If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Slate)   "Intelligent Design" researchers check their math, realize they were really off on the age of the Earth. Apparently, it's over twice as old as they previously thought   (slate.com) divider line 382
    More: Obvious, Earth, biblical literalism, intelligent design, Lunar Eclipse, chronology, Paul Broun, maths, outliers  
•       •       •

7885 clicks; posted to Geek » on 15 Oct 2012 at 10:21 AM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



382 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | » | Last | Show all
 
2012-10-15 04:19:14 PM

Epicedion: What the hell?


Hell is included in one of the place holders.

//It's not done yet.
 
2012-10-15 04:21:55 PM

vactech: Epicedion: What the hell?

Hell is included in one of the place holders.

//It's not done yet.


Cute, but it looks like you ate a Deepak Chopra book, a physics text, and the 1970s/80s The Way bible and vomited the resulting bits and pieces onto your keyboard.
 
2012-10-15 04:23:20 PM

JamesSirBensonMum: Just Another OC Homeless Guy:
So how do you come by that the Young-Earth concept? Seriously.

You know how I know you didn't read the article? It goes into detail about have the various theologans have rendered the date of creation. If the bible is taken as literal fact, it turns out that 4,004BC is a pretty accurate guess.


One of several 'pretty accurate' guesses, anyway (with a margin of error over 100%). If it's all right with you, I'll stick to independently verifiable facts, instead of the mumblings of ancient and superstitious peoples. (To clarify: I don't dismiss history, but I don't assume it's factual and inerrant.)
 
2012-10-15 04:27:11 PM

Skraeling: "check their math"

Should be synonymous with "made up different numbers".


... "Study it out"
 
2012-10-15 04:29:27 PM

kregh99: ArkAngel: I believe in intelligent design, and in general I am a Young-Earth Creationist, but I don't really care, nor do I argue about it anymore. Because it doesn't matter. However God made the universe come into being, his message is love towards each other. And that's what I focus on

So how long have you talked to invisible people?


To be completely fair, everyone in this thread is talking to invisible people.
 
2012-10-15 04:34:42 PM

rufus-t-firefly: Bevets


Ctrl-F shows only your post referencing him.

I'm worried.
 
2012-10-15 04:35:19 PM

vactech: I'll say it again. God is Nature. I've already pointed out what you have said in my definition of GOD/NATURE. Observe c. and l.

Nature/God
1. A varience of constant states of (and moving properties) that define and create the shapes of binding precedents and objects observed in the conscious and unconscious:
a. Quantum mind
b Galaxy morphological sytem
c Infinit truth proposition (God Mind)
d Neural correlates
e Oscillation Matter/Synchronized Matter (both varieties)
f Quantum Electromagnetism (subset of Quantum Physics)
g Nuclear
h Non-nuclear
i. ∩ (dump containers)
Blackhole
Fision
Invariance (mathematics & physics)
j. Light. i Radiation and/or Guiding principles of morality (John 1:5)
k. Numbers (Numbers)
l. Morphology of Love - Love Body Matrix (romans 12:5)
m. Ghost Sphere - sets out the entire structure (circular action) of the universe (set) and biology related material (Matthew 14:26)
n. Infinity - Eternal reward system ∩ Feed back loop (John 1:2)

Notes:
Contextualism defines (completely) subsets and the whole sets (above) through which observation is restritive in allowance of the sets.


media.giantbomb.com
 
2012-10-15 04:39:09 PM

give me doughnuts: malaktaus: Just Another OC Homeless Guy: The concept of a God is not, in and of itself, evil.

If we base our actions on reason and logic we do not burn people at the stake, we do not strap bombs to ourselves and blow up buses, we do not round people up and send them to death camps. Such actions require the abdication of reason, the acceptance of a deity or a strict ideology; one must twist and distort logic to support one's worldview instead of forming one's worldview from natural observation. Belief in god is fundamentally immoral, and for precisely the same reason Nazism and Soviet Communism are immoral: all put ideology first and attempt to shoehorn reality into it, and by doing so they make any sort of horror possible.

This needs to be painted in the inside and outside of every church, cathedral, temple, mosque, place of worship on the planet. It should be recited in school like (or possibly instead of) the Pledge of Alligience. It should be the non-changable screensaver of every computer on the planet.

I am totes stealing this.


If not for that clause, I'd be on board as well. That statement's only true if you believe that YOU are the sole arbiter of god's will. Otherwise, you can believe in (a) god while also believing that people have the free will to do what they please.

You may as well say that trusting people is fundamentally immoral because people manipulate you. It's not the belief, it's what you do with it.
 
2012-10-15 04:53:14 PM

Eleri: inner ted: [SNIP]

that facility being a weapons depot would explain the big skull on the top of the mountain - which begs the question: if you land on some far away planet and within moments, spot what must be an artificial structure "cause god don't build in straight lines" - yet fail to notice the HUGE HUMAN SHAPED SKULL on top, well.. wtf?

i do like your theory though - well done indeed.

also: anyone notice at the end of the credits something along the lines of "property of the Weyland corp - bringing quality products to you since 10-11-12"

i chuckled

Yeah, saw the credits, too. Notice that it wasn't yet Weyland-Yutani?

The part that really had me scratching my head was what the exact form of the biological weapon was supposed to be. Because of the multiple different species of hosts, and the order, what was the intended path? I mean, was the giant-squid form in the medical bay part of the uncontrolled problem that lead to the death of the Engineers in the base? Or was it an intended step before the aliens we know and fear? And, was it meant to infect the Engineer before getting to that form? Was the Earth supposed to be a captive breeding ground for the final alien form or was it just supposed to be a test ground for totally apocalypse?


first - thanks for taking my mind off work

now to the important part: maybe it was a weapon designed to fit any / many enemies. perhaps the opening scene played out on any number of planets - just so they could be reassured that they could wipe out the whole freaking universe if needed?

the giant squid thing in the med bay: wasn't that the "fetus" that the main gal had "aborted" in the medical tube?

if so - that thing is comprised of: black goo & human - which created crazy squid thing.

which then shot itself down the gullet of big white alien fellow - that then created our dear little Alien.

so, if my premise holds, that little nasty critter is made of: black goo / white alien fellow / human - the mother & human - the father - that is also mixed with the black goo that David roofied him with - right before he had relations with the human mother & got her prego

that's a hell of a biological cocktail - unless i missed something, then just forget it.

so in summation: the aliens were a crazy & unintentional consequence of that black goo?

still so confused
 
2012-10-15 05:08:13 PM
I wonder what the world would be like if all the sudden the Dunning Kruger effect was turned off.

/Wants to petition to change the term to IDW effect
 
2012-10-15 05:11:47 PM

Lernaeus: serial_crusher: Intelligent Design is just a theory.

Hypothesis, really.

Theories have been tested and proven.


It's not a hypothesis, either - a hypothesis CAN be tested.
ID is merely a metaphysical proposition - speculation, actually.
 
2012-10-15 05:39:36 PM

entropic_existence: Universal Common Descent is a hypothesis that is supported by a wealth of scientific information. Again trying to shoehorn it in as unscientific is just nonsense.


you know how i know you didn't watch darwin's dilemma? srsly dude email me your home address and i will buy a copy for you

or you could have watched it for free on youtube the first hundred times i linked it
 
2012-10-15 06:00:30 PM

Just Another OC Homeless Guy: Ignorant, arithmatically-challenged sheep herders (and most everybody else for that matter) in ancient days might have a problem understanding the concept of "billions of years".


Or let's just say via magic God made them understand the concept. You try writing "4 billion" when the largest discrete number ever counted to is 12.

But clearly God would have given the original author the skills necessary to record a specific numeric quantity (that is for some reason important) in such a way that it would survive hundreds of retellings and translations without being distorted. That's why we're all born being able to count to 6k, but larger numbers require "education" -- numbers larger than 6k are no necessary to understand God's glory.

/ 640k is enough for anyone, if they're biblical literalists
 
2012-10-15 06:48:53 PM

FormlessOne: Just Another OC Homeless Guy: TabASlotB: Just Another OC Homeless Guy: ID =/= Creationism.

This is what some morons actually believe.

Hmmmm.... who to believe, who to believe.... my actual experiences talking with people I know or your sem-literate snark? Hmmmmm......

Someone help me on this.

Yes, there are shades of difference, used by ID folks to paint their theory as pseudo-science and to distance themselves from the "God created everything in 6 days" folks, but given that they're both manufactured on flawed premises, both argued by theists, and both argued against a mountain of evidence demonstrating otherwise, it doesn't matter how the fantasy of "Intelligent Design" differs from the fantasy of "Creationism."

They're both brands of silliness meant to foster a belief system. ID is a compromise, in the same way that "moderate Republicanism" is a compromise - it's meant to lure fence-straddlers into the belief system that backs ID, by being "less insane" than fundamentalist creationism. Different designer drugs with similar formulas and the same friggin' chemist.

Fark that.


It seems apparent that you are approaching this discussion from a "packaged" position (political, etc.). I would suggest that that is not optimal for discovering the truth.
 
2012-10-15 06:57:10 PM

FormlessOne: JamesSirBensonMum: Just Another OC Homeless Guy:
So how do you come by that the Young-Earth concept? Seriously.

You know how I know you didn't read the article? It goes into detail about have the various theologans have rendered the date of creation. If the bible is taken as literal fact, it turns out that 4,004BC is a pretty accurate guess.

And since we have clear evidence that the earth is older than 4,004 BC, I guess we can't take the Bible as literal fact, then, right?


My conclusions are that the Bible is virtually all possibly suspect history & genealogy of the Jews (mainly Old Testament), outmoded tribal ethical constrictions (stoning, etc.), and with a whole mess of allegory thrown in (both books), and all subject to the vagaries of translation and the whims/agendas of the religious leaders charged with putting it together. We know, for example, that the Catholic Bible has several books missing from the KJV, and there are additional books missing from both.

In short, following the Bible unthinkingly and literally is less than counterproductive.
 
2012-10-15 07:02:00 PM
Truly if Atheists were the majority, the world would be a more tolerant place. Just look at this thread.

/not religious
//just not a fan of hypocrisy
 
2012-10-15 07:03:55 PM

JamesSirBensonMum: FormlessOne:
And since we have clear evidence that the earth is older than 4,004 BC, I guess we can't take the Bible as literal fact, then, right?

It's the nail in the coffin for biblical literalism.
The reliance on literalism stems from the fact that Jesus quotes the 6-day creation by his Dad. So if the myth was created to help ignorant sheep herders understand their God, then at least Jesus should have know better. But he didn't... ergo, the bible is literal and not a myth.
Honest Christians should know this, and take a hard stance for literalism. Denying this means Jesus was wrong, and that throws their whole mythology in a spin.


Or didn't want to contradict prior doctrine, and so he either lied or "spun" the truth.

Being the Son of God doesn't mean that you can't also play the game.
 
2012-10-15 07:06:04 PM

Empty Matchbook: Truly if Atheists were the majority, the world would be a more tolerant place. Just look at this thread.

/not religious
//just not a fan of hypocrisy


I find that it's better to worry about how tolerant I am than to make judgments upon the tolerance of others.
 
2012-10-15 07:17:03 PM

inner ted: Eleri: inner ted: [SNIP]

that facility being a weapons depot would explain the big skull on the top of the mountain - which begs the question: if you land on some far away planet and within moments, spot what must be an artificial structure "cause god don't build in straight lines" - yet fail to notice the HUGE HUMAN SHAPED SKULL on top, well.. wtf?

i do like your theory though - well done indeed.

also: anyone notice at the end of the credits something along the lines of "property of the Weyland corp - bringing quality products to you since 10-11-12"

i chuckled

Yeah, saw the credits, too. Notice that it wasn't yet Weyland-Yutani?

The part that really had me scratching my head was what the exact form of the biological weapon was supposed to be. Because of the multiple different species of hosts, and the order, what was the intended path? I mean, was the giant-squid form in the medical bay part of the uncontrolled problem that lead to the death of the Engineers in the base? Or was it an intended step before the aliens we know and fear? And, was it meant to infect the Engineer before getting to that form? Was the Earth supposed to be a captive breeding ground for the final alien form or was it just supposed to be a test ground for totally apocalypse?

first - thanks for taking my mind off work

now to the important part: maybe it was a weapon designed to fit any / many enemies. perhaps the opening scene played out on any number of planets - just so they could be reassured that they could wipe out the whole freaking universe if needed?

the giant squid thing in the med bay: wasn't that the "fetus" that the main gal had "aborted" in the medical tube?

if so - that thing is comprised of: black goo & human - which created crazy squid thing.

which then shot itself down the gullet of big white alien fellow - that then created our dear little Alien.

so, if my premise holds, that little nasty critter is made of: black goo / white alien fellow / human - the mothe ...


OK, I missed something here. What is the name of this movie?
 
2012-10-15 07:21:46 PM

Empty Matchbook: Truly if Atheists were the majority, the world would be a more tolerant place. Just look at this thread.

/not religious
//just not a fan of hypocrisy


Not tolerating "2 +2 = -76.5J8!m" isn't hypocritical. Reality doesn't conform to the scribblings of a Holy Book, no matter how much the reader wants to believe it does. Not being okay with civilization holding itself back on the authority of what is essentially a campfire ghost-story isn't being intolerant of anything other than voluntary stupidity. The opposite is apathetic complacence.
 
2012-10-15 07:28:53 PM

Sylvia_Bandersnatch: To The Escape Zeppelin!: Just Another OC Homeless Guy: TabASlotB: Just Another OC Homeless Guy: ID =/= Creationism.

This is what some morons actually believe.

Hmmmm.... who to believe, who to believe.... my actual experiences talking with people I know or your sem-literate snark? Hmmmmm......

Someone help me on this.

I don't know, he called someone a moron on the internet so he must be right. He makes such a strong argument.

Speaking just for myself, I recognise the distinction as real, but pointing out disingenuous. After all, both inherently rest on the same fundamental premise, that a divine, self-aware, and supernatural being, apparently (not always explicitly, but by logic necessarily) unbound by the laws of nature, in one way or another caused the universe as we know it to exist -- with the equally inherent implication that but for that, it would not. The distinction between them comes down to the mechanism of creation, but both still assume divine Creation as a fundament of the very existence of everything. Also inherently invoking by that (again not always explicitly, but by logic necessarily) that human beings are, by divine intent, the pinnacle of Creation. At that, the distinction between them is actually very narrow, approaching inconsequential, as this thesis of *necesssary* divine creation is fundamentally anathema to scientific exploration of evolution of life on earth and the history of the universe, as science has no room for supernatural events.

From a scientific perspective, any invokation of the divine in a scientific context is logically irrational, because such notions are untestable. Science is not equipped to either prove or disprove such things, and therefore has no place for them. Which is not to say -- as is often argued -- that science *rejects* the divine. Indeed, many scientists are devout people of faith, true believers. But the realm of science is all about testable hypotheses, not untestable notions of why things are the way they are or how they got that way.

People forget that this logical disconnect was the origin of the ludicrous Flying Spaghetti Monster. That was originally intended, by patently absurd example, to illustrate how it's frankly impossible to meld religion and science -- not because the two are inherently incompatible (they are not), but because science relies on strict methods of investigation that cannot study anything supposely divine. Science *can* provide testable alternatives to popular assumptions that may or may not be religious in nature or origin, but that's not the same thing as saying that nothing divine exists. As MC Hawking said, "I'm not saying there's no God / That's not for me to say / I'm only saying that the Earth was not made in a day"

The great irritation that scientifically-minded people have with ID proponents is their insistence that it's somehow scientific. It is not. It can't be. It's literally impossible for it to be scientific, because it involves ideas that cannot be tested scientifically. It is literally as rational to suppose that absolutely anthing you could imagine is behind it all -- for example, a Flying Spaghetti Monster. Those who oppose ID may or may not reject creationism in whole. What we reject is the attempt to force untestable ideas (religious or otherwise) into a realm that's entirely and exclusively about testable ideas.


>>>>From a scientific perspective, any invokation of the divine in a scientific context is logically irrational, because such notions are untestable.

Two possible responses:

1) So far. "Supernatural" simply means we have not yet figured it out. To my mind, if God exists he exists in some environment, somewhere. Might be another dimension, another bubble universe, whatever.

2) Does this mean that, for example, SuperString Theory is superstitious nonsense? It is claimed by most people to be untestable.
 
2012-10-15 07:31:18 PM

vactech: Just Another OC Homeless Guy: On the atheism part. It seems to me that evolution is a particularly elegant way for God to create humans. It is said that man was created in God's image. But I doubt that God has fallen arches, a useless appendix, bad teeth, and a double helix DNA pattern.. That Godly image is, I believe, a spiritual/intellectual/emotional image. The form of the random physical body it inhabits for a brief time is irrelevant.

I'll say it again. God is Nature. I've already pointed out what you have said in my definition of GOD/NATURE. Observe c. and l.

Nature/God
1. A varience of constant states of (and moving properties) that define and create the shapes of binding precedents and objects observed in the conscious and unconscious:
a. Quantum mind
b Galaxy morphological sytem
c Infinit truth proposition (God Mind)
d Neural correlates
e Oscillation Matter/Synchronized Matter (both varieties)
f Quantum Electromagnetism (subset of Quantum Physics)
g Nuclear
h Non-nuclear
i. ∩ (dump containers)
Blackhole
Fision
Invariance (mathematics & physics)
j. Light. i Radiation and/or Guiding principles of morality (John 1:5)
k. Numbers (Numbers)
l. Morphology of Love - Love Body Matrix (romans 12:5)
m. Ghost Sphere - sets out the entire structure (circular action) of the universe (set) and biology related material (Matthew 14:26)
n. Infinity - Eternal reward system ∩ Feed back loop (John 1:2)

Notes:
Contextualism defines (completely) subsets and the whole sets (above) through which observation is restritive in allowance of the sets.


Isn't there a website that strings together gibberish?
 
2012-10-15 07:37:23 PM
Camping was close but it wasn't 11013 BC.

The SubGeniuses know it really all started in 13013.
 
2012-10-15 07:40:40 PM

Just Another OC Homeless Guy: inner ted: Eleri: inner ted: [SNIP]

that facility being a weapons depot would explain the big skull on the top of the mountain - which begs the question: if you land on some far away planet and within moments, spot what must be an artificial structure "cause god don't build in straight lines" - yet fail to notice the HUGE HUMAN SHAPED SKULL on top, well.. wtf?

i do like your theory though - well done indeed.

also: anyone notice at the end of the credits something along the lines of "property of the Weyland corp - bringing quality products to you since 10-11-12"

i chuckled

Yeah, saw the credits, too. Notice that it wasn't yet Weyland-Yutani?

The part that really had me scratching my head was what the exact form of the biological weapon was supposed to be. Because of the multiple different species of hosts, and the order, what was the intended path? I mean, was the giant-squid form in the medical bay part of the uncontrolled problem that lead to the death of the Engineers in the base? Or was it an intended step before the aliens we know and fear? And, was it meant to infect the Engineer before getting to that form? Was the Earth supposed to be a captive breeding ground for the final alien form or was it just supposed to be a test ground for totally apocalypse?

first - thanks for taking my mind off work

now to the important part: maybe it was a weapon designed to fit any / many enemies. perhaps the opening scene played out on any number of planets - just so they could be reassured that they could wipe out the whole freaking universe if needed?

the giant squid thing in the med bay: wasn't that the "fetus" that the main gal had "aborted" in the medical tube?

if so - that thing is comprised of: black goo & human - which created crazy squid thing.

which then shot itself down the gullet of big white alien fellow - that then created our dear little Alien.

so, if my premise holds, that little nasty critter is made of: black goo / white alien fellow / human ...


Prometheus, which is the sort-of prequel to the Aliens series.
 
2012-10-15 07:50:23 PM

Kuroshin: rufus-t-firefly: Bevets

Ctrl-F shows only your post referencing him.

I'm worried.



Read his Fark bio -- it looks like he's bid us goodbye. I'm presuming he realized he wasn't changing any minds here and found some other playground to hang around.
 
2012-10-15 07:56:28 PM

Just Another OC Homeless Guy: Two possible responses:

1) So far. "Supernatural" simply means we have not yet figured it out. To my mind, if God exists he exists in some environment, somewhere. Might be another dimension, another bubble universe, whatever.

2) Does this mean that, for example, SuperString Theory is superstitious nonsense? It is claimed by most people to be untestable.


In strictest definition, 'supernatural' means, "beyond (or, more literally, 'above') the natural" -- that is, outside the laws of nature. Rationally, anything which interacts in any way with any part of the universse must be bound by the same natural laws. Literally supernatural things, therefore, may not exist.

Which is not so that that there can be nothing IN the universe so extremely exotic and powerful by our limited human reckoning that it would not from our perspective *appear* to be godlike. Indeed, it's probably reasonable to assume that we may seem godlike (at times, anyway) to some 'lower' animals, such as our more intelligent pets. It's therefore not unreasonable to suppose that if there is any life in the universe other than us (and I've long maintained that that's mathematically certain), there may well be one or more examples that compare to us by a similar order of magnitude. This is consistent with Clarke's Third Law of Prediction: 'Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistiguishable from magic.' Likewise, any sufficiently advanced being is indistiguishable from divinity.

But we must rationally draw a sharp line between 'extremely advanced' and *truly* godlike, in the sense of actually supernatural, including truly omnipotent. These qualities would be inconsistent with a universe bound by natural laws that must have limits, and with the rational impossibility of anything interacting with those laws without being bound by them. To suppose otherwise shatters all sense of reason, and it becomes just as likely (perhaps even more so) that all existence is imaginary. (Which is not itself unthinkable, but is certainly a very extraordinary supposition. It's reasonable to at least exhaust all other, more reasonable, possiblilities first.) All of which means that 'godlike' beings are entirely plausible within the framework of the universe as we understand it, but not supernatural beings like those posited by most religions.

And those exotic notions are not necessariy untestable. We just don't know how to test everything yet. But you're right that an idea that is *entirely* untestable is not scientific in nature. And because everything in the universe must be bound by natural laws, and all natural laws must be testable in order to BE laws, such ideas are much more likely to be fancy than fact.
 
2012-10-15 08:01:39 PM

Ed Grubermann: dready zim: No, but neither did god...

The where did these things come from? If God did not do them, who did?


loaded question. Implies an entity. try again. Maybe something along the lines of "Why is there something instead of nothing?"
 
2012-10-15 08:05:28 PM

inner ted: first - thanks for taking my mind off work


My pleasure, it's definitely worth taking your mind off work.

now to the important part: maybe it was a weapon designed to fit any / many enemies. perhaps the opening scene played out on any number of planets - just so they could be reassured that they could wipe out the whole freaking universe if needed?

But then why use their DNA? If you want to be able to kill everything in the universe, why seed with just your DNA?

the giant squid thing in the med bay: wasn't that the "fetus" that the main gal had "aborted" in the medical tube?

if so - that thing is comprised of: black goo & human - which created crazy squid thing.

which then shot itself down the gullet of big white alien fellow - that then created our dear little Alien.

so, if my premise holds, that little nasty critter is made of: black goo / white alien fellow /human - the mother & human - the father - that is also mixed with the black goo that David roofied him with - right before he had relations with the human mother & got her prego

that's a hell of a biological cocktail - unless i missed something, then just forget it.

so in summation: the aliens were a crazy & unintentional consequence of that black goo?

still so confused


Seems right to me. Plus, remember the guy to girl was through sexual intercourse, which may not have been an expected transmission vector. In addition, after checking the wiki, the ship from Prometheus and Alien were on different planets. So, did the black goo intentionally result in the aliens, and they were transported as eggs. Oh! And, remember the designs above the black goo jars? Didn't they resemble aliens? Maybe the Prometheus planet was experimenting with the black goo that eventually lead to the aliens, and the ship in Alien was a transport with a fully completed cargo.
 
2012-10-15 08:07:20 PM

Just Another OC Homeless Guy: Isn't there a website that strings together gibberish?


mimg.ugo.com 
"you know the stories about websites that string together gibberish?"
"you`re ON one!"
 
2012-10-15 08:10:20 PM

phaseolus: Kuroshin: rufus-t-firefly: Bevets

Ctrl-F shows only your post referencing him.

I'm worried.


Read his Fark bio -- it looks like he's bid us goodbye. I'm presuming he realized he wasn't changing any minds here and found some other playground to hang around.


Reading his site, I've got an unsettling feeling that we may see him again here in the future, but not in the threads.
 
2012-10-15 08:13:09 PM

dready zim: Ed Grubermann: dready zim: No, but neither did god...

The where did these things come from? If God did not do them, who did?

loaded question. Implies an entity. try again. Maybe something along the lines of "Why is there something instead of nothing?"


Or, if we must assume that someone or something is responsible, why some nebulous 'God'? Why not my cat? I can prove my cat exists, and it cannot be proven that she did not create the universe.
 
2012-10-15 08:47:55 PM

I drunk what: you know how i know you didn't watch darwin's dilemma? srsly dude email me your home address and i will buy a copy for you

or you could have watched it for free on youtube the first hundred times i linked it


Let's see... a video made to attack evolutionary biology, where every excerpt I have watched from said video makes horrible, glaring mistakes about what evolutionary biology actually says or the state of current knowledge/theory. A video that is composed of arguments made by ID advocates like William Dembski and others that have been floating around for years. I have read their arguments and critiques, why do I need to watch a documentary that highlights the same thing? Their written work is at least far more detailed, it just is lacking fancy animations.

Do you seriously think the people in that video hold stuff back that they don't want to put out in written form because it is just too convincing or mind-blowing?
 
2012-10-15 08:54:43 PM

Just Another OC Homeless Guy: However, I have thought for a long time that Occam's Razor is not the be-all and end-all, and that people rely on it way too much, and as a crutch for simplistic arguments. Look at, for example, the Standard Model of nuclear particles; there ARE simpler explanations than the Standard Model, but some of them involve magic and/or divine intervention.


Actually, no, because the formal measure of simplicity is not from the number of steps in the inference process, but the information content of the propositions to start the inferences from. Effectively, since an omnipotent deity can do anything, and thus can do either A or not-A, "Goddidit" does not suffice to explain "A", because while it is relatively concise, it does not allow inferring which. The additional premise of (say) "A" is needed; while you can use both, "Goddidit" becomes redundant.

See (doi:doi:10.1109/18.825807) for the formal math. The theorem relies on ZF or equivalents, but is independent of Zorn's Lemma; the only additional assumption of RE-complex can be generalized slightly, but is in effect an additional axiom. Taking in refutation is legitimate, but leads to a philosophical dead end with Ramsey's Theorem and some Boltzman Brains.

Just Another OC Homeless Guy: Revolutions in scientific theory happen.


Yes. And they require that the new explanation either explain everything the old one and better, or explain everything the old one did just as well plus something more.

This leaves ID at best at the undersupported conjecture phase.

Sylvia_Bandersnatch: From a scientific perspective, any invokation of the divine in a scientific context is logically irrational, because such notions are untestable.


More often, incoherent. Heinlein's phrasing "If it can't be expressed in figures, it is not science; it is opinion" is a bit of hyperbole. Most opinion can be expressed in figures, too.

Just Another OC Homeless Guy: I would suggest that that is not optimal for discovering the truth.


So, we can always start back at the Commutativity of Logical Inclusive Disjunction. (We'd kind of have to, since "optimal" seems to take implicit a poset relation....)

Just Another OC Homeless Guy: My conclusions are


So, based on what premises?

Just Another OC Homeless Guy: 2) Does this mean that, for example, SuperString Theory is superstitious nonsense? It is claimed by most people to be untestable.


Depends what sense of "test" you mean. It's philosophically possible to test competitively against alternative conjectures on the criterion of minimum induction length.

dready zim: Maybe something along the lines of "Why is there something instead of nothing?"


Evidently, because having Nothing is thermodynamically unstable.
 
2012-10-15 08:59:53 PM

abb3w: See (doi:10.1109/18.825807) for the formal math.


Sigh. FTFM.
 
2012-10-15 09:08:54 PM

entropic_existence: Let's see... a video made to attack evolutionary biology


you know how i know you didn't watch the video?

entropic_existence: because it is just too convincing or mind-blowing?


scientific evidence can be pretty mind blowing when you analyze it from an unbiased perspective

i can see you're still struggling with some baggage there, but i'd still be happy to buy you copy to view at your leisure

feel free to make notes and come back and tell us about ALL the science they got wrong and what the right observation, hypothesis, etc.. really is

we will wait patiently here
 
2012-10-15 09:15:20 PM
"He eventually went one step further, marking the Earth's birthday as 6 p.m. on Saturday, Oct. 22, 4004 B.C."

Are we going to have an Earf-birfday party next week?
 
2012-10-15 09:21:09 PM

I drunk what: you know how i know you didn't watch the video?


I've seen it.

It's the same old religious argument from incredulity.
"OMG, I can't understand how that could happen so fast! Therefore, God did it"
The End.
 
2012-10-15 09:22:52 PM

I drunk what: scientific evidence can be pretty mind blowing when you analyze it from an unbiased perspective

i can see you're still struggling with some baggage there, but i'd still be happy to buy you copy to view at your leisure


Uh huh, come at it with the whole bias thing again, that's the ticket. I'm not struggling with any baggage, I'm not a fan of Dembski, Behe, et al. But that is besides the point, I have read the arguments they put forward. Again, seriously, do you think they held stuff back for the video documentary? Things they have never written down, never published in any of their books or on their websites, never talked about in lectures or debates?
 
2012-10-15 09:33:44 PM

Sylvia_Bandersnatch: Just Another OC Homeless Guy: Two possible responses:

1) So far. "Supernatural" simply means we have not yet figured it out. To my mind, if God exists he exists in some environment, somewhere. Might be another dimension, another bubble universe, whatever.

2) Does this mean that, for example, SuperString Theory is superstitious nonsense? It is claimed by most people to be untestable.

In strictest definition, 'supernatural' means, "beyond (or, more literally, 'above') the natural" -- that is, outside the laws of nature. Rationally, anything which interacts in any way with any part of the universse must be bound by the same natural laws. Literally supernatural things, therefore, may not exist.

Which is not so that that there can be nothing IN the universe so extremely exotic and powerful by our limited human reckoning that it would not from our perspective *appear* to be godlike. Indeed, it's probably reasonable to assume that we may seem godlike (at times, anyway) to some 'lower' animals, such as our more intelligent pets. It's therefore not unreasonable to suppose that if there is any life in the universe other than us (and I've long maintained that that's mathematically certain), there may well be one or more examples that compare to us by a similar order of magnitude. This is consistent with Clarke's Third Law of Prediction: 'Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistiguishable from magic.' Likewise, any sufficiently advanced being is indistiguishable from divinity.

But we must rationally draw a sharp line between 'extremely advanced' and *truly* godlike, in the sense of actually supernatural, including truly omnipotent. These qualities would be inconsistent with a universe bound by natural laws that must have limits, and with the rational impossibility of anything interacting with those laws without being bound by them. To suppose otherwise shatters all sense of reason, and it becomes just as likely (perhaps even more so) that all existence is imaginary. ...


Quite clear. Thanks.
 
2012-10-15 09:48:16 PM

abb3w: Just Another OC Homeless Guy: However, I have thought for a long time that Occam's Razor is not the be-all and end-all, and that people rely on it way too much, and as a crutch for simplistic arguments. Look at, for example, the Standard Model of nuclear particles; there ARE simpler explanations than the Standard Model, but some of them involve magic and/or divine intervention.

Actually, no, because the formal measure of simplicity is not from the number of steps in the inference process, but the information content of the propositions to start the inferences from. Effectively, since an omnipotent deity can do anything, and thus can do either A or not-A, "Goddidit" does not suffice to explain "A", because while it is relatively concise, it does not allow inferring which. The additional premise of (say) "A" is needed; while you can use both, "Goddidit" becomes redundant.

See (doi:doi:10.1109/18.825807) for the formal math. The theorem relies on ZF or equivalents, but is independent of Zorn's Lemma; the only additional assumption of RE-complex can be generalized slightly, but is in effect an additional axiom. Taking in refutation is legitimate, but leads to a philosophical dead end with Ramsey's Theorem and some Boltzman Brains.

Just Another OC Homeless Guy: Revolutions in scientific theory happen.

Yes. And they require that the new explanation either explain everything the old one and better, or explain everything the old one did just as well plus something more.

This leaves ID at best at the undersupported conjecture phase.

Sylvia_Bandersnatch: From a scientific perspective, any invokation of the divine in a scientific context is logically irrational, because such notions are untestable.

More often, incoherent. Heinlein's phrasing "If it can't be expressed in figures, it is not science; it is opinion" is a bit of hyperbole. Most opinion can be expressed in figures, too.

Just Another OC Homeless Guy: would suggest that that is not optimal for discovering the truth.

So, we can always start back at the Commutativity of Logical Inclusive Disjunction. (We'd kind of have to, since "optimal" seems to take implicit a poset relation....)

Just Another OC Homeless Guy: My conclusions are

So, based on what premises?

Just Another OC Homeless Guy: 2) Does this mean that, for example, SuperString Theory is superstitious nonsense? It is claimed by most people to be untestable.

Depends what sense of "test" you mean. It's philosophically possible to test competitively against alternative conjectures on the criterion of minimum induction length.

dready zim: Maybe something along the lines of "Why is there something instead of nothing?"

Evidently, because having Nothing is thermodynamically unstable.


Definitely not too clear. You sound like a philosophy professor with a background in symbolic and inductive logic. Since it has been 40 years since I took logic courses I'm in over my head on this.

>>>>Evidently, because having Nothing is thermodynamically unstable.

I've read Lawrence Krauss's book on "A Universe from Nothing" and found it less than totally convincing. Perhaps it was me, but I detected a more than a bit of handwaving.

Why would Nothing be thermodynamically unstable. Not talking about quantum instability.
 
2012-10-15 10:04:09 PM

Sylvia_Bandersnatch: Just Another OC Homeless Guy: Two possible responses:

1) So far. "Supernatural" simply means we have not yet figured it out. To my mind, if God exists he exists in some environment, somewhere. Might be another dimension, another bubble universe, whatever.

2) Does this mean that, for example, SuperString Theory is superstitious nonsense? It is claimed by most people to be untestable.

In strictest definition, 'supernatural' means, "beyond (or, more literally, 'above') the natural" -- that is, outside the laws of nature. Rationally, anything which interacts in any way with any part of the universse must be bound by the same natural laws.


This is not necessarily the case, supernatural beings may use exterior forces to coerce unnatural reactions from our universe.
 
2012-10-15 10:07:04 PM

LouDobbsAwaaaay: Empty Matchbook: Truly if Atheists were the majority, the world would be a more tolerant place. Just look at this thread.

/not religious
//just not a fan of hypocrisy

Not tolerating "2 +2 = -76.5J8!m" isn't hypocritical. Reality doesn't conform to the scribblings of a Holy Book, no matter how much the reader wants to believe it does. Not being okay with civilization holding itself back on the authority of what is essentially a campfire ghost-story isn't being intolerant of anything other than voluntary stupidity. The opposite is apathetic complacence.


Is THIS fellow holding back civilization? Is he a Congresscritter on a science committee saying that creationism should be taught in schools instead of evolution? Is he a Senator saying women have it coming and should learn to be less rapeable?

No, he's either someone who expressed a harmless opinion and immediately had fifty people call him a moron. And in fact try to force their beliefs on him. I honestly see no difference between that and people who try to convert atheists. Or he's a troll. I actually think it's the former because even trolls don't defend religion on these threads, it lowers their Internet Cool Guy Points.
 
2012-10-15 10:07:38 PM

TabASlotB: If you'd be willing delineate how I drunk what's version of Intelligent design differs from the Discovery Institute party line, it'd certainly be more valuable to a thread discussion than your present disjointed ramblings.


entropic_existence: For the purposes of classification and discussion I would be interested in what aspects of ID (Discovery Institute version) you actually don't agree with.


your wish is my command

0. any so called xians who resort to trickery in order to present their view already fail. this includes any and all shenanigans they used throughout the process of changing terms humpty dumpty style to sink to the level of their opponents, for shame D.I. for shame

1. ID seeks to redefine science in a fundamental way that would invoke supernatural explanations, an approach its proponents describe as theistic realism or theistic science. ~wiki

lolz, what could possibly go wrong?! once you begin to discuss supernatural sources-events you have BY DEFINITION left the realm of Science, and must rely upon Religion to continue all reasonable and logical discussions, so one cannot have scientific explanations of unscientific things, that is how we define "stupidity"

their entire premise fails from the start, they have no foundation in which to even attempt to build their shaky attempts of "methodically" (not scientifically) analyzing and hypothesizing about such things, they ought to look up the One True Def. of Nature and get themselves an edumucation!

2. It puts forward a number of arguments, the most prominent of which are irreducible complexity and specified complexity,

so it sounds like they are trying to build their "scientific" argument based on this two trick pony, with additional talking points (such as fine-tuned universe, theistic science, etc..) to support their cause

which begins to gloss over the fact that they already failed at the beginning but just keep on trucking and hope that it will resolve itself in the end. and while each one of these branches may be worth while for discussing, it won't fix the problem that the core is all screwed up to begin with

so from this point on i can keep addressing each "supporting" concept as in

3. Irreducible complexity - with comments
4. Specified complexity - with comments
5. fine tuned universe
6. etc..

or we can address the core problem first and THEN see how any of those other topics helps support a centralized coherent and logical premise

each one of those subjects is a lengthy tangent that would require ample amounts of study, research and contemplation

for example just to even begin to address Irreducible complex., you would have to be familiar with and thoroughly understand this sort of stuff, which i guarantee the average farker will not be able to keep up with, since most uber smart biologists still struggle with it

meanwhile they are still convoluting terms and ideas like: The scientific community rejects the extension of science to include supernatural explanations in favor of continued acceptance of methodological naturalism well, duh!! of course most scientists don't want to discuss supernatural explanations, because it ISNT science

and yet the IDers are actually naive enough to think they can present: Theistic science, also referred to as theistic realism,[1] Augustinian science or Islamic science[citation needed] is the viewpoint that methodological naturalism should be replaced by a philosophy of science that is informed by supernatural revelation[2] and/or allows occasional supernatural explanations, particularly in topics that impact theology, for example evolution. as a valid "alternative" method of teaching and discussing Science, in a respectable and intelligent forum

but hey guess what guys? you know what we call "theistic science"? RELIGION, but good luck convincing these jokers to 1. understand the difference and 2. keep them separate

which brings us back to the original problem

average joes must choose between tweedle dumb (atheist science) or tweedle dumber (theistic "science")

gee u gaiz, i wonder what most people are gunna choose?

and now my head hurts from all this stupid

i don't even know where to begin??

tl;dr

I have to repair ALL of this BS before i can claim that I believe in Intelligent Design

in·tel·li·gent/inˈtelijənt/
Adjective:
Having or showing intelligence, esp. of a high level.
(of a device, machine, or building) Able to vary its state or action in response to varying situations, varying requirements, and past...

de·sign/dəˈzīn/
Noun:
A plan or drawing produced to show the look and function or workings of a building, garment, or other object before it is built or made.

and i also have to constantly remind people that as a creationist i don't necessarily believe that the earth is 6,000 years old

because as a theist the burden is always on yoooooooooos
 
2012-10-15 10:10:46 PM

Just Another OC Homeless Guy: vactech: Just Another OC Homeless Guy: On the atheism part. It seems to me that evolution is a particularly elegant way for God to create humans. It is said that man was created in God's image. But I doubt that God has fallen arches, a useless appendix, bad teeth, and a double helix DNA pattern.. That Godly image is, I believe, a spiritual/intellectual/emotional image. The form of the random physical body it inhabits for a brief time is irrelevant.

I'll say it again. God is Nature. I've already pointed out what you have said in my definition of GOD/NATURE. Observe c. and l.

Nature/God
1. A varience of constant states of (and moving properties) that define and create the shapes of binding precedents and objects observed in the conscious and unconscious:
a. Quantum mind
b Galaxy morphological sytem
c Infinit truth proposition (God Mind)
d Neural correlates
e Oscillation Matter/Synchronized Matter (both varieties)
f Quantum Electromagnetism (subset of Quantum Physics)
g Nuclear
h Non-nuclear
i. ∩ (dump containers)
Blackhole
Fision
Invariance (mathematics & physics)
j. Light. i Radiation and/or Guiding principles of morality (John 1:5)
k. Numbers (Numbers)
l. Morphology of Love - Love Body Matrix (romans 12:5)
m. Ghost Sphere - sets out the entire structure (circular action) of the universe (set) and biology related material (Matthew 14:26)
n. Infinity - Eternal reward system ∩ Feed back loop (John 1:2)

Notes:
Contextualism defines (completely) subsets and the whole sets (above) through which observation is restritive in allowance of the sets.

Isn't there a website that strings together gibberish?


Laugh if you must. Funny you think it's gibberish when in fact, it is such a robust definition that it was able to anticipate the concepts you were touching on above (spiritual image and random physical god body). That's is the beauty of my definition. It, like God, is the alpha and the omega. That is also why IDW is so jealous of it. It succeeds where IDW's falls short.
 
2012-10-15 10:12:54 PM

whatshisname: It's the same old religious argument from incredulity.
"OMG, I can't understand how that could happen so fast! Therefore, Nature did it"
The End.


aka "Turbo Evolution" (powered by brawndo)

/it's got what genetic mutations crave
//the incredulity quencher

who needs all that stinking scientific evidence? when we have all the religious dogma we need :D
 
2012-10-15 10:19:30 PM

vactech: That is also why IDW is so jealous of it. It succeeds where IDW's falls short.


needs moar dots, and i already told ye, you need to refer to yourself in the 3rd person at least 40% of the time...

/we are not amused
 
2012-10-15 10:37:44 PM
I can't believe we let these people vote...

If "God did it." is anywhere in your scientific explanation of anything, you fail science.
Rather than argue about it with the smart people, why not do the one thing that would actually change their minds? Find real proof of God. Your 2000 year old books don't count.
 
2012-10-15 10:40:42 PM

ArkAngel: I believe in intelligent design, and in general I am a Young-Earth Creationist, but I don't really care, nor do I argue about it anymore. Because it doesn't matter. However God made the universe come into being, his message is love towards each other. And that's what I focus on


I believe in Yggdrasil and I am a Young Hammer of Thor Creationist. But I don't argue about it anymore. It doesn't matter (but I'll fight to the death about it).

That's how you sound to me. Childish, deluded and incompetent. Sorry.
 
2012-10-15 10:48:44 PM

vpb: Wouldn't it be funny is the Simulated Reality theory really was correct and some higher-dimensional Cheeto fingered basement dweller was actually God, and we were like his game of the Sims or something?

I'll bet some fundamentalist will latch onto this idea if they ever figure the whole thing out.


That's pretty much the theory posited by the Bible, yeah.
 
2012-10-15 10:56:56 PM

Just Another OC Homeless Guy: I've read Lawrence Krauss's book on "A Universe from Nothing" and found it less than totally convincing. Perhaps it was me, but I detected a more than a bit of handwaving.


Well, yes, but that's because there's no way a book with the math would sell to popular audiences. And the reasoning I use is a lot more hand-wavy than the rigor of the physics these days.

Still, you do understand the statistical mechanics formulation of entropy as (constant unit-system based multiple of) the log number of possible microstates consistent with the macrostate? And that the net mass-energy of the particles in the universe is apparently equal in magnitude but opposite in sign from the net mass-energy of the space-time curvature in the universe?
 
Displayed 50 of 382 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report