Runboard.com
Слава Україні!

runboard.com       Sign up (learn about it) | Sign in (lost password?)

Page:  1  2  3 ... 5  6  7  8 

 
James Jaeger Profile
Live feed
Blog
Friends
Miscellaneous info

Registered user

Registered: 12-2017
Reply | Quote
Re: Another Scientific Challenge The Darwinist Can't Counter


>The default position of the scientist (‘I don’t know’) is a far more honest stance than answering with metaphors that can be defended with claims of ‘you just don’t understand’ whenever anyone points out that such fictions get us no closer to an understanding than the straightforward admission of ignorance.

I agree with you on this. Especially when one considers the horrific abuses humans have been guilty of in the name of "God." Stuff like the "devine right of kings" that these assholes used to use to subjugate their populations with for centuries. "You just don't understand as you are only a surf." Crap like that.

But then, today's scientists are doing the same thing. "You just don't understand quantum mechanics as you are only a layperson."

>God is all things? No, Universe is all things.

I find that the word "God" and the word "Universe" are interchangable. The pastor calls it God and the scientist calls it Universe.
12/8/2019, 3:26 pm Link to this post PM James Jaeger Blog
 
James Jaeger Profile
Live feed
Blog
Friends
Miscellaneous info

Registered user

Registered: 12-2017
Reply | Quote
Re: Another Scientific Challenge The Darwinist Can't Counter


>Yes.
>The scientist who hypothesised that some illnesses are caused by bacteria and laid down the path that led to immunology did a lot more for the betterment of humanity than the religious man who made that lazy handwaving excuse ‘the illness was caused by God’.

So really it comes down to causality, or more specifically, how long the chain is.

The scientist explicates more of the causal chain than the religionist. The religionist's chain is just 2 or 3 links long:

1) He died
2) It was the will of God
3) We have no idea the !@#$ why


The scientist's chain has more links:

1) He died
2) Cancer
3) Cells went haywire
4) Chemical X found
5) We have no idea the !@#$ why
  

The more links the scientist can muster in his chain, the better bullshit artist he's considered by the peer-reviewed journals. The better BS artist he is, the more government/corporate grants he gets to put out horseshit products to sell to the lumpin, science-wowed population.

Hey, I think I will be a scientist when I grow up...

>The scientists who study cancer properly and find some key weakness that leads to an effective cure will do infinitely more for progress than the ‘scientists’ who say ‘gosh understanding cancer is really hard. Let’s just say god made cancer. We can have the paper written up in three minutes and then go down the pub’.

And that's the ideal scene. Getting government grants with a minimum of causal explainination. If the scientists COULD just say "Gosh, understanding cancer is really hard but since I was honest enough to point that out, let's just say God killed the !@#$ and go get a drink."

If it were that easy, believe me, all scientists would all also be preachers and we would have flocks of scientist-preacher hyphanates roaming around academia and corporate America. Hey, don't look now.
12/8/2019, 3:48 pm Link to this post PM James Jaeger Blog
 
James Jaeger Profile
Live feed
Blog
Friends
Miscellaneous info

Registered user

Registered: 12-2017
Reply | Quote
Re: Another Scientific Challenge The Darwinist Can't Counter


>1) The Universe is fine tuned for life which is extraordinary;

True. The fundamental constants like the gravitational constant, the Planck limits, the electromagnetic constants, the specific charges on elementary particls, the velocity of light and the fine-structure of the Universe are so precise, only a superintelligence -- a God -- could possibly have set them.

>2) There is no known mechanism to create DNA life, and fine tuning (improving) it through random mutation is limited at best, and random mutation almost always results in losing genetic information, making the genetic code less capable and more fragile.

Still studying this.

>3) There is no evidence yet that explains near-death experience based on our 'scientific' understanding of life. It could be chemicals like DMT (von Lommel and Alexander show how that can't be) or, in the alternative, that via the miracle of consciousness, consciousness actually survives on another 'plane'. We don't understand consciousness so we have to say the latter is the best alternative.

When I was a Dianetic Auditor I encountered many cases that experienced "out of the body" experiences, what Hubbard calls "exteriorization". No one knows what causes these experiences but the people experiencing them claim that they are out of their bodies with full or partial perception. This is evidence that we are more than just our bodies.


>4) Again, we don't understand consciousness so things could be going on that we don't understand.

True.

>Enter what the New Right calls not-necessarily non-religious 'spirituality'. It's could be, and I think it is, the New Frontier.

I don't know what non-religious spirituality is. Never heard of it.

>I can provide examples from literature. P.S. This is a bigger movement among the youthful than generally realized.

Maybe do. The two (Big Pharma-prescribing) psychiatrists and the (vitamin-prescribing) "loss therapist" in my office building are now gone and all that's left is a (silence-prescribing) meditation group and me, the Mad Filmmaker of Devon ... and I prescribe nothing except an ocasional dose of my documentaries such found on DVD at http://www.MoviePubs.net or at http://www.HomeVideo.net (for free if you are a cheapskate).

Last edited by James Jaeger, 12/8/2019, 4:21 pm
12/8/2019, 4:11 pm Link to this post PM James Jaeger Blog
 
Extropia DaSilva Profile
Live feed
Blog
Friends
Miscellaneous info

Moderator

Registered: 12-2017
Reply | Quote
Re: Another Scientific Challenge The Darwinist Can't Counter


>True. The fundamental constants like the gravitational constant, the Planck limits, the electromagnetic constants, the specific charges on elementary particls, the velocity of light and the fine-structure of the Universe are so precise, only a superintelligence -- a God -- could possibly have set them.<

Not true. Universe is infinite in space and time. Combine that with a weak anthropic principle and realisation dawns that of course we would not be around to make observations of a period of time in which Universe (or, rather, one infinitesimal speck of space within Universe) did NOT have constants set ‘just so’ for us. It’s no more surprising than the fact that we inhabit a planet that sits at the Goldilocks zone rather than down in the crushing depths of Jupiter’s atmosphere or Mars’s inhospitable cold.
12/9/2019, 3:41 am Link to this post PM Extropia DaSilva Blog
 
Spikosauropod Profile
Live feed
Blog
Friends
Miscellaneous info

Parliamentarian

Registered: 06-2007
Reply | Quote
Re: Another Scientific Challenge The Darwinist Can't Counter


quote:

Universe is infinite in space and time.


And you know this how?
12/9/2019, 3:47 am Link to this post PM Spikosauropod
 
James Jaeger Profile
Live feed
Blog
Friends
Miscellaneous info

Registered user

Registered: 12-2017
Reply | Quote
Re: Another Scientific Challenge The Darwinist Can't Counter


>Not true. Universe is infinite in space and time. ... so ... of course we ... inhabit a planet that sits at the Goldilocks zone rather than down in the crushing depths of Jupiter’s atmosphere ...

So just give anything an infinite amount of space and time and everything will happen. Sounds like you have simply replaced "God" with "infinity." God is infinity. Who else could have made infinity other than God...


 

  


Last edited by James Jaeger, 12/9/2019, 6:59 pm
12/9/2019, 6:58 pm Link to this post PM James Jaeger Blog
 
James Jaeger Profile
Live feed
Blog
Friends
Miscellaneous info

Registered user

Registered: 12-2017
Reply | Quote
Re: Another Scientific Challenge The Darwinist Can't Counter


>And you know this how?

God told him ...

Last edited by James Jaeger, 12/9/2019, 7:00 pm
12/9/2019, 7:00 pm Link to this post PM James Jaeger Blog
 
Spikosauropod Profile
Live feed
Blog
Friends
Miscellaneous info

Parliamentarian

Registered: 06-2007
Reply | Quote
Re: Another Scientific Challenge The Darwinist Can't Counter


quote:

So just give anything an infinite amount of space and time and everything will happen.


I suspect that Ex is effectively arguing in circles. The only way something as improbable as our manifold could exist (or so materialists presume) is if there were, in effect, an infinite dice roll. Therefore, the universe must be infinite.
12/9/2019, 8:07 pm Link to this post PM Spikosauropod
 
James Jaeger Profile
Live feed
Blog
Friends
Miscellaneous info

Registered user

Registered: 12-2017
Reply | Quote
Re: Another Scientific Challenge The Darwinist Can't Counter


Right. The whole theory of "infinity" is as unfalsifiable as the theory of "deity." But if infinity has utilitarian value, I don't see why God does not have a similar utilitarian value.


Last edited by James Jaeger, 12/9/2019, 9:11 pm
12/9/2019, 9:00 pm Link to this post PM James Jaeger Blog
 
Extropia DaSilva Profile
Live feed
Blog
Friends
Miscellaneous info

Moderator

Registered: 12-2017
Reply | Quote
Re: Another Scientific Challenge The Darwinist Can't Counter


>And you know this how?<

Well. It’s just logical isn’t it? Let’s suppose space is not infinite. In that case there must be a point where space ends. So what happens when you stretch out a hand across that barrier? What are you reaching into? And what about a beginning of time? How long did it take for time to begin? One second? One trillion years? If time does not exist such questions are meaningless! There was no time in which the passage of time before time began could be measured! So it’s just mathematical mystic absurdism to speak of time beginning. This is why there is a singularity in Big Bang theories. Singularities do not exist, they are just conceptual markers showing where a theory breaks down and produces nothing but nonsense.

Also, as I pointed out before all the evidence we have points to matter and energy always existing and evolving, never being created or destroyed. And no we have not proven absolutely that energy can be created and not just transformed but since there is as yet absolutely no evidence that this possible it seems silly to suppose there was ever a time when something did not exist. Since Universe is, by definition, ‘all that exists’ it, too must always have existed.

To compare Universe with a God is also silly. It’s that ‘intellectual high treason’ that Dawkins found about. We all know that when people use the word God they are thinking of the deities of priests, rabbis and mullahs. There is a world of difference between such prayer-answering, miracle-performing, punishment-administering fictional beings and the metaphorical use of the word ‘god’ in such books as ‘A Brief History of Time’.

To get back to the subject of this topic, there is a big difference between Big Bang theories and Darwinism that should be highlighted.

Where the cosmology and astrophysics is concerned, its quite common for its failures to be highlighted by the mainstream. Major publications like Scientific American or Newscientist run space news with headlines like ‘scientists baffled by black hole that should not exist’ or ‘discovery of impossible star rewrites rulebook of stellar evolution’ (to be clear I made these headlines up real headlines of this kind do pop up throughout the year).

Contrast this with the theory of natural selection. Here you never read a mainstream report hinting at some direct contradiction of Darwinism. You never read a mainstream article about an “impossible fossil” that should not exist according to evolution or some molecular structure that demands a total rewrite of the fundamentals of the theory. Nor do you ever read about entirely imaginary phenomenon being dreamed up in order to retrofit Darwinism to new data. Where is natural selection’s equivalent of dark matter, dark energy, calabai-yau space manifolds, and inflation? Instead we find it predicting the existence of some kind of storage medium and lo and behold DNA is discovered. We find it predicting the existence of fossils that appear to us to be intermediate between two modern species. Many such fossils have been found. It even predicted that there were forms of energy waiting to be discovered that would keep the sun shining for billions of years. Lo and behold we found there was nuclear fusion (or, if you subscribe to it, Birkeland currents feeding plasma with electrical current).

So there is never any hint from the mainstream that Darwinism is wrong; never any need to retrofit the theory with made-up phenomenon to explain away otherwise falsifying data. The only time you ever hear any claims that Darwinism is flawed is from its naysayers, naysayers who offer no serious alternative explanation (very unlike the EU theorists with their reams of experimental data from plasma physics and electrical engineering) and who invariably turn out to have religious convictions that obviously cloud their judgement and make them desperate to believe Darwinism is, must be, wrong.

Well it isn’t. They are.
12/10/2019, 3:59 am Link to this post PM Extropia DaSilva Blog
 


Add a reply

Page:  1  2  3 ... 5  6  7  8 





You are not logged in (login)
Back To Top