Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 58 (9173 total)
0 online now:
Newest Member: Neptune7
Post Volume: Total: 917,565 Year: 4,822/9,624 Month: 170/427 Week: 83/85 Day: 0/20 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   The Big Bang and the visible past.
cavediver
Member (Idle past 3719 days)
Posts: 4129
From: UK
Joined: 06-16-2005


(1)
Message 61 of 89 (583129)
09-24-2010 6:22 PM
Reply to: Message 44 by Buzsaw
09-24-2010 1:45 AM


Re: Comprehending terms.
I see you're avoiding replying to my post - have you realised now that you cannot provide adequate definitions for your terms?
the terms which Cavediver called for the meaning of were eternal, intelligent and designer. Scientifically or otherwise, the BB does not define any of these
Huh? Why would it??? They are your terms, ID proponents' terms - they are not terms we ever use in cosmology. Why the hell would we?
The terms we use, we define rigorously. We cannot conduct science without doing so.
My application of the term was relative to an eternal intelligent designer which allegedly exists in a non-temperal eternal universe.
And you have to define what you mean by this. If, in a discussion on how to develop the next generation fighter aircraft, you arrive and announce that what we need is a good pair of wings, it would be utterly sensible to ask - what do you mean by "wings"?
His condescending attitude towards lay folk sometimes un-necessarily muddies up constructive dialog.
Really? Can you point to where I was condescending? Pointing out where you are wrong is not "condescension".
Now, are you going to come up with these definitions?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 44 by Buzsaw, posted 09-24-2010 1:45 AM Buzsaw has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 66 by Buzsaw, posted 09-24-2010 8:44 PM cavediver has not replied

  
Buzsaw
Inactive Member


(1)
Message 62 of 89 (583133)
09-24-2010 7:31 PM
Reply to: Message 59 by nwr
09-24-2010 2:33 PM


Re: Redefining Definition
nwr writes:
It seems to say that words get their meaning by magic, and that therefore you are exempt from defining your terms since magic has already handled that.
So long as they/you redefine eternity to accomodate a temporal universe, yes it is mythical magic. There is nothing temporal about the true definition of eternity.
OTOH they/you think I should shoehorn your magic into the redefined concept of eternity, and other terms applied to aspects of science and logic.
The same goes with intelligent and design. You/they would, I assume, define intelligent design as something that emerged void of intelligent design, naturally from premordial non-living soup. That's sheer magic, imo, whereas an eternal designer/manager of the universe accomodates the long standing definition and accomodates most observed environs around us in that void of management, things decay and fall apart whereas things designed create order out of chaos.
Bottom line. Their's/yours implicates the magic whereas mine is logical and better explains the thermodynamic laws, real life observed, design and intelligence, etc without the need to redefine these word terms.
In spite of all of the above, secularists scoff Biblical ID as ideocy and unscientific nonsense, unfit for the science fora.

BUZSAW B 4 U 2 C Y BUZ SAW.
The immeasurable present eternally extends the infinite past and infinitely consumes the eternal future.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 59 by nwr, posted 09-24-2010 2:33 PM nwr has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 63 by AZPaul3, posted 09-24-2010 7:48 PM Buzsaw has seen this message but not replied
 Message 64 by frako, posted 09-24-2010 7:55 PM Buzsaw has not replied
 Message 65 by jar, posted 09-24-2010 8:16 PM Buzsaw has replied
 Message 69 by nwr, posted 09-24-2010 11:01 PM Buzsaw has not replied

  
AZPaul3
Member
Posts: 8593
From: Phoenix
Joined: 11-06-2006
Member Rating: 4.5


Message 63 of 89 (583134)
09-24-2010 7:48 PM
Reply to: Message 62 by Buzsaw
09-24-2010 7:31 PM


Re: Redefining Definition
In spite of all of the above, secularists scoff Biblical ID as ideocy and unscientific nonsense, unfit for the science fora.
And you have, once again, Ol' Buz, shown us precisely why.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 62 by Buzsaw, posted 09-24-2010 7:31 PM Buzsaw has seen this message but not replied

  
frako
Member (Idle past 382 days)
Posts: 2932
From: slovenija
Joined: 09-04-2010


Message 64 of 89 (583136)
09-24-2010 7:55 PM
Reply to: Message 62 by Buzsaw
09-24-2010 7:31 PM


Re: Redefining Definition
The same goes with intelligent and design. You/they would, I assume, define intelligent design as something that emerged void of intelligent design, naturally from premordial non-living soup. That's sheer magic, imo, whereas an eternal designer/manager of the universe accomodates the long standing definition and accomodates most observed environs around us in that void of management, things decay and fall apart whereas things designed create order out of chaos.
it is not magic it may seem so to you as would a plane to someone from the dark ages it is heavier than air and it still flies it must be gods work right.
the building blocks where there they could have been made naturally and they have been made naturally, all the parts had to do is come together to form a very very simple life form that can power itself from the environment and that it can multiply inperfect copies of that first life form did the rest.
oh and buz i think there a few project that are working on genetic Engineering from another stand point they want to make synthetic or man made dna and start from there so they have a blank sheet of paper of sorts on witch they can write their own information, similar to these blokes Fox News - Breaking News Updates | Latest News Headlines | Photos & News Videos
Edited by frako, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 62 by Buzsaw, posted 09-24-2010 7:31 PM Buzsaw has not replied

  
jar
Member
Posts: 34045
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004
Member Rating: 6.2


Message 65 of 89 (583139)
09-24-2010 8:16 PM
Reply to: Message 62 by Buzsaw
09-24-2010 7:31 PM


Re: Redefining Definition
Buz writes:
The same goes with intelligent and design. You/they would, I assume, define intelligent design as something that emerged void of intelligent design, naturally from premordial non-living soup.
Of course not. Intelligent Design is what humans do as opposed to what is seen in nature. Intelligent Design emerged only when humans learned enough to start modifying their personal environment.
But what the hell does that have to do with the Big Bang and the visible past?
In spite of all of the above, secularists scoff Biblical ID as ideocy and unscientific nonsense, unfit for the science fora.
Christian Theists also laugh at such nonsense Buz.
But I still have hope that you will actually present some evidence in support of your position.
Edited by jar, : inserted missing 'emerged'

Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 62 by Buzsaw, posted 09-24-2010 7:31 PM Buzsaw has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 67 by Buzsaw, posted 09-24-2010 10:28 PM jar has replied

  
Buzsaw
Inactive Member


(2)
Message 66 of 89 (583142)
09-24-2010 8:44 PM
Reply to: Message 61 by cavediver
09-24-2010 6:22 PM


Re: Comprehending terms.
cavediver writes:
Buzsaw writes:
the terms which Cavediver called for the meaning of were eternal, intelligent and designer. Scientifically or otherwise, the BB does not define any of these
Why would it??? They are your terms, ID proponents' terms - they are not terms we ever use in cosmology. Why the hell would we?
My apologies, Cavediver. It was NWR who's message appears to convey the notion that the Universe defines these terms.
Do you agree with NWR's Message 40 and Message 43?
That's been one of my concerns, that rigorously necessitates dedifinition of words to accomodate impossible concepts in real life eyeball observations. Thus the need to resort to complicated, often little understood and debatable mathmatical models.
cavediver writes:
Buzsaw writes:
My application of the term was relative to an eternal intelligent designer which allegedly exists in a non-temperal eternal universe.
And you have to define what you mean by this. If, in a discussion on how to develop the next generation fighter aircraft, you arrive and announce that what we need is a good pair of wings, it would be utterly sensible to ask - what do you mean by "wings"?
Come on, Cavediver, after all of these years, you know full well that the Buzsaw eternal intelligent designer is Jehovah, the Biblical supreme creator. You should be aware of all of the corrobrating evidence I have cited relative to his existence, whether or not you ascribe to it.
As well, you know full well that by non-temporal eternal universe, I mean just that; that the space, time and all of the existing energy in the universe has eternally existed, managed by the eternal designer/creator. I'm sure you've known all of this for a long time, yet make an issue of it every time I allude to it.
This is what I meant by my allegation that you sometimes (I say sometimes) un-necessarily muddy up constructive dialog.
Having posted the above, forgive me if I have undermined the valuable contributions which you faithfully and consistently render to the cite in order to inform and edify us all, whether or not we can ever become compatible on the issues.
Over the years, it's been members like you who apprise folk like me on the nuts & bolts relative to concepts which science ascribes to. OTO, may Jehovah's enlightment come upon you and yours, so as for you to partake of his blessings and eternal life in his eternal universe.

BUZSAW B 4 U 2 C Y BUZ SAW.
The immeasurable present eternally extends the infinite past and infinitely consumes the eternal future.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 61 by cavediver, posted 09-24-2010 6:22 PM cavediver has not replied

  
Buzsaw
Inactive Member


(1)
Message 67 of 89 (583143)
09-24-2010 10:28 PM
Reply to: Message 65 by jar
09-24-2010 8:16 PM


Re: Visionary Models Of The Alleged Past
jar writes:
Buzsaw writes:
The same goes with intelligent and design. You/they would, I assume, define intelligent design as something that emerged void of intelligent design, naturally from premordial non-living soup.
Of course not. Intelligent Design is what humans do as opposed to what is seen in nature. Intelligent Design emerged only when humans learned enough to start modifying their personal environment.
Jar, fyi, intelligent design in implicated in the DNA information, so in that vein, it is implicated in nature. The problem, however, is that observation of the real world does not follow that model. It follows the model of order to disorder. Disorder left to itself is generally does not becoming more orderly and complex in design.
jar writes:
But what the hell does that have to do with the Big Bang and the visible past?
It bodes contrary to what is presumed to be the visible past To prick and burst the thread bubble, mathmatically enginered models do not produce a visible past. They are debatable and complicated products of scientific visionaries who feverishly work to propagate a visible past in the elite secularistic (IDists need not apply) journals, accademia and all avenues of media.

BUZSAW B 4 U 2 C Y BUZ SAW.
The immeasurable present eternally extends the infinite past and infinitely consumes the eternal future.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 65 by jar, posted 09-24-2010 8:16 PM jar has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 68 by jar, posted 09-24-2010 10:41 PM Buzsaw has replied

  
jar
Member
Posts: 34045
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004
Member Rating: 6.2


Message 68 of 89 (583144)
09-24-2010 10:41 PM
Reply to: Message 67 by Buzsaw
09-24-2010 10:28 PM


Re: Visionary Models Of The Alleged Past
Jar, fyi, intelligent design in implicated in the DNA information, so in that vein, it is implicated in nature. The problem, however, is that observation of the real world does not follow that model. It follows the model of order to disorder. Disorder left to itself is generally does not becoming more orderly and complex in design.
Not only is that word salad, it is totally unsupported word salad that is completely refuted by every observation of the real world.
DNA is the result of chemical bonding just like every other known molecule.
Look at the following pictures.
Order Buz. Every example simply the product of physics, chemistry and biology.
It bodes contrary to what is presumed to be the visible past To prick and burst the thread bubble, mathmatically enginered models do not produce a visible past. They are debatable and complicated products of scientific visionaries who feverishly work to propagate a visible past in the elite secularistic (IDists need not apply) journals, accademia and all avenues of media.
HUH?
More undecipherable word salad.
Can you try to explain what any of that even means?
Do you ever plan on presenting any evidence in support of any position you try to market?

Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 67 by Buzsaw, posted 09-24-2010 10:28 PM Buzsaw has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 70 by Buzsaw, posted 09-24-2010 11:03 PM jar has replied

  
nwr
Member
Posts: 6418
From: Geneva, Illinois
Joined: 08-08-2005
Member Rating: 5.5


Message 69 of 89 (583145)
09-24-2010 11:01 PM
Reply to: Message 62 by Buzsaw
09-24-2010 7:31 PM


Re: Redefining Definition
Buzsaw writes:
So long as they/you redefine eternity to accomodate a temporal universe, yes it is mythical magic.
It is not a matter of redefining. Our ordinary concepts (time, intelligent, design) arise from our experience with what is in our world. They could not refer to things outside our world, except in a metaphorical sense. And if you are using a metaphorical sense of those words, then it is up to you to explain what you mean.
As for "eternal" - there is nothing in our world that is eternal, as far as I can tell. Human use of "eternal" seems to usually be with respect to what we imagine, rather than what is. Since there is nothing that exists where we can compare usage of the word, people don't all have the same meanings.
Buzsaw writes:
You/they would, I assume, define intelligent design as something that emerged void of intelligent design, naturally from premordial non-living soup.
The only clear examples I have of intelligent design are examples of human design. And even when used with humans, the meaning of "intelligent" is far from clear and is much argued over.
Buzsaw writes:
Bottom line. Their's/yours implicates the magic whereas mine is logical and better explains the thermodynamic laws, real life observed, design and intelligence, etc without the need to redefine these word terms.
If used with the ordinary meaning of those words, then what you have just written is nonsensical. If you have a different meaning where it makes sense, then it us up to you to provide that different meaning.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 62 by Buzsaw, posted 09-24-2010 7:31 PM Buzsaw has not replied

  
Buzsaw
Inactive Member


(1)
Message 70 of 89 (583146)
09-24-2010 11:03 PM
Reply to: Message 68 by jar
09-24-2010 10:41 PM


Re: Visionary Models Of The Alleged Past
Jar, LoL. You obviously disregarded my scientifically motivated statement that disorder is not observed to become orderly in the observeable world. Those beautiful images give glory to the eternal ID designer, Jehovah whose existence is substantially corroborated in the fulfilled propecies, archeological evidence and cultural observations, all of which you and so many sheeple, brainwashed into secularism, refuse to acknowledge.

BUZSAW B 4 U 2 C Y BUZ SAW.
The immeasurable present eternally extends the infinite past and infinitely consumes the eternal future.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 68 by jar, posted 09-24-2010 10:41 PM jar has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 71 by jar, posted 09-24-2010 11:15 PM Buzsaw has replied
 Message 72 by DevilsAdvocate, posted 09-25-2010 8:08 AM Buzsaw has replied
 Message 79 by Dr Adequate, posted 10-02-2010 2:49 AM Buzsaw has replied

  
jar
Member
Posts: 34045
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004
Member Rating: 6.2


Message 71 of 89 (583147)
09-24-2010 11:15 PM
Reply to: Message 70 by Buzsaw
09-24-2010 11:03 PM


So present the evidence Buz!!!!!!!!!
Buz writes:
Jar, LoL. You obviously disregarded my scientifically motivated statement that disorder is not observed to become orderly in the observeable world.
Buz, I did not disregard your "scientifically motivated statement that disorder is not observed to become orderly in the observeable world"; if you have not noticed every one of those pictures are examples of observing disorder becoming order in the natural world.
Buz writes:
Those beautiful images give glory to the eternal ID designer, Jehovah whose existence is substantially corroborated in the fulfilled propecies, archeological evidence and cultural observations, all of which you and so many sheeple, brainwashed into secularism, refuse to acknowledge.
And if you EVER get around to presenting an example of "fulfilled propecies[sic], archeological evidence and cultural observations" I will happily discuss it.
Now how about the Big Bang and the visible past? Do you have anything there or just a continued stream of nonsense, word salad and unsupported assertions?

Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 70 by Buzsaw, posted 09-24-2010 11:03 PM Buzsaw has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 73 by Buzsaw, posted 09-25-2010 8:14 AM jar has replied

  
DevilsAdvocate
Member (Idle past 3177 days)
Posts: 1548
Joined: 06-05-2008


Message 72 of 89 (583169)
09-25-2010 8:08 AM
Reply to: Message 70 by Buzsaw
09-24-2010 11:03 PM


Re: Visionary Models Of The Alleged Past
Buzzsaw writes:
Jar, LoL. You obviously disregarded my scientifically motivated statement that disorder is not observed to become orderly in the observeable world.
He showed pictures of how disorder becomes order, for example the last picture looks like it is a satellite view of dunes in the dessert (may be wrong, but I have seen similar pictures). These seemingly ordered arrangements of these dunes are the result of random movements of sand caused by the wind and other natural forces.
However in science their has been a shift away from the use of the terms 'order' and 'disorder' in relation with entropy (especially on the professional level) because these terms are really human-centered and ambiguous. They also do not accurately and realistically describe what is really going on. A more accurate term to use when trying to describe entropy is energy dispersal within a closed system.
Those beautiful images give glory to the eternal ID designer, Jehovah whose existence is substantially corroborated in the fulfilled propecies, archeological evidence and cultural observations, all of which you and so many sheeple, brainwashed into secularism, refuse to acknowledge.
So you say, but you have not provided any evidence to support your claims of design by Jehovah much less any other supernatural being.
Here is an interesting series of videos (The Secret Life of Chaos) which describes aspects of the chaos theory in which nature creates 'order' from 'chaos' by aspects of its own fundamental nature. I challenge you Buzz to watch these videos. I am not asking you to leave or exclude your religious beliefs only to watch these with an open and unbiased mind and tell me what you think.
I am not saying that God does or does not exist but rather that in science, any supernatural explanation is, by the very definition of science, both unable to be explained and unable to substantiated by empirical science. Science is used to explore the natural universe not the supernatural universe, whatever the supernatural world may or may not be. There other tools we can used to discuss and explore the supernatural, if it exists, i.e. philosophy and religion, but science is not one of them.
You can still argue that a supernatural designer is ultimately required to produce this fundamental nature (or what is often inaccurately called 'laws') of the universe but this is just adding unneeded layers of complexity into the natural universe. This is where Occam's razor or the Law of Parsimony comes into play by saying that when comparing otherwise equally valid hypotheses often the one with the fewest assumptions required for a natural phenomena is usually the correct one.
Again, this is not a disclaimer that God does not exist, only that it is not required by science to invoke a supernatural entity in order to explain the 'order' that is observed in the world. Hope this makes sense.
Edited by DevilsAdvocate, : No reason given.
Edited by DevilsAdvocate, : No reason given.

"It is far better to grasp the Universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring." - Carl Sagan, The Demon-Haunted World

This message is a reply to:
 Message 70 by Buzsaw, posted 09-24-2010 11:03 PM Buzsaw has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 74 by Buzsaw, posted 09-25-2010 8:33 AM DevilsAdvocate has not replied

  
Buzsaw
Inactive Member


(1)
Message 73 of 89 (583170)
09-25-2010 8:14 AM
Reply to: Message 71 by jar
09-24-2010 11:15 PM


Re: So present the evidence Buz!!!!!!!!!
jar writes:
Buz, I did not disregard your "scientifically motivated statement that disorder is not observed to become orderly in the observeable world"; if you have not noticed every one of those pictures are examples of observing disorder becoming order in the natural world.
Three things; I said, "generally," meaning there are exceptions here and there, but not by and large.
Intelligence and long time beneficial order are not the norm in exceptions.
I fail to see your point in your images. Please, you or someone else, explain. Thanks.

BUZSAW B 4 U 2 C Y BUZ SAW.
The immeasurable present eternally extends the infinite past and infinitely consumes the eternal future.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 71 by jar, posted 09-24-2010 11:15 PM jar has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 75 by DevilsAdvocate, posted 09-25-2010 8:39 AM Buzsaw has replied
 Message 76 by jar, posted 09-25-2010 11:28 AM Buzsaw has not replied

  
Buzsaw
Inactive Member


(1)
Message 74 of 89 (583175)
09-25-2010 8:33 AM
Reply to: Message 72 by DevilsAdvocate
09-25-2010 8:08 AM


Re: Visionary Models Of The Alleged Past
Thanks, D A. I posted before I noticed yours. I'm off to church but will view and respond later.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 72 by DevilsAdvocate, posted 09-25-2010 8:08 AM DevilsAdvocate has not replied

  
DevilsAdvocate
Member (Idle past 3177 days)
Posts: 1548
Joined: 06-05-2008


Message 75 of 89 (583177)
09-25-2010 8:39 AM
Reply to: Message 73 by Buzsaw
09-25-2010 8:14 AM


Re: So present the evidence Buz!!!!!!!!!
Intelligence and long time beneficial order are not the norm in exceptions.
What do you consider 'the norm'?
The problem here is you are throwing around human contrived and vague non-scientific terms to describe reality.
That is why Cavediver and others are asking you to define your terms. Not because they don't know what term's like 'order', 'intelligence' and 'eternity' mean in the colloquial, every-day use of these terms, but because at a scientific, very accurate and precise level of describing reality these terms are so vague that they make absolutely no sense in these contexts.
If you have ever opened up a real sceintific journal published by scientific researchers in a certain field (and no I am not talking about the magazines American Scientis or Popular Science which are written for the layman and general public), you will understand what I am talking about. You will rarely see these terms used to describe scientific hypotheses and theories because of the reason I give above. They use very exact terms and language that leave little room for ambiguity.
For example, one persons interpretation of an intelligent agent and another person's may be completely different. In addition, evidence, experiment reproducability & verification and peer-review are required in the scientific community for any claim to be considered valid.
Hope this makes
Edited by DevilsAdvocate, : No reason given.
Edited by DevilsAdvocate, : No reason given.

"It is far better to grasp the Universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring." - Carl Sagan, The Demon-Haunted World

This message is a reply to:
 Message 73 by Buzsaw, posted 09-25-2010 8:14 AM Buzsaw has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 77 by Buzsaw, posted 09-27-2010 9:50 PM DevilsAdvocate has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024