And while you’re at it: POST SOME POSITIVE EVIDENCE FOR INTELLIGENT DESIGN!!!
It’s one thing to give lip service to the scientific method, then turn around and Negate as your only technique. It’s quite another to actually apply critical thinking to things you believe in.
In all honesty, I am interested in reading what sort of evidence or theories you have about the creation of the universe.
Scylla:
Hold on…you’ve thrown me a curve with the “virtual” stuff (simulated universe?) I’m going to have to catch up with you which will require some research.
You don’t really want me to concede to something I don’t yet comprehend, do you?
BTW, just to remind you; earlier in the thread you agreed to accept the possibility of abiogenisis in this discussion, since it is the common belief of the “scientific community” that you are trying to persuade.
CB:
The virtual does not refer to simulated. Virtual particles exist as potentialities.
They are nevertheless very real and have measurable effects.
A better description is that they have a tendency to exist.
Again, math is a better descriptive entity than words for this.
Both “virtual” and “real” particles are created along the potentials of the Higgs field all the time.
Understanding of virtual particles is not intrinsic to the explanation.
What is is that the Higgs field preexists the Big Bang. Though the word preexists is meaningless (that time thing again.)
Time or timeless necessitate the creation of Planck particles within this field in either an instant or an eternity (time again.) What’s left over from the anhiliation goes off in a Big-bang.
JonR provided some nift links to Higgs field and Bosuns on the Creationism 3d thread. Good luck with the Higgs field.
Scylla:
I’ll need time to catch up. So far, I’m only at the point that a force-carrying particle is emitted from a matter particle, which by definition has mass (presenting the problem -where did the mass come from?). The force carrying particles are divided into four groups:
At this point, I am wrestling with the concept of ‘where’ these virtual particles existed if there was no ‘space’.
::
Once again, we see CalifBoomer reply without addressing the specific request that he back up his claims from another part of that very same message.
Specifically, CalifBoomer said:
I asked: “Please back up this claim, showing who here has done this. Specifics.” He ignored it. What reason could he possibly have for ignoring such a request? Oh, wait, I thought of one possibility – because it was a lie and he knows he can’t back it up.
Anyway, in the part to which he did respond, he said:
No, they are not. The Big Bang is not at all inter-related with abiogenesis or evolution. Physics could completely replace the Big Bang theory with something utterly different, and it would have absolutely no effect on theories of abiogenesis and evolution. Now, abiogenesis is slightly inter-related with evolution, if only because both deal with biology, but evolution itself deals only with what happened after life began, so even there, they are separate issues, as has been explained to you so many times already. So, we are forced to ask why you keep repeating your false statements. Are you doing so purposely, making you a liar? Or are you simply incapable of understanding these simple concepts? I’m afraid I don’t know the answer.
I’m saying that curiosity has nothing to do with the issue. I have curiosity about lots of things, but that doesn’t make them all inter-related.
As I’ve already explained, I’m saying (quite clearly) that one has nothing to do with another. If you want to discuss all three as part of a claim to intelligent design, have at it. But don’t misuse terminology and act like they are connected in the scientific sense, because they are not.
“Darwin’s theory of evolution by natural selection is, to my mind, the most beautiful in all of science.”
– Susan Blackmore, The Meme Machine
I think Scylla’s been studying … I can’t make any significant additions. I can make some comments
Califboomer:
I think Scylla is arguing that no mass existed before the Big Bang, but that from which mass comes (the Higgs field) did. I think he’s gone beyond my current understanding of the Higgs field, although I think I detect a few concepts which came from links I posted in another thread.
I wholeheartedly agree! Assertions such as : “The majority of posters who espouse ‘science’ on this board , will, for example, assert abiogenisis as fact, pointing to our existence as proof.” really bother me. I haven’t seen any support of this particular assertion yet …
And maybe it can be replicated. One thing that is certain about abiogenesis; it takes a long time, probably longer than Man has been in existence. I am quite impressed by the small steps toward abiogenesis that have been made in the laboratory over periods of time that are unimaginably small compared to the age of the Earth.
I am not sure, but you may be thinking of the force-carrying particles that are exchanged as virtual particles. If so, that’s wrong.
Forces are transmitted by the exchange of particles. These are “real particles” if there can be said to be such a thing.
“Virtual particles” is an unfortunate misnomor. The concept was invented to make the math come out right, and the name was chosen because nobody seriously beleived that they existed. However, as somethimes happens, the math was trying to tell us something and we weren’t listening; virtual particles exist. Their effects have been measured (see the Casimir effect).
Consider the simplest possible event; a “real” photon moves from point A to point B. This could be an electromagnetic interaction between two other particles, but it doesn’t have to be. If you try to calculate how this happens, based on just the one photon following the one path and taking one interval of time to do it, you get the wrong answer!!!
To get the right answer, you have to include to possibility of the photon not moving in a straight line (or however you define the shortest path); you have to integrate (add up) all the physically possible paths the photon could have taken. (In most situations, the paths that are not straight lines cancel out, but not in all situations).
Similarly, you have to integrate (add up) all the possible times (ignoring relativity!!!) that it could have taken for the photon to travel that distance. The times that do not have the photom moving at the speed of light in a vacuum always cancel each other out unless the distance traveled is very small, small compared to the radius of a proton. What, if anything, this means I don’t know, and I think nobody knows.
Finally, you have to integrate all the possible things that could have happened in between point A and point B. The photon could have split into an electron and a positron which almost immediately recombined to make a photon. That electron and positron are “virtual particles”. (The famous infinities in quantum mechanics, removed by renormalization, arise when you try to integrate this situation from zero distance traveled between creation and annihilation up to the distance from point A to point B). And you’re not done; there are an infinite number of possible virtual particle creations and annihilations in the transit of the one photon from point A to point B! Luckily, there’s a coefficient of each term in the infinite series, that is raised to a higher power in each succeeding term, and this coefficent is significantly less than one. In other words, the terms in the infinite series get small very fast, and you can get a pretty good answer by summing only three or four terms. Of course, given today’s computers, sums af many many many terms have been calculated.
Finally:
jrf
**
Well, since I asked questions which showed it was illogic, and you cannot answer then, then I must logically conclude that your posit was not logical, and I won.
But, you know, if you can’t read/let the logic sink in, I won’t bother with you anymore.
Wow, where to begin…
First of all, I never said I was a Christian. I believe in God, but the God I believe in is a lot different than yours. Of, it’s the same guy, I think. Just that you seem to think He is pleased with people who are stupid. And people who need “evidence” in order to believe in Him. I do not share this view, and God tol me as much.
Secondly, my religious view has nothing to do with this discussion. That would make this nothing more than an ad hominem attack, which is a fallacy.
Third of all, I nefver “spit on” people of faith. Faith is amazing! It can move mountains!
I metaphorically “spit on” people who claim to have faith in somehing, but when push comes to shove, only prove that they DON’T have faith. People who demand evidence don’t have enough faith. People who lie or encourage lying for their God do not have enough faith.
I spit on the Pharisees, paeshrus. Of which you have shown yourself to be. Look that one up in your Bible too.
I seem to know more about what the Bible says - and I certainly and acting a lot more “Christian” than you in this thread - so this tells me that you don’t know what you’re talking about when it comes to science, Amerian history, logic, and now, your own faith (or lack thereof as I explained).
So, paeshrus, let’s review:
(1) I ask questions. You cannot answer them. That means - I WIN.
(2) You make assumptions about me. You are wrong. That means - I WIN.
(3) You have called me names in this thread way before I ever did the same to you. That means - I WIN.
Any questions, paeshrus?
Yer pal,
Satan
http://www.raleighmusic.com/board/Images/devil.gif
Still not smoking, but away from my meter!
Satan said:
Prove it!
I want to see a documented case of mountains being moved by faith alone!
David B said:
oblio said (2-11-2000)
Satan said (2-11-2000)
Satan, again (2-14-2000)
sixseatport said (2-14-2000)
Bored2000 said (4-9-2000)
hardcore said (1-31-2000)
wevets said(4-16-2000)
ellis555 said(4-18-2000):
All these statements were made within the context of promoting abiogenesis as probable fact, in spite of DrFidelius’ and Scylla’s evidence to the contrary.
David, for someone who claims to have an open, rational mind, you come off as very narrow minded. You only want to acknowledge whatever will support your preconcived notions resting on your hallowed ‘science’; and disregard everything else that doesn’t fit into your neat little world. To further detract from your credibility, you refer to those who do not agree with you ‘liars.’
Well, I have just demonstrated that, like Nixon, some of your statements are ‘at variance with the facts.’
::
CB:
I don’t recall disproving abiogenesis. Since I seem to be dealing with a kinder gentler CB, could I ask you to clarify?
“Don’t just stand there in Uffish thought!”
-The Caterpillar
CalifBoomer: Please cite the specific one of those (or more than one) that actually supports your original claim:
Because none actually say that, as far as I can see. So either you were lying or you realized that you said something you couldn’t back up and now you’re trying to cover it up. Nice try, but you should know by now that we don’t fall for your BS so easily.
Oh, no. I come off to some creationist who regularly refuses to back up his claims as narrow minded. I’m distraught.
Liar. Or else you were looking in a mirror when you wrote that.
No, I refer to liars as liars. You have proven yourself to be one, many times over. You did so here and you did so in the “Christian Coalition” thread, just to name a couple instances within the past few days.
I don’t call people “liars” quickly or easily. In fact, I can think of very few people to whom I’ve applied the term around here. But you have easily fallen into that category. Here’s a hint: If you don’t want to be called a liar, stop lying.
What color is the sky in your world? You only demonstrated that you could try to avoid actually backing your claim and try to go off on a different tangent. Nice try. No deal. The quotes listed simply do not back up the statement you made.
Scylla: on 2-14-2000 you said:
Thereby bringing some reason into the discussion.
David B., on the other hand is quite willing to allow any sort of wild speculation as long as it excludes any possibility of intelligent design. It is clear that he, and many other posters to this board, bring preconcieved notions forward, under the guise of ‘science’, for the purpose of discrediting anyone who would suggest the possibility of a creator.
These people do not employ, nor are they acquainted with scientific discipline, rather they enjoy the self-aggrandizement of riding on its coattails.
::
And still Califboomer has provided no evidence to support his statement that “They will, for example, assert abiogenisis as fact, pointing to our existence as proof.”
He has posted some quotes that establish that several posters on this board regard abiogenesis as fact. OK, I accept that many people assert abiogenesis as fact. IMHO that’s not a mortal sin, because my evaluation of abiogenesis leads me to believe that it is likely to be fact. None of the quoted passages refer in any manner to our existence as proof of abiogenesis.
jrf
JonF:
Please read what you just said. You contradicted yourself.
::
Satan,
You say you believe in a God, so why don’t you tell me a little bit about this? Do you belong to an organized religion?
If you believe in God, why do you:
A) Have a screen name that depicts pure evil?
B) Why do you have a problem with someone demonstrating evidence of God?
C)Why do you have to shout that “you’ve won.”? Are you that childish? (YES)
D)Why do you have to bash me by saying you are holier than thou?
E) If you are such a pious man, why don’t you ever defend the notion of God? Not just my argument, but at anytime?
F) Why should I take crap from somebody that calls themselves Christian, yet takes the name of Satan?
YOU are the one of meek faith; a coward that when push comes to shove, won’t stand up for God - any God. You’re this BBS’s equivalent of Judas!
CB,
Please re-read what JonF posted. Note the difference between asserting abiogenesis as fact and submitting our existence is proof of abiogenesis. One statement offers abiogenesis as a truth. The other offers substantiating evidence. JonF has simply pointed out none have done the latter; moreover, there was no contradiction.
CB:
Seriously:
Shame on you. Just when you were being fair. If you have bothered to find that quote, then surely you are aware of the subsequent discussion concerning how less efficient self-replicating molecules would proliferate very quickly without competition. Efficiency would only need to evolve once there were enough self-replicating molecules competing for material to make it an advantage. After time we end up with the elegant double helix.
The real problem with the abiogenesis event here on earth is understanding why life appeared so suddenly and with the degree of complexity it almost as soon as the earth was capable of supporting it.
Not completely understanding the mechanisms of abiogenesis, this is not yet a significant problem. We don’t know how long it is supposed to take for life to form, so we really can’t have an opinion can we?
It does seem short though.
But for all we know life might just hop together instantly (in geologic time) whenever it has the chance. Perhaps Panspermia is responsible.? We don’t know yet, we only have one model to look at. Earth.
At any rate I’m sure you know you took my quote way out of context.
“Don’t just stand there in Uffish thought!”
-The Caterpillar
Given the two alternatives, abiogenesis vs. creation, why is the former more probable than the latter? Considering there is no ‘evidence’ for either one, why lean toward abiogenesis, unless your are predisposed against creation?
I am simply requesting that people be honest with regard to their predispositions. David B is a prolific ‘science’ writer for Cecil’s columns. He should disclose his anti-theism at the outset.
::
I did read it. I did not contradict myself. You have misunderstood. You posted evidence for part of your statment (which is not particularly controversial) and have not posted any evidence for the other part of your statement (which is controversial, because you have accused people who pride themselves in thinking scientfically of unscientific thinking). I though that which part of your statement was controversial was obvious, but it appears that it was not.
You have offered evidence that many people on this board claim that abiogenesis is fact. I acknowledged that evidence and what it proved. Yes, people on this board present abiogenesis as fact.
I (and, I presume, David) am not particularly bothered by people presenting abiogenesis as fact. IMHO it either is a fact or is pretty darned close to being a fact.
I (and presumably David) also have no problem with your claim that people on this board present abiogenesis as fact. I didn’t need your evidence to prove that claim. I’ve seen it myself before.
I **do/b] have a problem (and, presumably, so does David) with the particular phrase “…pointing to our existence as proof.”
I apologize for not making that sufficiently clear. I thought it was obvious that was what my problem was.
So, to try to make it more clear:
Given that I accept that people on this board have presented abiogenesis as fact, can you provide support for the claim that they present the fact that we exist as proof of abiogenesis?
jrf