Intelligent Design == Human Design?

No you didn't. You asked for an explanation (with passages from their works), not a bare link.Edited by lyx2no, : Grammar.

---

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

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

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

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

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

Yes, that is the flaw I'm attempting to point out. You're applying a colloquial meaning to a technical term. I don't think I took anything out of context. As you supplied the context in the post I was answering, how hard would it have been for you to show the contextual error I had made. You'd be doing me a favor. Strangely enough I've been getting a different idea of what you've been saying. I've been getting the idea you've been saying physicists conclude that T=0 is inevitable.Are you now saying they don't conclude T=0 is inevitable, for which they are foolish.Are we having a language problem here? I try to guess what you intend, but could easily be coloring your statements with my own biases.Are you saying that you agree with the physicists up to the point where they cede the problem, but that you are able take the next step?If this is the case you can skip the explanations up to T=t_p (Planck time: 5.3910^-44) and get right to telling me how you surmount the singularity. I ignore nothing. That space isn't static is so fundamental I'd assume we were past that point in the discussion. Einstein's field equations are a description of a premise. The premise it that space looks the same to everyone, everywhere; i.e., the speed of light is the same constant to every observer. But your own sources don't agree with you. They are foolish, remember?Edited by lyx2no, : Submitted one line too soon.

---

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

They agree that the maths are unable to carry them beyond T=t_p. You claim that you can extrapolate beyond T=t_p. Are physicists unfamiliar with extrapolation, or do they fear there be dragons? And what does it signify? That there be dragons? You do realize that most theoretical physicists are significantly over six years old, don't you? So why don't they solve it? Is it because they can't get funding? The Templeton foundation won't kick over a few bucks so they can by buy larger sheets of graph paper. The greatest challenge in 21^st century cosmology Your folly has been paranoia. Every theoretical physicist in every science institute and foundation in the world want their name on that Nobel Prize. There is no incentive to "not" and every incentive to "do". Shirely, you've gotten this backwards. Hear that, cavediver and son goku? Now just keep y'ur traps shut until we've built a collider with a 13.7 billion ly radius.Are you out of your mind, tesla? (rhetoric) Your position is based entirely upon home grown extrapolation of Hubble's expansion run backwards. How about "Without empirical data home grown extrapolation is useless." Care to share, Sugar Bear? Not with me, I wouldn't understand it, but with the manufacture of arm chairs. La-Z-Boy would love to see their name on a Nobel too.Look, you're just making stuff up. There are more ways to be wrong in heaven and earth then lying, Horatio.And you befuddle on ones beliefs. You haven't actually said anything of significants yet. Nor likely will you. In such statements as "ill trust the data ", you don't have any data. You've got "The Universe was smaller in the past; therefore, it had to be zero at some point." That does not qualify as data. Ignore you. It has been examined and found to back up to a dead end. We all want to believe that just around the bend is a magical land of milk and honey. But if the history of science tells us anything there's another bend around the bend. Leave your arm chair at home.

---

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

You've got that backwards. Gravity cannot be explained earlier than that point because the math fails. Not the other way round. Gravity doesn't know the math. That this is in direct contradiction to your first sentence indicates that you don't know that maths and only maths get us to T=t_p. There is no empirical evidence that allows you to bypass the maths and trust your eyes. You have no claim to "The model has to be wrong: we can see that bumble bees fly." You spelled "nice" wrong. Should be spelled "s-l-a-m d-u-n-k".

---

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

We want to know that but we don't.x=xo+vot+at2: Lovely equation this. It tells me that if I have a body with an initial position x₀, and that body has an initial velocity v₀, and that body experiences an acceleration a, then at time t it will be at position x. Works fine and dandy at vc^-1=10^-7. Do you think the Universe took the space shuttle to work? yeah, I know, c10^-2 is pretty darn Newtonian, but I won't have impulse drive for my shuttle until I modify the quantum coupling capacitor to eliminate the standing wave at the junction of the power transfer grid and the EPS conduit.You are assuming, most likely unwittingly, that time and gravity continue acting as they do right down to T=0. We don't know that they do and have reason to think they don't. If gravity decoupled form the other three forces it didn't exist before then. And if prior to T=t_p time becomes asymptotic then time never began. It has always existed curled up in a little, roly-poly time dimension that didn't play well with our space dimensions. Do you really think that theoretical physicists solve the great problems of cosmology by telling each other these quaint, little stories. That write-up was for the plebes like you and me. They don't think we're idiots. They know we're idiots.As I said earlier:

quote:

---

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.

---

Edited by lyx2no, : Typo.

---

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

No it's not.

---

---

I'd really like to leave it at that. You've not earned even that much of a response.

---

---

I'm going to back up a bit. The topic of this thread is, I believe, meant to be a bit tongue-in-cheek. Fiver makes the argument that all designed things are designed by humans; The Universe looks designed; therefore, humans designed the Universe. I'd go along with him that if one isn't going to dismiss the argument "The Universe looks designed; therefore, the Universe is designed." then this argument is not sufficiently ridiculous to be dismissed either.Then tesla gets it into his head that it's important to examine the implication of T=0. I was hoping that I could head it off just a bit and turn it into a "The reasons you have for holding to this idea are invalid, so the idea becomes moot. The same is true also for the "ID looks designed" idea."I didn't even slow him down.Sorry for entertaining him and dragging the thread so far off course.

---

---

Hey, but in for a penny in for a pound, right?Let me just come back to this bit.

quote:

---

" Einstein’s theory of special relativity changed all that. From it we learned that the universe had a beginning. That beginning includes not only matter and energy, but space and time as well. This obviously presents a problem cooperating with the first law of thermodynamics. The universe could not suddenly exist where nothing had existed before at least not by natural means. This truth was so apparent to Einstein that he inserted a fudge factor into his theory to force the equations to reinstate the eternal universe.

​

Edwin Hubble discovered that the galaxies were moving away from each other. The more distant the object the faster it was moving away. This indicated the universe was expanding. It took some effort on Hubble's part but Einstein became convinced of this evidence and removed the fudge factor from his theory. The result was the sobering conclusion that moving backward in time we eventually come to a point where time equals zero. At the moment T=0, matter and energy become compressed into zero dimensional space. Don't misunderstand that to mean a tiny speck floating in empty space. In fact space itself becomes infinitely small. "

​

-Quote from another science dude.

---

I didn't bother to google this. Quite frankly, I was a bit fed up with tesla having nothing to say and saying it anyway. And I was wishing I hadn't gotten my self caught up in it in the first place and looking to bail. I'm glad Otto Tellick love the monicker, BTW googled it.The reason I find it interesting is that when I read it I saw this: Clearly nonsense: Einstein did not insert a fudge factor because the Universe could not suddenly exist where nothing had existed before. But what I came to realize was that I would have given it a slide because it was a "Quote from another science dude". Why would I take such a weak credential as valid. Yeah, yeah, off topic bosh, why bother. But that wasn't it.Be it know, I am a self confessed science groupie.I learned that. This place is not a waste of time.Thanks, Otto.Edited by lyx2no, : Credential.

---

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

With a melting point of 660.25C, Al can hardly be said to have a low melting point. At that temperature Al has a vapor pressure of 2.2410^-6Pa. That is categorized as a high vacuum. Boron melts at 2300C, with a vapor pressure of one-third of a Pa: a medium vacuum, bordering on a high vacuum. The vapor pressure of H₂O at its boiling point is 100,000 Pa. In other words, neither Al or B boils under a vacuum as water does, even when liquid. Skip the math at this point. Try reading. The pressure at the bottom of the tank is cuased by the weight of the column of liquid boron above it. The tube extending from the bottom of the tank to the top of the tank contains a column of boron equal in hight to the column of boron in the tank. There would be no net pressure to either to fill the tube farther or to drain the tube. Liquids find their own level. Volume is irrelevant. It is not possible. Everyone who has ever put a straw in a glass of water. Experiment: Put a straw in a glass of water.Math: Divide the weight of a 300 foot tall, 1 square inch column of boron by the weight of a 300 foot tall, 1 square inch column of boron. The motion of the planets in not perpetual. True, with the proviso: "On any planet in the Solar system made entirely out of gold." Edited by lyx2no, : Typos.

---

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

And would propagate through the column at 1,484 ms^-1. The compressibility of water is slight. Dropping the internal pressure 14.7 psi will not have a noticeable effect on the volume. However, when a molecule on the surface of the water has enough energy to snap the hydrogen bonds with the molecules surrounding it it will find it has a clear path to travel rather than being bounced back into the liquid by molecules in the vapor above. Were it bounces back into the liquid it is likely to collided with molecules of lesser energies and reform hydrogen bonds.In my last post I mentioned vapor pressure. Liquids and solids evaporate when subject to pressures lower than their vapor pressure at the given temperature. Al and B have very low vapor pressures even when heated to their melting points. One can easily draw a good vacuum over them because they have little tendency to boil away. Water, on the other hand, has a high vapor pressure. When a vacuum is drawn over water the water will easily boil away replenishing the vapor above, limiting the hardness of the vacuum that can be achieved.But the water doesn’t boil away instantly under normal circumstances. Solids are solid because the internal bonds that hold them together are strong. Take an 16d common nail. From end to end it is being compressed by an atmospheric pressure of 3.4 oz. Use the nail to spike an English muffin to the ceiling. Near as damn it you’ve countered the atmospheric compression. How much do you think you’ve elongated the nail? I wouldn’t go by my reckoning. When the air is pumped out of a volume, not that I’ve said anything about that, one does not develop a pull. Vacuum doesn’t pull. The molecules of the materials under the vacuum are moving about (heat) and; therefore, have momentum. That momentum can be overcome by the internal bonding forces of the material or being exchanged with the overlying vapors. If the internal bonding forces are weak and the overlying vapors sparse the momentum of the molecules of the material can move them away from the bulk. But it would more correctly be said that they are being pushed out, not sucked out.Furthermore, reaching an _☞absolute*_☜ vacuum of any size is near impossible in the lab. Any size is measured in nanometers for milliseconds, if I remember correctly. In intergalactic space it may be measured in cubic inches for milliseconds merely by defining a space. But don’t get to close to that space or the trillions of atoms evaporating off of you and your measuring equipment will pollute it.With continuous cryopumping one can sustain a vacuum of a few million molecules per cm³ for as long as one wants to. Vacuum and space are not the same thing, and can’t be talked about as such.Space is a field. It can flex and bend better than The International Sexy Ladies. Yes, including the blond one.A vacuum is merely the absence of matter within that space. It is trivial that a vacuum has an edge. It has an edge at every bit of matter that it comes to. But an edge is not a property of a vacuum. It’s only incidental because matter exists.If you’d like to change your argument to space having or not having an edge you’d be making just as much sense as you are now, but it would no longer be a property of your argument but a property of you not having a clue. It would be an improvement.Why would space/vacuum requiring an edge signify a need for an intelligence? *Nor is it necessary for any part of your argument. It’s when you toss stuff in like this we can tell you’re just throwing words you’ve heard together.

---

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

I think your analogy has gone a step too far. Maybe without intention, but relate it to cavediaver's post here. There is no volume within a 2-sphere for there to be a center of either; i.e., the physical diameter of a 2-sphere is zero regardless of the implied diameter. That space only exists in our mind's eye view of the balloon analogy.

---

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