Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
2 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,807 Year: 3,064/9,624 Month: 909/1,588 Week: 92/223 Day: 3/17 Hour: 1/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   ICANT'S position in the creation debate
mike the wiz
Member
Posts: 4752
From: u.k
Joined: 05-24-2003


Message 376 of 687 (523124)
09-08-2009 2:52 PM
Reply to: Message 374 by Rrhain
09-08-2009 2:31 PM


When I mention evidence I mean the induction so far shows that all life comes from life, nothing more. The modus tollens, even one example of a falsification, would disprove the induction.
The fact of design is observable. Your only argument can be; "there is no design".
Qualify what would be a design, given the poor designs humans come up with.
Can God make things evolve? By definition he must, he is God - but it doesn't follow that it happened because of this.
I believe the bible's literal Genesis is the best explanation of the facts, I only have "doubts" against this, no reasons, other than weak ones that require giving natural processes a 0% interest rate.
Edited by mike the wiz, : No reason given.
Edited by mike the wiz, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 374 by Rrhain, posted 09-08-2009 2:31 PM Rrhain has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 420 by Rrhain, posted 09-09-2009 3:16 AM mike the wiz has replied
 Message 425 by NosyNed, posted 09-09-2009 9:19 AM mike the wiz has replied

  
Sasuke
Member (Idle past 5154 days)
Posts: 137
Joined: 08-21-2009


Message 377 of 687 (523127)
09-08-2009 3:01 PM
Reply to: Message 362 by ICANT
09-07-2009 6:22 PM


Re: time
ICANT,
yes and by that definition you have experienced "duration". So you have experienced TIME since that is the def of time.

OPEN YOUR MIND!
Sasuke!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 362 by ICANT, posted 09-07-2009 6:22 PM ICANT has not replied

  
Sasuke
Member (Idle past 5154 days)
Posts: 137
Joined: 08-21-2009


Message 378 of 687 (523130)
09-08-2009 3:09 PM
Reply to: Message 375 by mike the wiz
09-08-2009 2:47 PM


mike the wiz,
I dont know if I understand you correctly but it seems that you are claiming that abiogenesis is unlikely. You do realize that abiogenesis would be simply life coming from non life. The idea of abiogenesis actually does support the assertion of their being a god. So why would you argue it?

OPEN YOUR MIND!
Sasuke!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 375 by mike the wiz, posted 09-08-2009 2:47 PM mike the wiz has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 380 by mike the wiz, posted 09-08-2009 3:32 PM Sasuke has replied

  
ICANT
Member
Posts: 6769
From: SSC
Joined: 03-12-2007
Member Rating: 1.5


Message 379 of 687 (523132)
09-08-2009 3:24 PM
Reply to: Message 372 by JonF
09-08-2009 8:03 AM


Re: Talking about
Hi JonF,
JonF writes:
List 'em.
Oh, and no comment on the lifetime of muons? No comment on the velocity portion of the GPS clock correction? No proposed mechanism by which the frequency of cesium transitions is changed by a variation in the gravitation field without chnging the rate of passage of time?
All in due time here is the things you asked for as a message I was preparing for you. So I will add it to this post.
Hi JonF,
JonF writes:
The only way for the clock to run faster is for time to run faster on the satellite.
Are you sure?
JonF writes:
That's the only thing that can affect the frequency of cesium transitions.
Then how do they adjust the frequency to sync the satellite atomic clock's to the stationary earth atomic clock's?
Which is done once each day.
JonF writes:
Gravity itself does not.
Then why go on to tell me how gravity does affect the atomic clock?
JonF writes:
If you think that putting cesium atoms in a lower gravitation field changes their transition rate without affecting the rate of time's passage feel free to propose a coherent, detailed, mathematically founded theory that explains that and all the other thousands of observations that have verified GR. Similarly explain the velocity effect. Until then we'll stick with the only viable explanation that we've got.
I am not that smart to propose a theory but how about this
one
In this article you will find:
Velocity and motion does effect the total energy of the clock system.
It just doesn't work when the clocks are on the satellites.
Clocks constructed on earth run at a certain rate. If flown eastbound they slow down. Westbound they speed up.
Time remain unaffected and that simply changing the ratio of energy of the clock to that of its environment causes the slowing.
The twins in the Twin Paradox end up the same age.
Our only experience with measuring the lifetime of muons comes from measuring their decay at or near the surface of the Earth.
We have an around-the-world clocks experiment currently in progress, the Global Positioning Satellite System
The GPS clocks are pre-corrected for their motion relative to a hypothetical earth centered clock prior to launch.
We have satellites in circular orbits. One orbit is geo-synchronous, while the other is polar. That means at a lot of the time satellites are going in the opposite direction. Which presents no problem because after launch they are keeping synchronous time as anticipated.
That is not what relativity says will happen. You will need to look at the article and see figure 5.
But now let us consider the special relativistic view on a clock to clock basis, not reflecting through the hypothetical earth center frame. In the figure, we first consider clocks in position 1 and 2. These two clocks at the instant shown have no relative velocity with respect to each other, and they can be considered to reside momentarily in the same inertial reference frame. Special relativity predicts that these two clocks will be synchronous, which of course, they are.
Now consider clocks 2 and 3. At this point in the orbits, these two clocks momentarily have a relative velocity of 2rw, as they are moving opposite one another. A signal received by one of these clocks sent from the other should be dilated by the Lorentz factor for this velocity. Similarly, clocks 4 and 5 have a relative velocity of (2r2w2)1/2. Signals passed beween these two clocks should experience the Lorentz factor for this relative velocity. Special relativity is very specific on the effects of time as seen between any two relatively moving observers without necessitating a transfer through a real or imagined third reference frame.
Thus even though the GPS clocks are able to be synchronized using the so-called special relativistic time dilation formula as referred through the center-of-earth frame, once in their actual orbits the pre-correction should not work consistently regarding signals passed between any two relatively moving clocks. That the system does work is due to the fact that the clocks slow for reasons addressed in this paper, and not due to the Lorentz time dilation formula. This indicates that, while the equations of special relativity produce correct results to a large variety of problems to which they are applied, there is something fundamentally wrong with the underlying assumptions that were used to develop those equations and with their assumed realm of validity of application.
It seems relativity is not able to do what many claim it can do.
Most importantly, however, it must be stressed again that time itself has not slowed down. Only the arbitrary units of measure with which we choose to mark time have slowed, whether atomic processes, frequency changes or molecular reactions. The distinction is important. In the relativistic model, clocks slow down because time itself slows down. No "mechanical" description is provided as to why the clocks slow, and, if it were, the effect would be additive. Quentin Smith has argued at length and quite successfully in Language and Time from a philosophical standpoint that "metaphysical time is the only time in the actual world and that it is the only time in any possible world in which there is time."
As I said the clock slows down time does not slow down.
Just a crazy question I have. If the duration of a second is determined by dividing up the duration of a rotation of the earth on it axis, wouldn't the earth have to slow down to make time slow down for the satellite clock?
But for the earth bound clock it would have to remain steady.
We do have to add leap seconds to the atomic clocks because the earth's rotation is slowing down.
Conclusions of the paper.
We have seen in this paper how the results of experiments may be interpreted in terms of special relativity or in a Galilean framework of energy differentials. In the case of pulsar timing algorithms, the state of the art does not yet allow a conclusive decision as to a preference for special relativity over other approaches, except to note that the algorithms used, very complex in design and application, do not consider the effects of actual motion between the earth and the pulsar. The GPS system, a very elaborate Hafele-Keating experiment, uses the same hypothesis concerning hypothetical third reference frames as used in the original experiment and in pulsar timing algorithms. In this case, however, it is demonstrated quite clearly that transforming through a hypothetical third frame can not compensate adequately for the directly observable relative motion between any two GPS clocks, and the system should not work if interpreted in terms of special
relativity.
JonF writes:
The fact that you don't like GR and its implications is not evidence that GR is wrong. Your unsupported assertions are not evidence that GR is wrong.
Whether I like or dislike GR has nothing to do with it being right or wrong. It doesn't make any difference what I think. It is either right or it is wrong. There are things that are wrong.
Your assertions don't make it right either.
God Bless,

"John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 372 by JonF, posted 09-08-2009 8:03 AM JonF has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 395 by JonF, posted 09-08-2009 5:30 PM ICANT has replied

  
mike the wiz
Member
Posts: 4752
From: u.k
Joined: 05-24-2003


Message 380 of 687 (523134)
09-08-2009 3:32 PM
Reply to: Message 378 by Sasuke
09-08-2009 3:09 PM


Hi.
I don't argue life didn't come from none-life. I believe in Genesis afterall, NOT abiogenesis.
I believe the only plausable explanation for life is a designer bringing it about. You will ofcourse argue that this could happen via natural means.
I agree that is possible, but again, I believe Genesis is the correct account and makes most theological sense of the whole bible, to take it literally. It's composition isn't that of a parable despite the claims it is.
I won't rule out that possibility, but the fact is that evolution will never be accepted together with a "Genesis". The scientific community will only accept a natural answer, even if the history or "truth" is not a scientific answer. This is why I made a topic saying that scientific explanations of origins go too far and assume a great deal from an actual position of ignorance.
There is the God of the gaps, but there is also a "naturalistic license" that "presumes" nature has the power to make processes responsible for things which aren't processes.
Design isn't a process, it's an observed fact. therefore it is an error to find a problem where there isn't one.
This is why evolution has to be so elaborate, to make up for the fact that it requires you deny the facts and accept "nothing" instead of facts.
There are generally no transitionals unless you "believe" they are. Most of the fossil record shows modern animals, either larger or very slightly different. Bacteria are fossilized even though they replicate thousands of times faster than humans. Their whole history should be within the fossils, but instead you find fossils of...............guess what? Three guesses. You got it! bacteria!!
"Time" is the next "nothing", abiogenesis is the next "nothing", mutations and NS show us guess what? That's right - no new designs at all that weren't previously there. Another "nothing".
The textbooks are ofcourse, sophisticated and elaborately brilliant. They have to be - a good trick always has to be.
Edited by mike the wiz, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 378 by Sasuke, posted 09-08-2009 3:09 PM Sasuke has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 381 by greyseal, posted 09-08-2009 3:47 PM mike the wiz has not replied
 Message 382 by Sasuke, posted 09-08-2009 3:51 PM mike the wiz has replied

  
greyseal
Member (Idle past 3861 days)
Posts: 464
Joined: 08-11-2009


Message 381 of 687 (523137)
09-08-2009 3:47 PM
Reply to: Message 380 by mike the wiz
09-08-2009 3:32 PM


mike the wiz writes:
I don't argue life didn't come from none-life. I believe in Genesis afterall, NOT abiogenesis.
I would say that "god creates man" IS abiogenesis - of course, that's a philosophical viewpoint that says "one moment man was a lump of clay, the next he was alive" and not what is meant by the scientific term.
there is also a "naturalistic license" that "presumes" nature has the power to make processes responsible for things which aren't processes.
No, it doesn't presume anything of the sort - "natural philosophy" is simply the application of the maxim "do not unnecessarily increase the complexity of any argument".
Design isn't a process, it's an observed fact. therefore it is an error to find a problem where there isn't one.
I don't think anyone has yet found the warranty card for mankind, and nobody's DNA says "made by God Inc, PLC, (c)4004 BC".
We've certainly never seen the glowing hand of god himself come down from the skies, touch a lump of clay and have it pop up into a fully-formed animal - unless you were there 4004 BC.
"it was designed" is an argument from incredulity, nothing more.
This is why evolution has to be so elaborate, to make up for the fact that it requires you deny the facts and accept "nothing" instead of facts.
what a load of crock. Evolution is the way it is BECAUSE of the facts - the facts that Darwin spent a good many years collecting, collating and examining.
It was these facts that caused a shift over 200 years ago to OEC from the original YEC idea (NOT, I hasten to add, biblical literalism, that's a very new invention). It was a theist, a devout christian, who started our current method of classification of organisms.
At it's heart, it is a VERY simple theory - changes occur from one generation to the next, and these changes get passed down, and over time species emerge.
"Time" isn't nothing (ICANT's refusal or inability to understand the first thing about relativity and time dilation not withstanding) - we can measure not only time, but changes in it's rate of flow. we HAVE to for many modern-day miracles to work. GPS is simply the most obvious.
The rest is "god of the gaps".

This message is a reply to:
 Message 380 by mike the wiz, posted 09-08-2009 3:32 PM mike the wiz has not replied

  
Sasuke
Member (Idle past 5154 days)
Posts: 137
Joined: 08-21-2009


Message 382 of 687 (523138)
09-08-2009 3:51 PM
Reply to: Message 380 by mike the wiz
09-08-2009 3:32 PM


mike,
The idea with abiogenesis is that simply biological life came from non biological life. The genesis account in the bible can be interpreted many differnt ways but if you narrow it down to just the literal interpretations you prob still have many different ways.
So the "abiogenesis" concept does support the position of genesis in the Bible. In short, if god is biological it denies abiogenesis however if god is not biological then abiogenesis is supported by the bible even from a literal standpoint. So it depends on your view of GOD but in that case if you're asserting god is biological I would like to see how a biological life can live an eternity.

OPEN YOUR MIND!
Sasuke!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 380 by mike the wiz, posted 09-08-2009 3:32 PM mike the wiz has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 384 by mike the wiz, posted 09-08-2009 3:59 PM Sasuke has replied

  
ICANT
Member
Posts: 6769
From: SSC
Joined: 03-12-2007
Member Rating: 1.5


Message 383 of 687 (523139)
09-08-2009 3:53 PM
Reply to: Message 373 by Modulous
09-08-2009 8:03 AM


Re: Talking about
Hi Mod,
Modulous writes:
The question is, do you dispute that what I presented was scientific evidence in favour of the claim?
In message 369 to you I presented a paper that dispute your statements. You did not mention anything in the paper.
You can find the paper Here
In message 379 to JonF I presented a paper that dispute your statements.
You can find the paper Here
There have been several proposals that require time to disappear in the upcoming theory. One is called Forget Time.
God Bless,

"John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 373 by Modulous, posted 09-08-2009 8:03 AM Modulous has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 385 by Sasuke, posted 09-08-2009 3:59 PM ICANT has replied
 Message 408 by Modulous, posted 09-08-2009 6:38 PM ICANT has not replied

  
mike the wiz
Member
Posts: 4752
From: u.k
Joined: 05-24-2003


Message 384 of 687 (523140)
09-08-2009 3:59 PM
Reply to: Message 382 by Sasuke
09-08-2009 3:51 PM


I'm not arguing God is biological. I am arguing that Genesis is more plausable than abiogenesis.
In a kind of mild-mannered, fair-minded, honest debate I would grant that abiogenesis is one possibility of how God could have created life, but 1. It is not consistent with Genesis. 2. I "deduce" things beyond our present wordologies.
This "ailment" allows me to see all of the angles, and motives.
The motive is essentially to have natural explanations for everything, so as to state that a parsimonious view means God is not required. I would be highly obtuse to believe that naturalism is an attempt to prove the bible true.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 382 by Sasuke, posted 09-08-2009 3:51 PM Sasuke has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 386 by Sasuke, posted 09-08-2009 4:02 PM mike the wiz has not replied

  
Sasuke
Member (Idle past 5154 days)
Posts: 137
Joined: 08-21-2009


Message 385 of 687 (523141)
09-08-2009 3:59 PM
Reply to: Message 383 by ICANT
09-08-2009 3:53 PM


Re: Talking about
ICANT,
if you cant dispute duration then you cant dispute time.

OPEN YOUR MIND!
Sasuke!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 383 by ICANT, posted 09-08-2009 3:53 PM ICANT has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 389 by ICANT, posted 09-08-2009 4:20 PM Sasuke has seen this message but not replied

  
Sasuke
Member (Idle past 5154 days)
Posts: 137
Joined: 08-21-2009


Message 386 of 687 (523143)
09-08-2009 4:02 PM
Reply to: Message 384 by mike the wiz
09-08-2009 3:59 PM


mike,
mike the wiz writes:
I'm not arguing God is biological.
Show me in the bible where abiogenesis contradicts gen 1 or 2.
mike the wiz writes:
This "ailment" allows me to see all of the angles, and motives.
ok lord mike the wiz..
mike the wiz writes:
The motive is essentially to have natural explanations for everything, so as to state that a parsimonious view means God is not required. I would be highly obtuse to believe that naturalism is an attempt to prove the bible true.
No the motive is to understand things as we can understand them. If we learn that life can exist, for example on a electromagnetic level then perhaps we have a new understanding of life and a new understanding of origins perhaps even evolution. Do try to think outside the predisposed boxes.
Edited by Sasuke, : add question
Edited by Sasuke, : edit lol
Edited by Sasuke, : No reason given.
Edited by Sasuke, : edit

OPEN YOUR MIND!
Sasuke!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 384 by mike the wiz, posted 09-08-2009 3:59 PM mike the wiz has not replied

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


Message 387 of 687 (523145)
09-08-2009 4:15 PM
Reply to: Message 364 by ICANT
09-07-2009 6:45 PM


Re: Time
Time exists as a tool of man which is used to measure duration, measured with reference to the rotation of the earth.
Length exists as a tool of man which is used to measure distance, measured with reference to the King's shoe size.
I hope you can see how stupid a statement that is. If not I'm hard put to know what can be said to get you to end your silly semantics.

It's not the man that knows the most that has the most to say.
Anon

This message is a reply to:
 Message 364 by ICANT, posted 09-07-2009 6:45 PM ICANT has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 388 by Sasuke, posted 09-08-2009 4:18 PM lyx2no has not replied
 Message 391 by ICANT, posted 09-08-2009 4:30 PM lyx2no has not replied

  
Sasuke
Member (Idle past 5154 days)
Posts: 137
Joined: 08-21-2009


Message 388 of 687 (523146)
09-08-2009 4:18 PM
Reply to: Message 387 by lyx2no
09-08-2009 4:15 PM


Re: Time
lyx2no,
I don't think he can see passed the symbolism of the word "time". Hence the word "time" is made by man argument. Lets define the word "time" argument. Its all silly. I am confused how he cant see passed this firewall even at the age of 70... Maybe being 70 is a handicap in his case though...
Edited by Sasuke, : No reason given.

OPEN YOUR MIND!
Sasuke!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 387 by lyx2no, posted 09-08-2009 4:15 PM lyx2no has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 390 by cavediver, posted 09-08-2009 4:28 PM Sasuke has seen this message but not replied

  
ICANT
Member
Posts: 6769
From: SSC
Joined: 03-12-2007
Member Rating: 1.5


Message 389 of 687 (523147)
09-08-2009 4:20 PM
Reply to: Message 385 by Sasuke
09-08-2009 3:59 PM


Re: Talking about
Hi Sasuke,
Sasuke writes:
if you cant dispute duration then you cant dispute time.
Time does not exist other than as a concept of man.
It is a tool mankind has invented to measure duration.
Duration or existence "IS" .
Time matters to nothing but humans.
Everything else is content to just exist.
The big problem is that time is required to exist as a dimension for the universe to be here as put forth by the Standard BBT.
Time will disappear as such.
You care to answer the question I asked Modulous?
Do you know what spacetime is?
God Bless,

"John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 385 by Sasuke, posted 09-08-2009 3:59 PM Sasuke has seen this message but not replied

  
cavediver
Member (Idle past 3643 days)
Posts: 4129
From: UK
Joined: 06-16-2005


Message 390 of 687 (523149)
09-08-2009 4:28 PM
Reply to: Message 388 by Sasuke
09-08-2009 4:18 PM


Re: Time
Maybe being 70 is a handicap in his case though...
Possibly, though it's still hard to see why. He's now trawling through the web and dredging up random unpublished crap in the hope to show that relativity, that which 99.9% of physicists accepts, is somehow wrong. Why? God only knows. It's possible that ICANT hates the fact that many here (including at least one teenager) have a far greater understanding of cosmology and fundemental physics than he ever will, despite all his reading, and his only comfort comes from hoping that everyone else is wrong. However, I have a feeling that ICANT is just desperate to prove that his pathetic "idea" of how the Universe works is the correct view, and the entire world community of scientists is wrong. Pride is a powerful force in the mind of the weak...

This message is a reply to:
 Message 388 by Sasuke, posted 09-08-2009 4:18 PM Sasuke has seen this message but not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 394 by ICANT, posted 09-08-2009 5:13 PM cavediver 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