Nova's judgment day: Intelligent design on trial

[pirana 0]

Quote

Odin defeated the Titans, but where did the Titans come from, and who did they beat?

I think weekend before last it was Da Bears. Yesterday, I'm not sure. Football is a game for pussies anyway.

" . . . the lust for power can be just as completely satisfied by suggesting people into loving their servitude as by flogging them and kicking them into obedience." -- Aldous Huxley

[Ion01 2]

Quote

Absolute gibberish, all thoroughly debunked so many times that it is pathetic for people to continue clinging to it.

So this is apparently how true science is conducted....when met with opposition, rather than address it simply call the person stupid, say its already been addressed, and then ignore.

I continue to recieve similar responses to my posts. Simply state, "Your wrong", ignore any information or facts I have posted, if any "evidence" if used it is ignoring anything that was already addressed in post.

Simply a wave of the hand is no sufficient! This is the ultimate problem. No one is actually willing to look at the facts, at the information, or at the problems.

[jakee 1,489]

Quote

Quote

Absolute gibberish, all thoroughly debunked so many times that it is pathetic for people to continue clinging to it.

So this is apparently how true science is conducted...

No, it's not. It's just someone telling you that if you had bothered to do even the slightest bit of actual research of your own you would know that the points you raise are all complete rubbish.

If all you can bring to the table are tired old quotemines you shouldn't expect to spark a serious debate.

Do you want to have an ideagasm?

[kallend 2,026]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Absolute gibberish, all thoroughly debunked so many times that it is pathetic for people to continue clinging to it.

So this is apparently how true science is conducted...

No, it's not. It's just someone telling you that if you had bothered to do even the slightest bit of actual research of your own you would know that the points you raise are all complete rubbish.

.

"Gibberish" was a better description.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[kallend 2,026]

Quote

Quote

Absolute gibberish, all thoroughly debunked so many times that it is pathetic for people to continue clinging to it.

So this is apparently how true science is conducted....when met with opposition, rather than address it simply call the person stupid, say its already been addressed, and then ignore.

.

Science does not require disproving the phlogiston theory or the caloric theory or Descartes' theory of vortices every time another charlatan brings it up.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[Belgian_Draft 0]

Quote

Quote

Absolute gibberish, all thoroughly debunked so many times that it is pathetic for people to continue clinging to it.

So this is apparently how true science is conducted....when met with opposition, rather than address it simply call the person stupid, say its already been addressed, and then ignore.

I continue to recieve similar responses to my posts. Simply state, "Your wrong", ignore any information or facts I have posted, if any "evidence" if used it is ignoring anything that was already addressed in post.

Simply a wave of the hand is no sufficient! This is the ultimate problem. No one is actually willing to look at the facts, at the information, or at the problems.

Well, you could start posting some facts instead of what jakee calls "rubbish", kallend calls "gibberish", and I call "bullshit".

HAMMER:
Originally employed as a weapon of war, the hammer nowadays is used as a
kind of divining rod to locate the most expensive parts adjacent the
object we are trying to hit.

[kallend 2,026]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Absolute gibberish, all thoroughly debunked so many times that it is pathetic for people to continue clinging to it.

So this is apparently how true science is conducted....when met with opposition, rather than address it simply call the person stupid, say its already been addressed, and then ignore.

I continue to recieve similar responses to my posts. Simply state, "Your wrong", ignore any information or facts I have posted, if any "evidence" if used it is ignoring anything that was already addressed in post.

Simply a wave of the hand is no sufficient! This is the ultimate problem. No one is actually willing to look at the facts, at the information, or at the problems.

Well, you could start posting some facts instead of what jakee calls "rubbish", kallend calls "gibberish", and I call "bullshit".

Credit for "gibberish" is due to pirana, not to me.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[Ion01 2]

Go back and actually read my posts! I am not going to repost everything for you.

Besides if people were to actually do the research themselves instead of just accepting what is put in front of them, they would find the problems and holes in the standard models and theories.

Anyways, I find it interesting, to say the least, that the simple hand waving continues even after it has been pointed out.

[Belgian_Draft 0]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

Absolute gibberish, all thoroughly debunked so many times that it is pathetic for people to continue clinging to it.

So this is apparently how true science is conducted....when met with opposition, rather than address it simply call the person stupid, say its already been addressed, and then ignore.

I continue to recieve similar responses to my posts. Simply state, "Your wrong", ignore any information or facts I have posted, if any "evidence" if used it is ignoring anything that was already addressed in post.

Simply a wave of the hand is no sufficient! This is the ultimate problem. No one is actually willing to look at the facts, at the information, or at the problems.

Well, you could start posting some facts instead of what jakee calls "rubbish", kallend calls "gibberish", and I call "bullshit".

Credit for "gibberish" is due to pirana, not to me.

I stand corrected.

HAMMER:
Originally employed as a weapon of war, the hammer nowadays is used as a
kind of divining rod to locate the most expensive parts adjacent the
object we are trying to hit.

[Belgian_Draft 0]

Quote

Go back and actually read my posts! I am not going to repost everything for you.

Besides if people were to actually do the research themselves instead of just accepting what is put in front of them, they would find the problems and holes in the standard models and theories.

Anyways, I find it interesting, to say the least, that the simple hand waving continues even after it has been pointed out.

I have read your posts. I suggest doing the following...
1) Print off your own post containing all the claims you make.
2) Go to the link posted at the beginning of the thread.
3)Watch the 12 short episodes that are free and online.
4) Scratch off each of your claims (or "facts", as you call them) as they are debunked.
5)Get back to us with the ones that are left.

HAMMER:
Originally employed as a weapon of war, the hammer nowadays is used as a
kind of divining rod to locate the most expensive parts adjacent the
object we are trying to hit.

[Ion01 2]

So facts like what pseodo science is and how science is to be conducted was debunked? How interesting.

Obviously no real discussion is going to take place as actual science is given little to no thought here.

Later!

[jakee 1,489]

Quote

So facts like what pseodo science is and how science is to be conducted was debunked?

Wild, unjustified, unsupported, and simply wrong assertions about how pretty much all of modern astronomy, physics and biology (I don't think you've laid into chemistry yet) are pseudoscience have been debunked. Many times, by many people, in many places.

Quote

Obviously no real discussion is going to take place as actual science is given little to no thought here.

Evidently. Once you've learned some, then we could discuss it.

Do you want to have an ideagasm?

[PinballMilitia 0]

You mean actual science like Intelligent Design?

[Amazon 7]

Quote

Go back and actually read my posts! I am not going to repost everything for you.

Thank God

[Belgian_Draft 0]

You haven't even watched the program this thread is about, have you?

HAMMER:
Originally employed as a weapon of war, the hammer nowadays is used as a
kind of divining rod to locate the most expensive parts adjacent the
object we are trying to hit.

[Belgian_Draft 0]

Quote

Quote

Go back and actually read my posts! I am not going to repost everything for you.

Thank God

HAMMER:
Originally employed as a weapon of war, the hammer nowadays is used as a
kind of divining rod to locate the most expensive parts adjacent the
object we are trying to hit.

[billvon 2,990]

>Besides if people were to actually do the research themselves instead of
>just accepting what is put in front of them, they would find the problems and
>holes in the standard models and theories.

I've actually done it. I've measured the nuclear magnetic resonance effect, and I've measured mutual inductance between coils. Maxwell's Equations and quantum mechanics fit with my measurements pretty well. I've also had to deal with the speed of light in a great many designs, and lo and behold it really _does_ travel about a foot per nanosecond, and slows down in various mediums (like glass.)

I'd love to be able to document a system that does not obey Maxwell's Equations, or be able to demonstrate that light goes slower when it's moving "against the ether." It would guarantee me a Nobel Prize at least. But the physical world sticks stubbornly to the basic laws that govern it.

So what research have you done that shows the holes in the standard models and theories?

[billvon 2,990]

>Just because a singularity is a mathematical concept does not preclude
>said concept from including the characteristics that would it define it as a typre
>of black hole.

?? That's like saying that a statistic is a type of a baseball game. A singularity is a mathematical concept. A black hole is an actual thing.

>The radiation you speak of is not Hawking radiation.

Hawking radiation is radiation that occurs when particle-antiparticle pairs are spontaneously created (as happens all the time) but are unable to recombine because one particle is absorbed by the black hole. The other particle then escapes. The idea that black holes could emit photons (i.e. blackbody radiation) was known before Bekenstein and Hawking, but it was their work that determined a process (i.e. particle-antiparticle creation via vacuum fluctuation) that could work.

Nothing can actually exit a black hole, hence the initial confusion as to how a black hole can emit blackbody radiation. It wasn't until Hawking that we understood how they can appear to emit photons.

>My point still stands that such information will not help you determine what
>went in (or what came before - be it a donkey, hot fudge sundae, or God) a black
>hole; much less a singularity (theorized as being at the center of at least some
>black holes).

I agree. All you can do is measure the amount they increase a hole's mass, spin or charge. But you can't tell what it was.

> Hawking has theorized that black holes evaporate, and that mechanism, yet
> to be observed, is Hawking radiation. It is not likely to be directly observed in
>our lifetime.

Depends on the black hole! If we can ever create a tiny one, it will likely evaporate in milliseconds, since radiation is inversely proportional to size. The "break-even" point where a black hole absorbs about as much as it emits is around 5 x 10^22kg, which is the size of a small planet. So it stands to reason that we won't find many natural black holes much below this size; they would have evaporated long ago.

[Belgian_Draft 0]

Quote

Depends on the black hole! If we can ever create a tiny one, it will likely evaporate in milliseconds, since radiation is inversely proportional to size. The "break-even" point where a black hole absorbs about as much as it emits is around 5 x 10^22kg, which is the size of a small planet. So it stands to reason that we won't find many natural black holes much below this size; they would have evaporated long ago.

I know of at least one that is smaller than any planet. It resides at the bottom of the Atlantic in an area known at "The Burmuda Triangle". It sucks in planes and boats leaving no trace behind. I saw it on TV so it has to be true.

HAMMER:
Originally employed as a weapon of war, the hammer nowadays is used as a
kind of divining rod to locate the most expensive parts adjacent the
object we are trying to hit.

[billvon 2,990]

>It resides at the bottom of the Atlantic in an area known at "The Burmuda
>Triangle". It sucks in planes and boats leaving no trace behind.

I remember that one! I'm pretty sure they moved it to area 51 though.

[vortexring 0]

Quote

**OUR** part of space-time may have started with a "big bang", but our universe may just be a tiny part of an infinitite entity with no beginning. Maybe there never was a creation.

Maybe it's God who wasn't created. I came across this:

'The first part of the argument is that everything that exists must have a cause. Nothing comes into existence out of nothing.

The second part of the argument is that there cannot be an endless string of causes. If that were the case, then we would never get to the present moment. There had to be a single beginning cause that set all the other causes into motion.

The third part of the argument is that this first cause cannot itself by caused. It must be an infinite, eternally existing, uncaused force or being that set all other causes into motion.

The big question arising from this argument, of course, is this: Who or what is this first cause? Interestingly, the Bible has the answer: the first cause is God, who is himself uncaused. In other words, He doesn’t have a beginning.

The first thing the Bible says is “in the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth.” Earlier we said that science is getting close to measuring the beginning of the universe. It hasn’t always been this way. Scientists used to believe that the universe always existed (even though this belief violated the philosophical argument we just laid out). But scientific evidence uncovered in the last 10 to 15 years has proven that the universe did have a beginning. And for that to be the case, there had to be something or someone that began it.

Like we said, the Bible very simply but very accurately tells us that God began the universe. For that to happen, he had to exist before the beginning, and he had to be uncaused.

That’s who God is by definition. He is eternal. He has always existed. He is uncaused. He has no beginning and no end. He is the cause of everything that exists.

Now, just knowing that the first cause is God is fine, but it doesn’t necessarily bring meaning to our lives. It doesn’t tell us who we are or why God created us. That’s why the story of the Bible doesn’t stop with Genesis 1:1. It goes on to tell us about God and how He created us and relates to us. It tells us that God is personal and loving. He isn’t a machine or a distant deity. He is the God who is both distinct from His creation, but also close to it. He is the God who is near.'

That makes a bit more sense to me when considering what may have been before the Big Bang and its cause.

'for it's Tommy this, an' Tommy that, an' "chuck 'im out, the brute!" But it's "saviour of 'is country" when the guns begin to shoot.'

[billvon 2,990]

>The first part of the argument is that everything that exists must have
>a cause. Nothing comes into existence out of nothing.

Not true! Particle/antiparticle pairs pop into existence all the time in empty space for no good reason. (Google vacuum energy.)

>The second part of the argument is that there cannot be an
>endless string of causes. If that were the case, then we would never get
> to the present moment. There had to be a single beginning cause that
> set all the other causes into motion.

I don't understand this one. If you postulate an eternal universe, there can indeed be an eternal string of causes.

[skydyvr 0]

I wonder if Mankind will ever have enough grey matter to understand how anything could never have had a beginning, and will never have an end.

. . =(_8^(1)

[labrys 0]

Quote

The second part of the argument is that there cannot be an endless string of causes. If that were the case, then we would never get to the present moment.

So.... if I have to get up at 7am tomorrow and I go to bed at 11pm tonight, then I have 8 hours to sleep. Which means that I have to sleep fpr 4 hours to get half way there.... and 2 hours to get half way to that... and 1 hour to get half way to that.... and I could go on and on and on and on always sleeping half way to the next goal.

I guess I won't ever wake up.

Owned by Remi #?

[kallend 2,026]

Quote

Quote

The second part of the argument is that there cannot be an endless string of causes. If that were the case, then we would never get to the present moment.

So.... if I have to get up at 7am tomorrow and I go to bed at 11pm tonight, then I have 8 hours to sleep. Which means that I have to sleep fpr 4 hours to get half way there.... and 2 hours to get half way to that... and 1 hour to get half way to that.... and I could go on and on and on and on always sleeping half way to the next goal.

I guess I won't ever wake up.

Zeno!

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.