Intelligent Design == Human Design?

quote:

---

But that's what 'science' means... Science isn't meant to be the be-all-end-all study of reality. It simply focuses on what is measurable and objectively verifiable. That sounds harsh and heartless, but that's just what it means to study science.

---

Anything that exists can be measured. it has energy. we just don't know how. science CAN measure even "thought" if it understands the link between thought and matter.Its not harsh or heartless. i like the objectivity of science. that's why i choose to study it.

quote:

---

I must confess to being very confused by what you're saying here. Aside from the fact that your science 'facts' are nothing of the kind (even if an area is absent of energy, it still contains both space and time, and thus exists. A single seed can evolve into a full-grown tree without the need of intelligence, etc)

---

Space and time are relevant to this universe. In the singularity, there is only a single energy without time. and apparently without any space as we know it.and as for trees, did you know that if a parasite attacks a tree, some trees can chemically defend itself like our immune system defends us? and even greater science fact: those trees can also release a chemical that other trees of its biology can read interpret and emit the same chemical to defend itself? its really cool. but also, its communication. which to me is some sign of intelligence.In my discussions of the inevitable point in time known as T=0 in quantum theory, i have attempted to explain what most scientists ignore. but they DO agree the singularity exists at that point, and that its energy, and space and time are irrelevant.The only thing I'm attaching is: OK, so how did it evolve? there's nothing to interact with. no environment, and no hope of introduction. and look around...It DID evolve. so...how? Tell me, ANY other variable that could make that happen that actually exists. Intelligence does exist. And with it as a variable, evolution is a probability.

---

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

You Don't understand the bbt.read this pls:
The Big Bang singularity is a point of zero volume, but very high mass, which makes the density infinite. This singularity contained all of the matter and energy in the Universe. The initial moment of the cyclopean explosion very well remains a mystery however, astronomers and physicists believe that after the tiniest fraction of a second, the strong nuclear force and the electromagnetic force separated, which probably caused the Universe to begin inflating. The Big Bang itself created space, time, and all of the matter and energy we know today.link :http://search.mywebsearch.com/mywebsearch/redirect.jhtml?...

---

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

lol ii'm sorry your post doesn't seem to fit somehow, I'm not sure what your saying about my findings which match the BBT perfectly.I do know your objective is to discredit my knoledge. Consider this: if i have said these same things to cosmologists who definitely know their business, and THEY agree with my assessment of the BBT and the singularity; (although not what i suggest it signifies). Then Who should i believe? you or them?

---

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

quote:

---

This is the crux of your problem, tesla. You have a layman's understanding of the math/concepts without the knowledge of the underlying principles and their connection to the models from which they are derived.

​

One case in point:

​

Do you really understand what the spacetime singularity is and what it means?

​

What attributes for this singularity are derived from the math?

​

What do these attributes tell us about the models from which the equations sprang?

---

Yes. laymens terms aye? but if you know the theory, then verify or correct this: and ill find some references for conclusion.singularity means : all of everything . that is. was one energy.
When a physicist refers to a singularity they are generally referring to a quantity which is infinite.in this case they are ignoring that there is nothing else to interact with. i do not believe it was real tiny. i think it started out in something really big and inside that big something a small spot started to grow that became this universe.
however, then you ca ask what does that look like and go nowhere. but the point it evolved is definite. and as long as two things ARE from an evolved state, before that is a relevant question. that's how we got down to a small thing crawled out of the ocean that came from a bacteria that came from oh whats that? something smaller. but they all started in something bigger. the ocean perhaps. do you see my point now?I don't have a problem with why science wants to ignore all the universe as a single black whole that was infinitely dense. but the amount of mass in the universe cannot conceivably exist in the size of a pea. it had to come from a source. and that source is apparently infinite. and this universe is expanding inside it. that's what the math tells me. i just don't know at what point a density of mass hits its threshold in which it no longer is mass. and i don't think anyone else even cares to see if we can find out.

---

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

quote:

---

Singularity is the term used to describe that area where both of our most accurate models break down by showing impossible absurdities. It is that area of which we know nothing.

---

until you plug in the empirical data ive offered it will continue to appear absurd.now accept the fact the universe is expanding inside of an apparently infinite area ( and that the known universe has an edge). now what does the math say?

---

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

quote:

---

Your "fact" is not evidenced. It will not, cannot, be accepted.

---

Is it not? space is a vacuum. it has to have an edge. have you ever seen a vacuum without containment?The universe is expanding, is this not true? can it expand with no area for the expansion?its simple. there is an edge our finite universe is expanding inside an "apparently infinite" area.There must be a way to tie the edge to the math for a better view of what that means.

quote:

---

You say you respect the science and try to use the science, yet you twist then abandon the protocol for your religious speculations.

​

Fail.

---

It is not a religious speculation. its a physical true analysis of what is going on with our universe we exist in and how things are. what sucks about science is that scientists are too scared to fly outside of some imaginary box. i wont make that mistake.i wont always be right, but I'm not always wrong. examine what i say or don't. T=0 the "start" had to happen because evolution DID. and I'm not going to pretend it did not.Edited by tesla, : No reason given.

---

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

quote:

---

And how is this any different to every other point in space-time? The singularity is much less special than you appreciate...

---

Thats your opinion. I believe its much more important than anyone has ever realized and you just can't figure it out.

---

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

quote:

---

It has to have an edge" belongs up there with believing we'd suffocate if we travelled over 25mph on the railroad

---

I thought you were smart. but from reading your posts i now wonder.Do you have any ability to reason? you sound like the old world laughing at the concept of a round planet. The evidence supports my observation.

---

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

quote:

---

We're talking the Universe here, tesla, not some damn bell jar on your table! Pull your head out of it man!

---

Yes we are, and my head is fine. The dynamics of how things work Don't all of a sudden change just because it walks off the face of the earth. you show me a vacuum of negative pressure without containment then. go ahead. show me.

quote:

---

So you do not know what "expansion" means and you do not understand the concept of an un-embedded manifold.

---

Oh? how about you educate me then. The BBT is based on whats that science tells everyone? the universe i expanding? how many links you want? is expanding so hard a word to define? What are you going to tell me next?

quote:

---

Sorry, tesla, there is no edge

---

oh? and what proof do you base your hypothesis? since your so smart and all knowing how about my flying car now.

---

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

You have no desire to learn. you have only the desire to teach. but if you teach what science agrees is missing some links, then why not start looking for those links?Everyone wants to play deaf dumb and blind with what i have observed. But that doesn't change the fact what i have observed is true. space IS a vacuum. and no vacuum has ever been found that can exist without edges or containment.

---

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

no it wont because the evidence is so obvios it has been overlooked. the obvios is something science loves to ignore.the evidence of the edge of space is the fact it is a vacuum. and no vacuum has been found to exist without edges or containment.the universe IS expanding. you cannot have expansion without an area to expand in.

---

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

quote:

---

No, that's based on me being an expert on singularities

---

Now your full of it. there are no experts on singularities. all the scientists i know have accepted they cant say too much about them. now YOU want to act like you know the secrets of the universe?The problem is your swelled head has affected your reasoning.space time is just a coordinate. its math. and math says nothing without something physically real to back up the observation. i accept i don't know everything or even as much as I'd like yet. but i promise you I'm not going to trust math without verification somehow of what its saying. math alone is useless.I'm loosing faith in your ability to reason. Are there ANY true men of science here?

---

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

quote:

---

Hey, what a great idea. Perhaps I should devote a large fraction of my life to cosmological research, and start writing papers... oh, wait

---

Right. i GET what you are. Now examine my evidence. or show me a vacuum without edges and containment.Apply the data to your research. or start new research if it doesn't fit. If you wont, someone or myself will eventually. you gain nothing if your research is only speculative and neither will i. The math will fit the observation if its true.

---

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

quote:

---

As Huntard already suggested, look up and go about 30,000 km. You really don't have to go that far but I figure the exercise will do you some good.

---

you cannot see the edge in space. its too far. doesnt mean it isnt there.

quote:

---

The evidence (not proof, mind you, this is not religion) is in the math.

---

Math does not mean anything without evidence to support it. the math is lying to you. it doesnt know about the edge.Thats fine. Go tell everyone i am an idiot. but if im right, even if it takes five or six years, i'll prove it. either way im not going to accept some string bean theory pulled off of an assumtion so speculative its purly a guess.You need evidence just like i do.

---

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

How to you "note" a post without reply?

---

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