'm 100% natural. My atoms are held together by electromagnetic fields.
AKA gravity.
Wrong!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 93 by riVeRraT, posted 03-13-2009 10:12 AM riVeRraT has not replied

riVeRraT
Member (Idle past 416 days)
Posts: 5788
From: NY USA
Joined: 05-09-2004


Message 95 of 327 (502791)
03-13-2009 10:35 AM
Reply to: Message 89 by onifre
03-12-2009 11:21 PM


onfire, on the subject of gravity writes:
Many on this site could, you just wouldn't understand it, or probably wouldn't want to understand it.
It was explained to me by those people (on this site), who are more knowledgeable than me on the subject that there is a theory, that attempts to explain gravity. It is not a full explanation, or a proven one, since nothing is ever proven in science. I also understand it. I know quite a bit about magnetic fields, and electromagnetic forces. I wind my own electric motors, and repair them on a daily basis.
I am a fan of science, but not a scientist. I use science everyday in my trade, which helps me to understand certain things. The practical application of these sciences, shows me a lot.
If you go to wikipedia, and read up on gravitation, you will see the history of what we believed were explanations. First there was Galileo, then Newton, then Einstein's relativity, then quantum, and finally at the end we read:
There are some observations that are not adequately accounted for, which may point to the need for better theories of gravity or perhaps be explained in other ways.
So as you can see we don't fully grasp things. This pattern with science is applicable with all sciences.
So as I stated, we know what we know, until we know something else. We are on this learning curve. We know not the beginning or end of this curve.
It is therefor a logical assumption to say we are on the tip of the iceberg. The iceberg being the universe and beyond.
It is a humble attitude.
BTW, the theory of gravity does not explain where it comes from, only how it works.
What physical evidence do you have that a god/designer is necessary?
Necessary? I could never say that. I am a mere speck.
If God exists, and created all this, then all of it is physical evidence.
If we study the works of Hubble, and the big bang theory, I find it funny that the mass of the universe is just the right amount to cause a big bang, how convenient. But I do find the big bang theory consistent with a start to the creation of the universe. But again, these are all theories, and we really just don't know.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 89 by onifre, posted 03-12-2009 11:21 PM onifre has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 99 by onifre, posted 03-13-2009 11:57 AM riVeRraT has replied

lyx2no
Member (Idle past 4716 days)
Posts: 1277
From: A vast, undifferentiated plane.
Joined: 02-28-2008


Message 96 of 327 (502792)
03-13-2009 10:38 AM
Reply to: Message 93 by riVeRraT
03-13-2009 10:12 AM


I'm Not That Thick
Any credibility you may once have had is gone. There is no relationship between gravity and electromagnetism this side of inflation.
I have a mass of 79 Kg. Were I spherical my radius would be ~ 0.27 m. My escape velocity, therefore, is ~ 1/5 of a mm/sec. If I exhale my head should blast off. Nope; that didn't happen.

Genesis 2
17 But of the ponderosa pine, thou shalt not eat of it; for in the day that thou shinniest thereof thou shalt sorely learn of thy nakedness.
18 And we all live happily ever after.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 93 by riVeRraT, posted 03-13-2009 10:12 AM riVeRraT has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 97 by riVeRraT, posted 03-13-2009 11:32 AM lyx2no has replied

riVeRraT
Member (Idle past 416 days)
Posts: 5788
From: NY USA
Joined: 05-09-2004


Message 97 of 327 (502795)
03-13-2009 11:32 AM
Reply to: Message 96 by lyx2no
03-13-2009 10:38 AM


Re: I'm Not That Thick
lyxno writes:
There is no relationship between gravity and electromagnetism this side of inflation.
The theoretical implications of electromagnetism led to the development of special relativity by Albert Einstein in 1905.
Thank you good night.
Don't take what I say out of context. Stick to the point.
My point is that gravity is the glue of the universe. It is not fully understood.
Any credibility you may once have had is gone.
I neither want or desire "credibility" in human terms.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 96 by lyx2no, posted 03-13-2009 10:38 AM lyx2no has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 100 by lyx2no, posted 03-13-2009 3:46 PM riVeRraT has replied
 Message 101 by Taq, posted 03-13-2009 4:31 PM riVeRraT has not replied

Taq
Member
Posts: 9973
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 5.7


Message 98 of 327 (502798)
03-13-2009 11:49 AM
Reply to: Message 92 by riVeRraT
03-13-2009 10:10 AM


Also, I should have said this earlier, but where do we make the assumption that humans were designed as perfect? Also, humans were designed for a purpose. Unless we fully understand that purpose, then we can't judge if the design is flawed or not.
If our purpose is to choke on our food and die then we are perfectly designed.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 92 by riVeRraT, posted 03-13-2009 10:10 AM riVeRraT has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 104 by riVeRraT, posted 03-13-2009 7:20 PM Taq has replied

onifre
Member (Idle past 2951 days)
Posts: 4854
From: Dark Side of the Moon
Joined: 02-20-2008


Message 99 of 327 (502800)
03-13-2009 11:57 AM
Reply to: Message 95 by riVeRraT
03-13-2009 10:35 AM


It was explained to me by those people (on this site), who are more knowledgeable than me on the subject that there is a theory, that attempts to explain gravity.
Your choice of words is curious. ALL theories attempt to explain the observable facts.
If you go to wikipedia, and read up on gravitation, you will see the history of what we believed were explanations.
Or, I could just go to class.
So as you can see we don't fully grasp things. This pattern with science is applicable with all sciences.
This pattern is applicable for anything, really. "We don't fully grasp things..." is an open ended statement, it really is meaningless.
We understand how many, many things function, 100%, no, 99.99999999999%, yes.
Every theory brings you one step closer to the fundamental answer but as one learns more about things the older theories aren't just discarded. They still explain what they observe.
Example: In ALL inertial reference frames Newtons laws for gravity still apply.
BTW, the theory of gravity does not explain where it comes from, only how it works.

Btw...It does!
Gravity is the result of mass density. Gravity isn't a thing that comes from anywhere, it IS curved spacetime. Mass creates it.
No designer required, just some good old fashion mass.
If we study the works of Hubble, and the big bang theory, I find it funny that the mass of the universe is just the right amount to cause a big bang, how convenient.
If you really did study the works of Hubble and the Big Bang theory, you would not have made that statement.
What caused the cosmological expansion has to do with vacuum energy density.
But again, these are all theories, and we really just don't know.
It does not matter what the theory explains, it matters more that the phenomenon is observed. The theory, like you said, is the attempt to explain the phenomenon.
Our existance is theoretically "real". It is a known fact that you exist, but in my attempt to explain your existance, I would only be able to provide theories for your existance. Yet you remain real.
The expansion is observed. The age of the universe is calculated using tried and tested mathematical formulas. At no point is a designer invoked to explain the phenomenon.
Where do you see fit to place a designer?
What is the physical evidence that is consistent with the design concept?

"I smoke pot. If this bothers anyone, I suggest you look around at the world in which we live and shut your mouth."--Bill Hicks
"I never knew there was another option other than to question everything"--Noam Chomsky

This message is a reply to:
 Message 95 by riVeRraT, posted 03-13-2009 10:35 AM riVeRraT has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 105 by riVeRraT, posted 03-13-2009 7:30 PM onifre has replied

lyx2no
Member (Idle past 4716 days)
Posts: 1277
From: A vast, undifferentiated plane.
Joined: 02-28-2008


Message 100 of 327 (502840)
03-13-2009 3:46 PM
Reply to: Message 97 by riVeRraT
03-13-2009 11:32 AM


Re: I'm Not That Thick
The theoretical implications of electromagnetism led to the development of special relativity by Albert Einstein in 1905.
You mean the theory where he didn't mention gravity was about gravity? I must have missed that?
Stick to the point.
Fair enough. Your point was that since science doesn't know everything random notions are equally valid. If you can't untangle gravity from electromagnetism when the rest of the world of physics is trying so hard to join them, how do you think it is you can sort out the properties of God. He leaves behind no evidence of competence as an engineer, astronomer, geologist, biologist, mathematician, physicist or moralist, but because we don't know "His" plan we can't judge.
I neither want or desire "credibility" in human terms.
one must admire your dedication to that end.

Genesis 2
17 But of the ponderosa pine, thou shalt not eat of it; for in the day that thou shinniest thereof thou shalt sorely learn of thy nakedness.
18 And we all live happily ever after.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 97 by riVeRraT, posted 03-13-2009 11:32 AM riVeRraT has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 107 by riVeRraT, posted 03-13-2009 7:33 PM lyx2no has replied

Taq
Member
Posts: 9973
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 5.7


Message 101 of 327 (502841)
03-13-2009 4:31 PM
Reply to: Message 97 by riVeRraT
03-13-2009 11:32 AM


Re: I'm Not That Thick
The theoretical implications of electromagnetism led to the development of special relativity by Albert Einstein in 1905.
Specifically, the discovery that light travels at a specific speed led Einstein to formulate a theory to explain why light always travels at the same speed. This lead to his theory of special relativity (the "special" being the special case of constant velocity). It explained how spacetime changes with velocity.
The general theory incorporated acceleration. Einstein found that gravity and acceleration were the same. He unified them. He explained how mass warps spacetime, and hence it changes the way in which electromagnetism propogates through spacetime.
It all relates back to spacetime. That is the glue of the universe.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 97 by riVeRraT, posted 03-13-2009 11:32 AM riVeRraT has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 102 by lyx2no, posted 03-13-2009 4:50 PM Taq has not replied
 Message 103 by Richard Townsend, posted 03-13-2009 6:15 PM Taq has not replied

lyx2no
Member (Idle past 4716 days)
Posts: 1277
From: A vast, undifferentiated plane.
Joined: 02-28-2008


Message 102 of 327 (502845)
03-13-2009 4:50 PM
Reply to: Message 101 by Taq
03-13-2009 4:31 PM


I Meant to Mention
the invariance of the space-time interval as the revelation that holds it all together but I rushed my post and dropped the ball. Tanks.
Edited by lyx2no, : left out "interval"

Genesis 2
17 But of the ponderosa pine, thou shalt not eat of it; for in the day that thou shinniest thereof thou shalt sorely learn of thy nakedness.
18 And we all live happily ever after.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 101 by Taq, posted 03-13-2009 4:31 PM Taq has not replied

Richard Townsend
Member (Idle past 4732 days)
Posts: 103
From: London, England
Joined: 07-16-2008


Message 103 of 327 (502856)
03-13-2009 6:15 PM
Reply to: Message 101 by Taq
03-13-2009 4:31 PM


Re: I'm Not That Thick
'Specifically, the discovery that light travels at a specific speed led Einstein to formulate a theory to explain why light always travels at the same speed. This lead to his theory of special relativity (the "special" being the special case of constant velocity). It explained how spacetime changes with velocity.
The general theory incorporated acceleration. Einstein found that gravity and acceleration were the same. He unified them. He explained how mass warps spacetime, and hence it changes the way in which electromagnetism propogates through spacetime.'
Actually, Einstein doesn't EXPLAIN why light travels at the same speed for all observers - he postulates that to be true and shows what the consequences are - and the consequences are E=mc2, Lorentz contraction, time dilation etc.
Same thing with general relativity. He asserted that acceleration and gravity were equivalent and derived the theory from that.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 101 by Taq, posted 03-13-2009 4:31 PM Taq has not replied

riVeRraT
Member (Idle past 416 days)
Posts: 5788
From: NY USA
Joined: 05-09-2004


Message 104 of 327 (502864)
03-13-2009 7:20 PM
Reply to: Message 98 by Taq
03-13-2009 11:49 AM


taq writes:
If our purpose is to choke on our food and die then we are perfectly designed.
Is that designer error/flaw, or operator?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 98 by Taq, posted 03-13-2009 11:49 AM Taq has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 106 by Richard Townsend, posted 03-13-2009 7:30 PM riVeRraT has replied
 Message 110 by Taq, posted 03-13-2009 9:04 PM riVeRraT has not replied

riVeRraT
Member (Idle past 416 days)
Posts: 5788
From: NY USA
Joined: 05-09-2004


Message 105 of 327 (502865)
03-13-2009 7:30 PM
Reply to: Message 99 by onifre
03-13-2009 11:57 AM


onfire writes:
Where do you see fit to place a designer?
What is the physical evidence that is consistent with the design concept?
You explained many things of which I already get, so no need to debate.
I see fit to place a designer, because it is a possibility. You can believe in stuff without minimal evidence.
I believed by faith, and then I had an encounter, and continue to this day. For me God is real, and you can have a relationship with Him. But it is subjective, not provable, and all physical evidence in the universe, is evidence of Him.
It's what I believe, and I am entitled to it. I am well aware that others who live their lives by the current scientific theory will think I am crazy, and I understand that, because that is how I once lived.
What pisses me off is when people try to use science to dis-prove God, and also when they use science to prove God (aka creation science). To me science should be considered a gift from God. Or if you don't believe, then it is just awesome.
My main point is, there are somethings we will never know. So all concepts regarding where we came from require a leap of faith.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 99 by onifre, posted 03-13-2009 11:57 AM onifre has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 111 by onifre, posted 03-14-2009 10:25 AM riVeRraT has replied

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024