Intelligent Design == Human Design?

​

Piling up facts is not science--science is facts-and-theories. Facts alone have limited use and lack meaning: a valid theory organizes them into far greater usefulness.

​

A powerful theory not only embraces old facts and new but also discloses unsuspected facts.

​

Robert A. Heinlein, 1980

---

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

Perhaps you should slow down and go back and read what I actually said instead of attributing either what other people said to me, or making shit up. You will then find that I said none of those things, in any form at all. You will also find that I did, in fact, reply to your B.S. in Message 23 with my Message 29. just because you appear to be using science-y sounding words and phrases, does not mean you are making accurate scientific statements.

---

That is the only place any god fits. You have continued to make a seemingly endless amount of logical fallacies. Are you interested in learning anything? it is not up to any non-believer to prove the existence of your god. Don't need to look. I have already found Him. No. You asserted shit. You've yet to provide evidence for anything other than your ignorance. Cognitive dissonance is a tasty treat, isn't it? One second you say you've got the evidence and the answers, the next you say you haven't a clue. It's obvious you haven't got a clue, why keep lying? Like I said before, ID purports itself to be a real scientific field, shouldn't this task be up to them? I mean, they could do SOME research, couldn't they? Ahh, good old cognitive dissonance again. Where is this alleged evidence? Oh, that's right: you don't know and you don't have any.

---

All you presented was a long list of unsupported assertions and special pleading. Projection much? The observations show a lack of a supernatural deity. It seems that you are unwilling to accept this and instead assert that God exists without any evidence whatsoever. If I am wrong, please point out the observations of God. What evidence? Or better yet, what evidence would prove that God does NOT exist in your view?

There are 2.1 billion Christians; why can't they look?
There are 1.5 Billion Islamists; why can't they look?
There are 900 million Hindus; why can't they look?
There are 376 million Buddhists; why can't they look?
There are 14 million Jews; why can't they look?
There are 600 thousand Rastafarians; why can't they look?Why must the atheists look? You're going to accept what, exactly? That the words "law" and "math" exist to be used over and over as if they were pronouns? Click on "tesla Posts Only": There isn't a single calculation in any of your posts. And the closest you've come to a propper usage of any law is the First Law of Apologetics.

quote:

---

If you really do not understand, It would be futile for me to try to further explain it to you.

---

Edited by lyx2no, : No reason given.

---

"Mom! Ban Ki-moon made a non-binding resolution at me." Mohmoud Ahmadinejad

quote:

---

All you presented was a long list of unsupported assertions and special pleading.

---

You consider the second law of thermodynamics an assertion or special pleading?The most trusted math of physics an assertion or special pleading?I DO assert that there is no place absent of energy.I DO assert that i exist.Are you suggesting that my assertions are wrong?Please explain.

---

keep your mind from this way of enquiry, for never will you show that not-being is
~parmenides

quote:

---

Why must the atheists look?

---

I want all to KNOW. This debate is about the truth of God IS or ain't by scientific evaluation. This isn't my creed vs your creed.

quote:

---

You're going to accept what, exactly? That the words "law" and "math" exist to be used over and over as if they were pronouns? Click on "tesla Posts Only": There isn't a single calculation in any of your posts. And the closest you've come to a propper usage of any law is the First Law of Apologetics.

---

The second law of thermodynamics.
The most reliable math of physics. :International Skeptics Forum - View Single Post - Miss-Interpreting Quantum Collapse.Calculation : T-0 is inevitable.

---

keep your mind from this way of enquiry, for never will you show that not-being is
~parmenides

You were talking about finding evidence for god. I haven't a particle collider else I'd be off looking for evidence of quarks. But since I didn't get to it someone else did. Can't someone else look for the evidence of god and tell me about it? Again, writing the word is not the same as applying the law. If I say cheese grater, do I magically have grated cheese? No. What in evolution violates 2Lot? Show your math. I'm not arguing the reliability of math, I'm arguing your ability to apply it. Unless you're Schneibster you're blowing smoke. Proclamation: camera case.Are we practicing juxtaposition now?Edited by lyx2no, : Thought I got that.

---

"Mom! Ban Ki-moon made a non-binding resolution at me." Mohmoud Ahmadinejad

quote:

---

Again, writing the word is not the same as applying the law. If I say cheese grater, do I magically have grated cheese? No. What in evolution violates 2Lot? Show your math.

---

It's Not my math. Its the physicist's. I'm saying what they say. Ask them.

quote:

---

I'm not arguing the reliability of math, I'm arguing your ability to apply it. Unless you're Schneibster you're blowing smoke.

---

I am agreeing with what the physicist's are Teaching. The only difference is I'm examining T-0, Which they choose to ignore. But they agree T-0 is inevitable. I'm just examining what that means. And no one has yet shown me where my examination is wrong.If T-0 is inevitable, I'm right.

---

keep your mind from this way of enquiry, for never will you show that not-being is
~parmenides

Again, What math? You've supplied no math, only the word math. You are not saying what they are saying. You are only saying that you're saying what they are saying."I agree with Hoyle on the matter." Have I just cited Hoyle? No, I name dropped. You have phrase dropped.I have a four year old cousin who continually, out of the blue, makes statements along the lines of "She said you give it to me." In her head I'm sure she knows who "she" is and what "it" is. We have so far been unable to explain to her that we don't have the definitions for the pronouns she throws about. Give us the definition for your "pronouns" please. If you don't want to tell us what they are saying, why are you here?Why don't you just say "There are things that physicist say that I agree with and other things I don't."?Then we can say "We hear you, mate. We feel the same way." No, you are not. You may well "agree" with what physicists are teaching. However, here you're merely saying that "you are 'agreeing' with what physicist's are teaching". You use these statements like magic beans. Planting them wherever you think the authority of the phrase will bolster your argument. What exactly is it that the physicist's are saying that you are agreeing with. You don't bother to say that. How, if they are ignoring it, are you saying what they are saying about it? And they are not ignoring it. There are many physicist speculating on "T<0" (as nonsensical as T=0, but the intent is useful). Whatever branes operate in is obviously time-like? Do you think a physicist could make the statement " the collision of a brane " without realizing that collisions are functions of time? The time in the Hyperverse is not the same dimension as the time we know. But I've already gone well past my competence level. Maybe if you fake humility, cavediver or son goku could answer a few questions about hypertime.No, they don't. They say time began at some point. But that is not the same thing as T=0; T=0 in nonsensical. Is there such a thing as Rope=0 when measuring a rope. No. You either have rope R>0, or no rope to measure; hence, "Measurement=0". Not R=0. Now you know.

---

"Mom! Ban Ki-moon made a non-binding resolution at me." Mohmoud Ahmadinejad

quote:

---

Now you know.

​

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

---

quote:

---

source:Teaching and Learning STEM

​

The Big Bang
To see what it means to say the universe had a beginning, consider a group of galaxies chosen at random throughout the universe. The illustration below shows five galaxies as they appear now and as they would have appeared at several times in the distant past. At some point in the past (about 6-10 billion years ago), all of these galaxies would have been half as far apart as they are now. At an earlier time they would have been half as far apart as that, and so on. If you extrapolate this process backwards you eventually come to a time in the past when the galaxies would have been right on top of one another. Put another way, the density of matter (or energy) in the universe was higher at earlier times, and extrapolating this process backwards we come eventually to a time when that density would have been infinite. This moment of infinite density is called the big bang.7

​

Having defined the moment of the big bang in this waythe time when all distances between objects were zeroI am not going to talk about that time. A point of infinite density, known in physics as a "singularity," makes no sense. Moreover, our current theories do not predict that such a moment occurred in the past. Our best physical theories, including general relativity and quantum mechanics, stop working when we try to describe matter that is almost infinitely dense. That word "almost" is important. The theories don't simply break down at the instant of the big bang singularity; rather, they break down a short time afterwards when the density has a certain value called the Planck density.

​

The Planck density, which is the highest density we can hope to describe with our current physics, is over 1093 g/cm3, which corresponds to roughly 100 billion galaxies squeezed into a space the size of an atomic nucleus. For virtually any application we can imagine this limitation of our theories is completely irrelevant, but it means we can't describe the universe immediately after the big bang. We can only say that our current model of the universe begins when the density was somewhere below the Planck density and we can say virtually nothing about what the universe was like before that. We therefore take as our initial condition a universe at or just below the Planck density, and any questions about the instant of the big bang itself are eliminated from consideration.

---

another source: Big Bang - WikipediaThis is ridiculously redundant. Your either not going to read it or not understand it. The point is, the most reliable math of physics says T-0 is inevitable. and I'm looking at what a singularity is, and how it evolved. Einstein's math has been reliable and is still accepted. only the interpretations are changing as we try to explain lack of dimensions mathematically. ill get a link for field equations: Einstein field equations - WikipediaNow : See why I'm not posting equations? You really expect me to sit down and argue a couple semesters worth of math in a debate? I'm saying the singularity is reliably THERE. and you can do the research and find scientists agree with that. they just do not interpret what that means.my point is the singularity is inevitable. all energy at that point exists without any other variables. and we know it evolved. the question i asked was : HOW. And mathematically there is only one possible scenario : decision/intelligence. because there is no environment. It must be a self directed act.I will let the rest of my argument rest. let you all decide.but please PLEASE PLEASE Do not decide blindly by position. Its important enough to need to KNOW.

---

keep your mind from this way of enquiry, for never will you show that not-being is
~parmenides

The part that you aren't getting is that the alleged singularity at t=0 is an illusion, a simple horizon effect.Here, let's walk through it gently. If you take the Hubble expansion, and work it backwards, then 15-16 billion years ago you arrive at a point where your math stops working. If we try to conceptualize this theoretical point, we end up talking nonsense about infinite density. What we appear to be describing, at that point, is the most awesome black hole ever. And, as you know, nothing actually gets out of a black hole. So, clearly we have to stop short of there, the earliest times we can describe will be after that.Quantum physics looks at these earliest describable times, and notes that in such a situation, every possible field in the standard model would be doing its thing in one place at one time at very high energy levels. Under such circumstances, the field with the greatest range will win. This was a scalar field, similar to the one that currently causes Hubble expansion and perhaps to the one(s) that hold matter together in such a way that it takes up space and has mass and is stuff.So nevermind t=0, let's start at t=1 with such a high-energy field face off. No singularity required, this could be happening in any sort of universe, prior conditions remain pretty unguessable (though the superstring guys are doing their damnedest.) So then at t=2, what we now call the observable universe is 3-5 billion light years in diameter and almost perfectly evenly distributed. Nothing exploded, there was no bang, space itself went through a quantum leap of expansion which shredded any matter and energy there might have been into virtual nothing and then degenerated into the normal expansion we get now, a lower-energy field state.This process is called Inflation, it currently owns and operates the proprietorship of its parent company, the original Big Bang. Now if we go back to the Hubble expansion, and work it backwards again, this time only to the point where we have a nice 3-5 billion light year universe, we get back to around 13 billion years ago. Do you get that? While t=0 was supposedly 15-16 billion years ago, and also patently impossible, t=2 is only 13 billion years ago. t=1 is such an awesome event, that it can keep its name, because whatever was going on "before" that remains indescribable. But t=0 never was, nor will it ever be.

Snippet 1 from your supplied quote:

quote:

---

A point of infinite density, known in physics as a "singularity," makes no sense. Moreover, our current theories do not predict that such a moment occurred in the past.

---

Their position of "do[es] not predict that such a moment occurred in the past." doesn't match your position of an inevitable T=0.Snippet 2 from your supplied quote:

quote:

---

Our best physical theories, including general relativity and quantum mechanics, stop working when we try to describe matter that is almost infinitely dense.

---

What is it that I'm not understanding about "general relativity and quantum mechanics, stop working when"? Wait a second You keep writing T-0, which I keep translating to T=0. Is my translation correct, or are you completing a NASA count down? If you mean T=0 could you please start writing T=0? For the time being I'll assume my translation is correct.Snippet 3 from your supplied quote:

quote:

---

That word "almost" is important.

---

"Almost", as in T>0, but not 0. Firstly, you mistake whom it is redundant for; secondly, refute my rope>0 argument before you tell me what I won't understand. Then cite where that is said. What you have cited here says "any questions about the instant of the big bang itself are eliminated from consideration." If the physicists do not know, and are honorable enough to state that they do not know, why do you insist that they are saying otherwise? Einstein's math does not say T=0 is inevitable. It meets a singularity at a density of 10⁸⁸ kg/m³. You say I won't read the clip, but did you? You don't post the equations because you don't understand them. I know you don't understand them because you post things like this, "[A]nd I'm looking at what a singularity is, and how it evolved." Singularities are not objects that can evolve. Read your own reference: " almost infinitely dense." Followed immediately by: "That word 'almost' is important." Why do you ignore that. No speculation is made before that time.Furthermore, posting equations is of no value unless they explain what you areclaiming. I agree that the singularity is "reliably THERE". But "THERE" lies within the mathematical model, not out in space. It is unfortunate that the singularity is spoken of as a physical object in the popular press. But if one wishes to argue cosmology to the depth you are pretending to argue it here it behooves one not learn their physics from the popular press. Agree. Their point is:

quote:

---

our current theories do not predict that such a moment occurred in the past.

---

These statements can not be made to consonant. You have descended into word salad. R.I.P.Edited by lyx2no, : Lost track and inserted wrong quote.

---

"Mom! Ban Ki-moon made a non-binding resolution at me." Mohmoud Ahmadinejad

The first half of your argument is semantics or out of context quotes. for the most part.

quote:

---

Then cite where that is said. What you have cited here says "any questions about the instant of the big bang itself are eliminated from consideration." If the physicists do not know, and are honorable enough to state that they do not know, why do you insist that they are saying otherwise?

---

I however love this question. I'm saying that the physicists are being foolish for ignoring the fact that point of time exists.As long as two things are, when questioning an evolved state; Before that is a relevant question. Only when we get to one do we have the whole picture.You also ignore: don't the solutions to the Einstein field equations say that space must either by contracting or expanding? Although this is not proof of the big bang theory, it supports the empirical evidence that space is expanding, no?
Science works the other way around.
Measurements that the universe is expanding supports the premise that Einstein's field equations are correct in being a good description of the universe.The math is reliable. T=0 (your welcome), IS there.

---

keep your mind from this way of enquiry, for never will you show that not-being is
~parmenides

quote:

---

The part that you aren't getting is that the alleged singularity at t=0 is an illusion, a simple horizon effect.

---

This is a foolish assumption. empirical data suggest otherwise. There is no area absent of energy. so it came from energy.The universe is expanding.it has negative pressure or a vacuum in which all exists in, and Ive never seen a vacuum without it being contained.You have to examine the empirical data the math is analyzing. It fits. That's reliability.Now why can a scientist accept something as sci-fi as string theory, and ignore a model that fits the unexplained data much better to the empirical data of how life works? like live things inside of living things keeping them alive: such as bacteria in your intestines that break down food and therefore give you energy. the bacteria reproduces to survive its species never knowing that without them we'd die.The area inside your body to the bacteria is infinite. Just like space to us is infinite. Why is it so much more difficult to accept if that's what our observations show?You can't discover the truth about what I'm telling you by finding a scientist that agrees with it. THIS you have to think greater than them. because they have already chosen a position to ignore this data. because it does not fit their position.

---

keep your mind from this way of enquiry, for never will you show that not-being is
~parmenides