Discussion:
Does the Multiverse do Away With the Fine Tuned Universe?
(too old to reply)
R. Dean
2016-11-15 18:18:04 UTC
Permalink
On 11/14/2016 12:11 AM, R. Dean wrote:
There is little doubt that the fundamental cosmological
constants of our universe exist and most scientist
acknowledge this resent observation: first advanced
by theoretical physicist, Brandon Carter at a scientific
symposium in Poland in 1974.



There numerous constants with values so precise that
if any single one was off by a very small percentage,
the universe and life as we know it, could not exist.
The fine tuned universe does not address how these very
precise numerical values came to be, only that they are
real and about two dozen have been measured and their
values known.



http://youtu.be/VDMpWcf4ee0

Most scientist see these values as accidental, but many
non-scientist see this as evidence of design; but
design calls for a designer, which science has no room
for. So, many scientist turn the multiverse hypothesis
which, states that our universe is only one in a kind of
foam of billions and billions even infinite numbers of
universes, each with it's own set cosmological constants.
Then it's just a matter of mathematics, because we happen
to live in one of the few universes able to support life.



There is some theatrical basis for the multiverse found
in the expansion of the universe.
Also in the interpretation of quantium mechanics. But
there is no direct empirical evidence for other universes.
Christopher A. Lee
2016-11-15 18:49:40 UTC
Permalink
Post by R. Dean
There is little doubt that the fundamental cosmological
constants of our universe exist and most scientist
acknowledge this resent observation: first advanced
by theoretical physicist, Brandon Carter at a scientific
symposium in Poland in 1974.
http://youtu.be/VDMpWcf4ee0
There numerous constants with values so precise that
if any single one was off by a very small percentage,
the universe and life as we know it, could not exist.
The fine tuned universe does not address how these very
precise numerical values came to be, only that they are
real and about two dozen have been measured and their
values known.
So what?

Why don't you actually learn some science instead of repeating the
same old , mostly out-of-context sound bytes?
Post by R. Dean
http://youtu.be/BljrAME1LLw
http://youtu.be/VDMpWcf4ee0
Most scientist see these values as accidental, but many
non-scientist see this as evidence of design; but
design calls for a designer, which science has no room
for.
Why do you keep inventing non-existent "reasons"?

There is no actual evidence of design.

If there were, then that would have been investigated, the results
incorporated into the global knowledge base and not just science but
life today would have gone down a different route.

Instead of just repeating the same old, same old, why not address what
both people here and the scientists who have athored popular science
books have said when they explain that there is no way to determine
design?
Post by R. Dean
So, many scientist turn the multiverse hypothesis
which, states that our universe is only one in a kind of
foam of billions and billions even infinite numbers of
universes, each with it's own set cosmological constants.
No, they haven't.

Where they (eg Hawking) mention it in this context, it is to say that
there is no way of knowing anything about them, let alone whether they
exist or not, as part of an explanation why there is no way to
determine design - because without an un-designed universe for
comparison you can't determine design vs non-design.

All of which has been explained over and over agai - only for you to
keep ignoring it.
Post by R. Dean
Then it's just a matter of mathematics, because we happen
to live in one of the few universes able to support life.
We live in the only universe about which we know anything - whether or
not there are others.
Post by R. Dean
http://youtu.be/6PXIYmcdKoY
There is some theatrical basis for the multiverse found
in the expansion of the universe.
Also in the interpretation of quantium mechanics. But
there is no direct empirical evidence for other universes.
Irrelevant. Because even if there is a multiverse (it's only
theoretical), we have no way of knowing anything about whatever other
universes may or may not exist.

So we have nothing to compare against, to determine design vs
non-design.

Please, pretty please, address this and the other main reason there
is no way to determine it.
R. Dean
2016-11-16 03:26:13 UTC
Permalink
Post by Christopher A. Lee
Post by R. Dean
There is little doubt that the fundamental cosmological
constants of our universe exist and most scientist
acknowledge this resent observation: first advanced
by theoretical physicist, Brandon Carter at a scientific
symposium in Poland in 1974.
http://youtu.be/VDMpWcf4ee0
There numerous constants with values so precise that
if any single one was off by a very small percentage,
the universe and life as we know it, could not exist.
The fine tuned universe does not address how these very
precise numerical values came to be, only that they are
real and about two dozen have been measured and their
values known.
So what?
This is a crucial point. The cosmological constants are real and
they are finely tuned. These values and how they became fine tuned
begs for an answer. Maybe the are not designed, but there is no
universal contemporary explanation.
Post by Christopher A. Lee
Why don't you actually learn some science instead of repeating the
same old , mostly out-of-context sound bytes?
Learn some science. I can tell you from personal experience if you
want to work for NASA or a contractor for NASA they put you through
the 3rd degree. You are subject to all kinds of testing and questioned
and challenged on everything pertaining to physics, engineering, general
science and technology and what you know about US space program. I was
put thru this twice.
After five years with a contractor company. A NASA manager asked me if I
had requested a transfer. I had been working closely with his team, I
said, I said no, the truth is, I had not, but that was a mistake. I
learned a month or so later my company lost its contract with NASA its
contract was up and it was out bid. And I found myself unemployed. This
was very bad time, I had just bought a home had a child on the way
and no job. I believe to this day, this man knew and was offering me a
chance to work for him on his team. And like a "fool" I didn't jump at
the chance.
Post by Christopher A. Lee
Post by R. Dean
http://youtu.be/BljrAME1LLw
http://youtu.be/VDMpWcf4ee0
Most scientist see these values as accidental, but many
non-scientist see this as evidence of design; but
design calls for a designer, which science has no room
for.
Why do you keep inventing non-existent "reasons"?
Do you disagree? If so why?
Post by Christopher A. Lee
There is no actual evidence of design.
If there were, then that would have been investigated, the results
incorporated into the global knowledge base and not just science but
life today would have gone down a different route.
Instead of just repeating the same old, same old, why not address what
both people here and the scientists who have athored popular science
books have said when they explain that there is no way to determine
design?
Give me just one scientist with references who states in so many words
"there's no way to determine design". Just one Christopher with his
exact quote and references.
Post by Christopher A. Lee
Post by R. Dean
So, many scientist turn the multiverse hypothesis
which, states that our universe is only one in a kind of
foam of billions and billions even infinite numbers of
universes, each with it's own set cosmological constants.
No, they haven't.
You just are not reading what I reference. Even Richard Dawkins
acknowledges this.
Post by Christopher A. Lee
Where they (eg Hawking) mention it in this context, it is to say that
there is no way of knowing anything about them, let alone whether they
exist or not, as part of an explanation why there is no way to
determine design - because without an un-designed universe for
comparison you can't determine design vs non-design.
I watched his video he says no such thing. This is your invetion
which you are attributing to some unnamed scientist.
Post by Christopher A. Lee
All of which has been explained over and over agai - only for you to
keep ignoring it.
I need evidence of this, not just opinion.
Post by Christopher A. Lee
Post by R. Dean
Then it's just a matter of mathematics, because we happen
to live in one of the few universes able to support life.
We live in the only universe about which we know anything - whether or
not there are others.
I'm not defending that.
Post by Christopher A. Lee
Post by R. Dean
http://youtu.be/6PXIYmcdKoY
There is some theatrical basis for the multiverse found
in the expansion of the universe.
Also in the interpretation of quantium mechanics. But
there is no direct empirical evidence for other universes.
Irrelevant. Because even if there is a multiverse (it's only
theoretical), we have no way of knowing anything about whatever other
universes may or may not exist.
So we have nothing to compare against, to determine design vs
non-design.
Please, pretty please, address this and the other main reason there
is no way to determine it.
You keep repeating this, but you have yet to offer any references or
evidences that any scientist states this in so many words. So, what
I have is your opinion, which I do value to a point, but not enough
to accept without evidence.
But to be clear, I do not claim to have _proof_ of design just that
I think there is evidence which the _better_ explanation is design.
Christopher A. Lee
2016-11-16 04:02:22 UTC
Permalink
Post by R. Dean
Post by Christopher A. Lee
Post by R. Dean
There is little doubt that the fundamental cosmological
constants of our universe exist and most scientist
acknowledge this resent observation: first advanced
by theoretical physicist, Brandon Carter at a scientific
symposium in Poland in 1974.
http://youtu.be/VDMpWcf4ee0
There numerous constants with values so precise that
if any single one was off by a very small percentage,
the universe and life as we know it, could not exist.
The fine tuned universe does not address how these very
precise numerical values came to be, only that they are
real and about two dozen have been measured and their
values known.
So what?
This is a crucial point. The cosmological constants are real and
they are finely tuned. These values and how they became fine tuned
begs for an answer. Maybe the are not designed, but there is no
universal contemporary explanation.
So what?

In spite of your non-sequiturs, there is nothing that remotely
suggests design - apart from the religious beliefs you pretend you
don't have, which tell us plenty because you simply rehash old Earth
creationist nonsense,
Post by R. Dean
Post by Christopher A. Lee
Why don't you actually learn some science instead of repeating the
same old , mostly out-of-context sound bytes?
Learn some science. I can tell you from personal experience if you
want to work for NASA or a contractor for NASA they put you through
the 3rd degree. You are subject to all kinds of testing and questioned
and challenged on everything pertaining to physics, engineering, general
science and technology and what you know about US space program. I was
put thru this twice.
It doesn't show.

Because your design bullshit, your misrepresentation of scientists who
happen to be atheist, your non-sequiturs from the values of the
physical constants to "therefore there was the intention for there to
be life", your use of the argument from authority instead of
explaining how scientists arrive at the conclusions you imagine they
do, etc tell us otherwise.
Post by R. Dean
After five years with a contractor company. A NASA manager asked me if I
had requested a transfer. I had been working closely with his team, I
said, I said no, the truth is, I had not, but that was a mistake. I
learned a month or so later my company lost its contract with NASA its
contract was up and it was out bid. And I found myself unemployed. This
was very bad time, I had just bought a home had a child on the way
and no job. I believe to this day, this man knew and was offering me a
chance to work for him on his team. And like a "fool" I didn't jump at
the chance.
So why not, at least, try to be scientific?
Post by R. Dean
Post by Christopher A. Lee
Post by R. Dean
http://youtu.be/BljrAME1LLw
http://youtu.be/VDMpWcf4ee0
Most scientist see these values as accidental, but many
non-scientist see this as evidence of design; but
design calls for a designer, which science has no room
for.
Why do you keep inventing non-existent "reasons"?
Do you disagree? If so why?
Because if you had any scientific background at all, you would know
that's not how science works.
Post by R. Dean
Post by Christopher A. Lee
There is no actual evidence of design.
If there were, then that would have been investigated, the results
incorporated into the global knowledge base and not just science but
life today would have gone down a different route.
Instead of just repeating the same old, same old, why not address what
both people here and the scientists who have athored popular science
books have said when they explain that there is no way to determine
design?
Give me just one scientist with references who states in so many words
"there's no way to determine design". Just one Christopher with his
exact quote and references.
For fuck's sake, any popular science book written by a practicing
scientist.

They say things like "appears to be designed", but then go on to
explain why it only appears that way.

Using some variant of the reasons we have given you.

But instead of taking any notice, you lie that they say this because
they are atheist - when it is nothing whatsoever to do with their
atheism.

This is another reason we know you are ignorant of show science works,
because if scientists are theist, they leave their theistic beliefs
out of it as well, and don't even consider a designer/god/etc when
they practice their science.

design when .

So neither atheist scientists nor theist scientists even think about a
designer/god/etc when doing their science - either in the positive or
negative.

Because.

Science.

Doesn't.

Work.

That.

Way.
Post by R. Dean
Post by Christopher A. Lee
Post by R. Dean
So, many scientist turn the multiverse hypothesis
which, states that our universe is only one in a kind of
foam of billions and billions even infinite numbers of
universes, each with it's own set cosmological constants.
No, they haven't.
You just are not reading what I reference. Even Richard Dawkins
acknowledges this.
Liar.
Post by R. Dean
Post by Christopher A. Lee
Where they (eg Hawking) mention it in this context, it is to say that
there is no way of knowing anything about them, let alone whether they
exist or not, as part of an explanation why there is no way to
determine design - because without an un-designed universe for
comparison you can't determine design vs non-design.
I watched his video he says no such thing. This is your invetion
which you are attributing to some unnamed scientist.
Liar.
Post by R. Dean
Post by Christopher A. Lee
All of which has been explained over and over agai - only for you to
keep ignoring it.
I need evidence of this, not just opinion.
Not mere opinion, liar.
Post by R. Dean
Post by Christopher A. Lee
Post by R. Dean
Then it's just a matter of mathematics, because we happen
to live in one of the few universes able to support life.
We live in the only universe about which we know anything - whether or
not there are others.
I'm not defending that.
So why bring it up?
Post by R. Dean
Post by Christopher A. Lee
Post by R. Dean
http://youtu.be/6PXIYmcdKoY
There is some theatrical basis for the multiverse found
in the expansion of the universe.
Also in the interpretation of quantium mechanics. But
there is no direct empirical evidence for other universes.
Irrelevant. Because even if there is a multiverse (it's only
theoretical), we have no way of knowing anything about whatever other
universes may or may not exist.
So we have nothing to compare against, to determine design vs
non-design.
Well?
Post by R. Dean
Post by Christopher A. Lee
Please, pretty please, address this and the other main reason there
is no way to determine it.
You keep repeating this, but you have yet to offer any references or
evidences that any scientist states this in so many words. So, what
I have is your opinion, which I do value to a point, but not enough
to accept without evidence.
You want argument from authority without even trying to understand.

Which makes it clear you don't have the scientific understanding that
you pretend.

Why not show that you have a functioning mind by addressing the
arguments you have been given?

Of course, lies about scientists not acknowledging what isn't even
there to acknowledge "because they are atheist", meant you immediately
lost whatever case you were trying to make.
Post by R. Dean
But to be clear, I do not claim to have _proof_ of design just that
I think there is evidence which the _better_ explanation is design.
You don't think. That's the problem. You spout nonsense and when
challenged, "back it up" with more nonsense.
R. Dean
2016-11-17 03:37:03 UTC
Permalink
Post by Christopher A. Lee
Post by R. Dean
Post by Christopher A. Lee
Post by R. Dean
There is little doubt that the fundamental cosmological
constants of our universe exist and most scientist
acknowledge this resent observation: first advanced
by theoretical physicist, Brandon Carter at a scientific
symposium in Poland in 1974.
http://youtu.be/VDMpWcf4ee0
There numerous constants with values so precise that
if any single one was off by a very small percentage,
the universe and life as we know it, could not exist.
The fine tuned universe does not address how these very
precise numerical values came to be, only that they are
real and about two dozen have been measured and their
values known.
So what?
This is a crucial point. The cosmological constants are real and
they are finely tuned. These values and how they became fine tuned
begs for an answer. Maybe the are not designed, but there is no
universal contemporary explanation.
So what?
In spite of your non-sequiturs, there is nothing that remotely
suggests design - apart from the religious beliefs you pretend you
don't have, which tell us plenty because you simply rehash old Earth
creationist nonsense,
Post by R. Dean
Post by Christopher A. Lee
Why don't you actually learn some science instead of repeating the
same old , mostly out-of-context sound bytes?
Learn some science. I can tell you from personal experience if you
want to work for NASA or a contractor for NASA they put you through
the 3rd degree. You are subject to all kinds of testing and questioned
and challenged on everything pertaining to physics, engineering, general
science and technology and what you know about US space program. I was
put thru this twice.
It doesn't show.
Because your design bullshit, your misrepresentation of scientists who
happen to be atheist, your non-sequiturs from the values of the
physical constants to "therefore there was the intention for there to
be life", your use of the argument from authority instead of
explaining how scientists arrive at the conclusions you imagine they
do, etc tell us otherwise.
Post by R. Dean
After five years with a contractor company. A NASA manager asked me if I
had requested a transfer. I had been working closely with his team, I
said, I said no, the truth is, I had not, but that was a mistake. I
learned a month or so later my company lost its contract with NASA its
contract was up and it was out bid. And I found myself unemployed. This
was very bad time, I had just bought a home had a child on the way
and no job. I believe to this day, this man knew and was offering me a
chance to work for him on his team. And like a "fool" I didn't jump at
the chance.
So why not, at least, try to be scientific?
Post by R. Dean
Post by Christopher A. Lee
Post by R. Dean
http://youtu.be/BljrAME1LLw
http://youtu.be/VDMpWcf4ee0
Most scientist see these values as accidental, but many
non-scientist see this as evidence of design; but
design calls for a designer, which science has no room
for.
Why do you keep inventing non-existent "reasons"?
Do you disagree? If so why?
Because if you had any scientific background at all, you would know
that's not how science works.
Post by R. Dean
Post by Christopher A. Lee
There is no actual evidence of design.
If there were, then that would have been investigated, the results
incorporated into the global knowledge base and not just science but
life today would have gone down a different route.
Instead of just repeating the same old, same old, why not address what
both people here and the scientists who have athored popular science
books have said when they explain that there is no way to determine
design?
Give me just one scientist with references who states in so many words
"there's no way to determine design". Just one Christopher with his
exact quote and references.
For fuck's sake, any popular science book written by a practicing
scientist.
They say things like "appears to be designed", but then go on to
explain why it only appears that way.
Using some variant of the reasons we have given you.
But instead of taking any notice, you lie that they say this because
they are atheist - when it is nothing whatsoever to do with their
atheism.
This is another reason we know you are ignorant of show science works,
because if scientists are theist, they leave their theistic beliefs
out of it as well, and don't even consider a designer/god/etc when
they practice their science.
design when .
So neither atheist scientists nor theist scientists even think about a
designer/god/etc when doing their science - either in the positive or
negative.
Because.
Science.
Doesn't.
Work.
That.
Way.
Post by R. Dean
Post by Christopher A. Lee
Post by R. Dean
So, many scientist turn the multiverse hypothesis
which, states that our universe is only one in a kind of
foam of billions and billions even infinite numbers of
universes, each with it's own set cosmological constants.
No, they haven't.
You just are not reading what I reference. Even Richard Dawkins
acknowledges this.
Liar.
Post by R. Dean
Post by Christopher A. Lee
Where they (eg Hawking) mention it in this context, it is to say that
there is no way of knowing anything about them, let alone whether they
exist or not, as part of an explanation why there is no way to
determine design - because without an un-designed universe for
comparison you can't determine design vs non-design.
I watched his video he says no such thing. This is your invetion
which you are attributing to some unnamed scientist.
Liar.
Post by R. Dean
Post by Christopher A. Lee
All of which has been explained over and over agai - only for you to
keep ignoring it.
I need evidence of this, not just opinion.
Not mere opinion, liar.
Post by R. Dean
Post by Christopher A. Lee
Post by R. Dean
Then it's just a matter of mathematics, because we happen
to live in one of the few universes able to support life.
We live in the only universe about which we know anything - whether or
not there are others.
I'm not defending that.
So why bring it up?
Post by R. Dean
Post by Christopher A. Lee
Post by R. Dean
http://youtu.be/6PXIYmcdKoY
There is some theatrical basis for the multiverse found
in the expansion of the universe.
Also in the interpretation of quantium mechanics. But
there is no direct empirical evidence for other universes.
Irrelevant. Because even if there is a multiverse (it's only
theoretical), we have no way of knowing anything about whatever other
universes may or may not exist.
So we have nothing to compare against, to determine design vs
non-design.
Well?
Post by R. Dean
Post by Christopher A. Lee
Please, pretty please, address this and the other main reason there
is no way to determine it.
You keep repeating this, but you have yet to offer any references or
evidences that any scientist states this in so many words. So, what
I have is your opinion, which I do value to a point, but not enough
to accept without evidence.
You want argument from authority without even trying to understand.
Which makes it clear you don't have the scientific understanding that
you pretend.
Actually I do. I can pass almost any test on science; the scientific
method and explain things in scientific terms in keeping with western
scientific thought. But I choose not to in this present scope, because
I find in scientific thought it is limited by the fact that there
are certain boundaries that are to be adhered to. In working in a
scientific lab the Root is the boss If your views are outside the
scientific domain you don't voice them.
Post by Christopher A. Lee
Why not show that you have a functioning mind by addressing the
arguments you have been given?
Of course, lies about scientists not acknowledging what isn't even
there to acknowledge "because they are atheist", meant you immediately
lost whatever case you were trying to make.
Not all scientist are atheist, but all scientist observe the rules of
convention.
Post by Christopher A. Lee
Post by R. Dean
But to be clear, I do not claim to have _proof_ of design just that
I think there is evidence which the _better_ explanation is design.
You don't think. That's the problem. You spout nonsense and when
challenged, "back it up" with more nonsense.
As I've said, repeatedly, proof is impossible. The best one can offer is
one's best judgement based upon the evidence discovered by science.
That's what I have honestly tried to do - without success.
Christopher A. Lee
2016-11-17 05:32:03 UTC
Permalink
Post by R. Dean
Post by Christopher A. Lee
Post by R. Dean
Post by Christopher A. Lee
Post by R. Dean
There is little doubt that the fundamental cosmological
constants of our universe exist and most scientist
acknowledge this resent observation: first advanced
by theoretical physicist, Brandon Carter at a scientific
symposium in Poland in 1974.
http://youtu.be/VDMpWcf4ee0
There numerous constants with values so precise that
if any single one was off by a very small percentage,
the universe and life as we know it, could not exist.
The fine tuned universe does not address how these very
precise numerical values came to be, only that they are
real and about two dozen have been measured and their
values known.
So what?
This is a crucial point. The cosmological constants are real and
they are finely tuned. These values and how they became fine tuned
begs for an answer. Maybe the are not designed, but there is no
universal contemporary explanation.
So what?
In spite of your non-sequiturs, there is nothing that remotely
suggests design - apart from the religious beliefs you pretend you
don't have, which tell us plenty because you simply rehash old Earth
creationist nonsense,
Post by R. Dean
Post by Christopher A. Lee
Why don't you actually learn some science instead of repeating the
same old , mostly out-of-context sound bytes?
Learn some science. I can tell you from personal experience if you
want to work for NASA or a contractor for NASA they put you through
the 3rd degree. You are subject to all kinds of testing and questioned
and challenged on everything pertaining to physics, engineering, general
science and technology and what you know about US space program. I was
put thru this twice.
It doesn't show.
Because your design bullshit, your misrepresentation of scientists who
happen to be atheist, your non-sequiturs from the values of the
physical constants to "therefore there was the intention for there to
be life", your use of the argument from authority instead of
explaining how scientists arrive at the conclusions you imagine they
do, etc tell us otherwise.
Post by R. Dean
After five years with a contractor company. A NASA manager asked me if I
had requested a transfer. I had been working closely with his team, I
said, I said no, the truth is, I had not, but that was a mistake. I
learned a month or so later my company lost its contract with NASA its
contract was up and it was out bid. And I found myself unemployed. This
was very bad time, I had just bought a home had a child on the way
and no job. I believe to this day, this man knew and was offering me a
chance to work for him on his team. And like a "fool" I didn't jump at
the chance.
So why not, at least, try to be scientific?
Post by R. Dean
Post by Christopher A. Lee
Post by R. Dean
http://youtu.be/BljrAME1LLw
http://youtu.be/VDMpWcf4ee0
Most scientist see these values as accidental, but many
non-scientist see this as evidence of design; but
design calls for a designer, which science has no room
for.
Why do you keep inventing non-existent "reasons"?
Do you disagree? If so why?
Because if you had any scientific background at all, you would know
that's not how science works.
Post by R. Dean
Post by Christopher A. Lee
There is no actual evidence of design.
If there were, then that would have been investigated, the results
incorporated into the global knowledge base and not just science but
life today would have gone down a different route.
Instead of just repeating the same old, same old, why not address what
both people here and the scientists who have athored popular science
books have said when they explain that there is no way to determine
design?
Give me just one scientist with references who states in so many words
"there's no way to determine design". Just one Christopher with his
exact quote and references.
For fuck's sake, any popular science book written by a practicing
scientist.
They say things like "appears to be designed", but then go on to
explain why it only appears that way.
Using some variant of the reasons we have given you.
But instead of taking any notice, you lie that they say this because
they are atheist - when it is nothing whatsoever to do with their
atheism.
This is another reason we know you are ignorant of show science works,
because if scientists are theist, they leave their theistic beliefs
out of it as well, and don't even consider a designer/god/etc when
they practice their science.
design when .
So neither atheist scientists nor theist scientists even think about a
designer/god/etc when doing their science - either in the positive or
negative.
Because.
Science.
Doesn't.
Work.
That.
Way.
Post by R. Dean
Post by Christopher A. Lee
Post by R. Dean
So, many scientist turn the multiverse hypothesis
which, states that our universe is only one in a kind of
foam of billions and billions even infinite numbers of
universes, each with it's own set cosmological constants.
No, they haven't.
You just are not reading what I reference. Even Richard Dawkins
acknowledges this.
Liar.
Post by R. Dean
Post by Christopher A. Lee
Where they (eg Hawking) mention it in this context, it is to say that
there is no way of knowing anything about them, let alone whether they
exist or not, as part of an explanation why there is no way to
determine design - because without an un-designed universe for
comparison you can't determine design vs non-design.
I watched his video he says no such thing. This is your invetion
which you are attributing to some unnamed scientist.
Liar.
Post by R. Dean
Post by Christopher A. Lee
All of which has been explained over and over agai - only for you to
keep ignoring it.
I need evidence of this, not just opinion.
Not mere opinion, liar.
Post by R. Dean
Post by Christopher A. Lee
Post by R. Dean
Then it's just a matter of mathematics, because we happen
to live in one of the few universes able to support life.
We live in the only universe about which we know anything - whether or
not there are others.
I'm not defending that.
So why bring it up?
Post by R. Dean
Post by Christopher A. Lee
Post by R. Dean
http://youtu.be/6PXIYmcdKoY
There is some theatrical basis for the multiverse found
in the expansion of the universe.
Also in the interpretation of quantium mechanics. But
there is no direct empirical evidence for other universes.
Irrelevant. Because even if there is a multiverse (it's only
theoretical), we have no way of knowing anything about whatever other
universes may or may not exist.
So we have nothing to compare against, to determine design vs
non-design.
Well?
Post by R. Dean
Post by Christopher A. Lee
Please, pretty please, address this and the other main reason there
is no way to determine it.
You keep repeating this, but you have yet to offer any references or
evidences that any scientist states this in so many words. So, what
I have is your opinion, which I do value to a point, but not enough
to accept without evidence.
You want argument from authority without even trying to understand.
Which makes it clear you don't have the scientific understanding that
you pretend.
Actually I do. I can pass almost any test on science; the scientific
method and explain things in scientific terms in keeping with western
scientific thought. But I choose not to in this present scope, because
Except that you are making bullshit claims in the real world beyond
your belief system. where the scientific method is the only validated
one for objective understanding.
Post by R. Dean
I find in scientific thought it is limited by the fact that there
are certain boundaries that are to be adhered to.
So demonstrate there is a better way, and also show this better way is
valid.
Post by R. Dean
In working in a
scientific lab the Root is the boss If your views are outside the
scientific domain you don't voice them.
Not just a scientific lab, imbecile, but the real world outside your
belief system.

And you don't even understand why the scientific method is the only
validated method of understanding the real world.

Why your lies about scientists who are atheists?

Why your obvious non sequitur from the values of physical constants to
an intention for life?

Why don't you understand that science is about objective conclusions,
not subjective opinions?

Why do you not understand that if anything pointed to design then
science would have gone down that route?

Why have you never addressed the reasons you have been given over and
over again, why there is no way to determine design?

Why do you hide behind the argument from authority rather than
explaining how scientists reach the conclusions you think they do?

Why do you imagine "appears to be designed", followed by an
explanation why there is no way to determine this, means there
actually was design?

Why do you imagine the Anthropic Principle implies the intent for
there to be life?

Heck, why do you imagine it is scientific?
Post by R. Dean
Post by Christopher A. Lee
Why not show that you have a functioning mind by addressing the
arguments you have been given?
Of course, lies about scientists not acknowledging what isn't even
there to acknowledge "because they are atheist", meant you immediately
lost whatever case you were trying to make.
Not all scientist are atheist,
I never said they were, imbecile.
Post by R. Dean
but all scientist observe the rules of
convention.
Whatever that is meant to mean.

You can't practice the scientific method if you include a
god/designer/etc, unless and until you provide scientific evidence for
one first.

Until one is in evidence, there's nothing even there as far as science
is concerned - whether the scientist is theist or atheist.

That's hardly convention - it's just the way science works.

And if you understood this, you wouldn't keep lying about why
scientists who happen to be atheist "won't admit" design that cannot
be determined.

You would also know that you need to back up your claims of design,
objectively and non-fallaciously.
Post by R. Dean
Post by Christopher A. Lee
Post by R. Dean
But to be clear, I do not claim to have _proof_ of design just that
I think there is evidence which the _better_ explanation is design.
You don't think. That's the problem. You spout nonsense and when
challenged, "back it up" with more nonsense.
As I've said, repeatedly, proof is impossible. The best one can offer is
one's best judgement based upon the evidence discovered by science.
That's what I have honestly tried to do - without success.
You haven't shown any honesty.

You need to explain how you reach your conclusion instead of just
saying it's your interpretation.

You need to defend this instead of just ignoring points against it and
repeating it.

You need to address the points against it instead of resorting to ad
hominems.

Which you would also understand if you had any understanding of
science.
R. Dean
2016-11-18 23:37:01 UTC
Permalink
Post by Christopher A. Lee
Post by R. Dean
Post by Christopher A. Lee
Post by R. Dean
Post by Christopher A. Lee
Post by R. Dean
There is little doubt that the fundamental cosmological
constants of our universe exist and most scientist
acknowledge this resent observation: first advanced
by theoretical physicist, Brandon Carter at a scientific
symposium in Poland in 1974.
http://youtu.be/VDMpWcf4ee0
There numerous constants with values so precise that
if any single one was off by a very small percentage,
the universe and life as we know it, could not exist.
The fine tuned universe does not address how these very
precise numerical values came to be, only that they are
real and about two dozen have been measured and their
values known.
So what?
This is a crucial point. The cosmological constants are real and
they are finely tuned. These values and how they became fine tuned
begs for an answer. Maybe the are not designed, but there is no
universal contemporary explanation.
So what?
In spite of your non-sequiturs, there is nothing that remotely
suggests design - apart from the religious beliefs you pretend you
don't have, which tell us plenty because you simply rehash old Earth
creationist nonsense,
Post by R. Dean
Post by Christopher A. Lee
Why don't you actually learn some science instead of repeating the
same old , mostly out-of-context sound bytes?
Learn some science. I can tell you from personal experience if you
want to work for NASA or a contractor for NASA they put you through
the 3rd degree. You are subject to all kinds of testing and questioned
and challenged on everything pertaining to physics, engineering, general
science and technology and what you know about US space program. I was
put thru this twice.
It doesn't show.
Because your design bullshit, your misrepresentation of scientists who
happen to be atheist, your non-sequiturs from the values of the
physical constants to "therefore there was the intention for there to
be life", your use of the argument from authority instead of
explaining how scientists arrive at the conclusions you imagine they
do, etc tell us otherwise.
Post by R. Dean
After five years with a contractor company. A NASA manager asked me if I
had requested a transfer. I had been working closely with his team, I
said, I said no, the truth is, I had not, but that was a mistake. I
learned a month or so later my company lost its contract with NASA its
contract was up and it was out bid. And I found myself unemployed. This
was very bad time, I had just bought a home had a child on the way
and no job. I believe to this day, this man knew and was offering me a
chance to work for him on his team. And like a "fool" I didn't jump at
the chance.
So why not, at least, try to be scientific?
Post by R. Dean
Post by Christopher A. Lee
Post by R. Dean
http://youtu.be/BljrAME1LLw
http://youtu.be/VDMpWcf4ee0
Most scientist see these values as accidental, but many
non-scientist see this as evidence of design; but
design calls for a designer, which science has no room
for.
Why do you keep inventing non-existent "reasons"?
Do you disagree? If so why?
Because if you had any scientific background at all, you would know
that's not how science works.
Post by R. Dean
Post by Christopher A. Lee
There is no actual evidence of design.
If there were, then that would have been investigated, the results
incorporated into the global knowledge base and not just science but
life today would have gone down a different route.
Instead of just repeating the same old, same old, why not address what
both people here and the scientists who have athored popular science
books have said when they explain that there is no way to determine
design?
Give me just one scientist with references who states in so many words
"there's no way to determine design". Just one Christopher with his
exact quote and references.
For fuck's sake, any popular science book written by a practicing
scientist.
They say things like "appears to be designed", but then go on to
explain why it only appears that way.
Using some variant of the reasons we have given you.
But instead of taking any notice, you lie that they say this because
they are atheist - when it is nothing whatsoever to do with their
atheism.
This is another reason we know you are ignorant of show science works,
because if scientists are theist, they leave their theistic beliefs
out of it as well, and don't even consider a designer/god/etc when
they practice their science.
design when .
So neither atheist scientists nor theist scientists even think about a
designer/god/etc when doing their science - either in the positive or
negative.
Because.
Science.
Doesn't.
Work.
That.
Way.
Post by R. Dean
Post by Christopher A. Lee
Post by R. Dean
So, many scientist turn the multiverse hypothesis
which, states that our universe is only one in a kind of
foam of billions and billions even infinite numbers of
universes, each with it's own set cosmological constants.
No, they haven't.
You just are not reading what I reference. Even Richard Dawkins
acknowledges this.
Liar.
Post by R. Dean
Post by Christopher A. Lee
Where they (eg Hawking) mention it in this context, it is to say that
there is no way of knowing anything about them, let alone whether they
exist or not, as part of an explanation why there is no way to
determine design - because without an un-designed universe for
comparison you can't determine design vs non-design.
I watched his video he says no such thing. This is your invetion
which you are attributing to some unnamed scientist.
Liar.
Post by R. Dean
Post by Christopher A. Lee
All of which has been explained over and over agai - only for you to
keep ignoring it.
I need evidence of this, not just opinion.
Not mere opinion, liar.
Post by R. Dean
Post by Christopher A. Lee
Post by R. Dean
Then it's just a matter of mathematics, because we happen
to live in one of the few universes able to support life.
We live in the only universe about which we know anything - whether or
not there are others.
I'm not defending that.
So why bring it up?
Post by R. Dean
Post by Christopher A. Lee
Post by R. Dean
http://youtu.be/6PXIYmcdKoY
There is some theatrical basis for the multiverse found
in the expansion of the universe.
Also in the interpretation of quantium mechanics. But
there is no direct empirical evidence for other universes.
Irrelevant. Because even if there is a multiverse (it's only
theoretical), we have no way of knowing anything about whatever other
universes may or may not exist.
So we have nothing to compare against, to determine design vs
non-design.
Well?
Post by R. Dean
Post by Christopher A. Lee
Please, pretty please, address this and the other main reason there
is no way to determine it.
You keep repeating this, but you have yet to offer any references or
evidences that any scientist states this in so many words. So, what
I have is your opinion, which I do value to a point, but not enough
to accept without evidence.
You want argument from authority without even trying to understand.
Which makes it clear you don't have the scientific understanding that
you pretend.
Actually I do. I can pass almost any test on science; the scientific
method and explain things in scientific terms in keeping with western
scientific thought. But I choose not to in this present scope, because
Except that you are making bullshit claims in the real world beyond
your belief system. where the scientific method is the only validated
one for objective understanding.
Post by R. Dean
I find in scientific thought it is limited by the fact that there
are certain boundaries that are to be adhered to.
So demonstrate there is a better way, and also show this better way is
valid.
Science is confined to four walls of a box. Each of the four walls
have this warning. This wall is where reality, naturalist materialism
ends. Beyond these walls there exist: irrationality, illogical,
mindless, thoughtless, supernatural, pixies unicorns, fairies etc. We
cannot allow a peek outside these walls - you might get brainwashed or
you may go blind! You cannot let the camel get his nose under
your tent. :~)
Post by Christopher A. Lee
Post by R. Dean
In working in a
scientific lab the Root is the boss If your views are outside the
scientific domain you don't voice them.
Not just a scientific lab, imbecile, but the real world outside your
belief system.
And you don't even understand why the scientific method is the only
validated method of understanding the real world.
Why your lies about scientists who are atheists?
Why your obvious non sequitur from the values of physical constants to
an intention for life?
No one can make such a brash comment. No one can know this. It's
my contention that this is the better explanation, but there is
no proof. Without proof you cannot justify such a claim.
Post by Christopher A. Lee
Why don't you understand that science is about objective conclusions,
not subjective opinions?
Wrong Chris. I certainly do understand this.
Post by Christopher A. Lee
Why do you not understand that if anything pointed to design then
science would have gone down that route?
Have you considered that before Darwin, most people including most
contemporary scientist saw design in nature. Darwin, having read
William Paley's book entitled "evidences" which as Paley saw as designed
that implied a designer-God. I suspect Darwin felt a strong compulsion
to explain away Paley and his God: he searched for evidence which he
could use against Paley's arguments. What Darwin did was
to offer an _ALTERNATIVE_ answer to Paley, "design" and Paley's
designer-God. This was evolution.
Post by Christopher A. Lee
Why have you never addressed the reasons you have been given over and
over again, why there is no way to determine design?
Why do you hide behind the argument from authority rather than
explaining how scientists reach the conclusions you think they do?
Why do you imagine "appears to be designed", followed by an
explanation why there is no way to determine this, means there
actually was design?
The only point I was trying to make is that if design wasn't
there, they had no reason to bring it up. But they called it
"apparent design" and the "illusion of design". Neither
addressed this specifically any further. But their entire
writings were from their atheistic outlook, as one would
expect. So, obviously they would try to explain away any
possible evidence of design.
Post by Christopher A. Lee
Why do you imagine the Anthropic Principle implies the intent for
there to be life?
Heck, why do you imagine it is scientific?
Post by R. Dean
Post by Christopher A. Lee
Why not show that you have a functioning mind by addressing the
arguments you have been given?
Of course, lies about scientists not acknowledging what isn't even
there to acknowledge "because they are atheist", meant you immediately
lost whatever case you were trying to make.
Not all scientist are atheist,
I never said they were, imbecile.
What I wrote was about scientist not specifically atheist scientist -
your persecution complex is raising its head.
Post by Christopher A. Lee
Post by R. Dean
but all scientist observe the rules of
convention.
Whatever that is meant to mean.
You can't practice the scientific method if you include a
god/designer/etc, unless and until you provide scientific evidence for
one first.
I agree, this goes beyond the four walls of the box I described above.
Post by Christopher A. Lee
Until one is in evidence, there's nothing even there as far as science
is concerned - whether the scientist is theist or atheist.
That's hardly convention - it's just the way science works.
And if you understood this, you wouldn't keep lying about why
scientists who happen to be atheist "won't admit" design that cannot
be determined.
You would also know that you need to back up your claims of design,
objectively and non-fallaciously.
Post by R. Dean
Post by Christopher A. Lee
Post by R. Dean
But to be clear, I do not claim to have _proof_ of design just that
I think there is evidence which the _better_ explanation is design.
You don't think. That's the problem. You spout nonsense and when
challenged, "back it up" with more nonsense.
As I've said, repeatedly, proof is impossible. The best one can offer is
one's best judgement based upon the evidence discovered by science.
That's what I have honestly tried to do - without success.
You haven't shown any honesty.
Why do you expect me to pretend that I have a commitment to some
absolute infallible knowledge that I don't. And when I cannot
claim to such knowledge, then you accuse me of dishonesty.
Post by Christopher A. Lee
You need to explain how you reach your conclusion instead of just
saying it's your interpretation.
You need to defend this instead of just ignoring points against it and
repeating it.
I frequently provide references which I see as justification. You
give your opinion and your _spin_ on things, and demand that I
answer this.
Post by Christopher A. Lee
You need to address the points against it instead of resorting to ad
hominems.
Which you would also understand if you had any understanding of
science.
That's just your escape.
Christopher A. Lee
2016-11-19 00:31:49 UTC
Permalink
Post by R. Dean
Post by Christopher A. Lee
Post by R. Dean
Post by Christopher A. Lee
Post by R. Dean
Post by Christopher A. Lee
Post by R. Dean
There is little doubt that the fundamental cosmological
constants of our universe exist and most scientist
acknowledge this resent observation: first advanced
by theoretical physicist, Brandon Carter at a scientific
symposium in Poland in 1974.
http://youtu.be/VDMpWcf4ee0
There numerous constants with values so precise that
if any single one was off by a very small percentage,
the universe and life as we know it, could not exist.
The fine tuned universe does not address how these very
precise numerical values came to be, only that they are
real and about two dozen have been measured and their
values known.
So what?
This is a crucial point. The cosmological constants are real and
they are finely tuned. These values and how they became fine tuned
begs for an answer. Maybe the are not designed, but there is no
universal contemporary explanation.
So what?
In spite of your non-sequiturs, there is nothing that remotely
suggests design - apart from the religious beliefs you pretend you
don't have, which tell us plenty because you simply rehash old Earth
creationist nonsense,
Post by R. Dean
Post by Christopher A. Lee
Why don't you actually learn some science instead of repeating the
same old , mostly out-of-context sound bytes?
Learn some science. I can tell you from personal experience if you
want to work for NASA or a contractor for NASA they put you through
the 3rd degree. You are subject to all kinds of testing and questioned
and challenged on everything pertaining to physics, engineering, general
science and technology and what you know about US space program. I was
put thru this twice.
It doesn't show.
Because your design bullshit, your misrepresentation of scientists who
happen to be atheist, your non-sequiturs from the values of the
physical constants to "therefore there was the intention for there to
be life", your use of the argument from authority instead of
explaining how scientists arrive at the conclusions you imagine they
do, etc tell us otherwise.
Post by R. Dean
After five years with a contractor company. A NASA manager asked me if I
had requested a transfer. I had been working closely with his team, I
said, I said no, the truth is, I had not, but that was a mistake. I
learned a month or so later my company lost its contract with NASA its
contract was up and it was out bid. And I found myself unemployed. This
was very bad time, I had just bought a home had a child on the way
and no job. I believe to this day, this man knew and was offering me a
chance to work for him on his team. And like a "fool" I didn't jump at
the chance.
So why not, at least, try to be scientific?
Post by R. Dean
Post by Christopher A. Lee
Post by R. Dean
http://youtu.be/BljrAME1LLw
http://youtu.be/VDMpWcf4ee0
Most scientist see these values as accidental, but many
non-scientist see this as evidence of design; but
design calls for a designer, which science has no room
for.
Why do you keep inventing non-existent "reasons"?
Do you disagree? If so why?
Because if you had any scientific background at all, you would know
that's not how science works.
Post by R. Dean
Post by Christopher A. Lee
There is no actual evidence of design.
If there were, then that would have been investigated, the results
incorporated into the global knowledge base and not just science but
life today would have gone down a different route.
Instead of just repeating the same old, same old, why not address what
both people here and the scientists who have athored popular science
books have said when they explain that there is no way to determine
design?
Give me just one scientist with references who states in so many words
"there's no way to determine design". Just one Christopher with his
exact quote and references.
For fuck's sake, any popular science book written by a practicing
scientist.
They say things like "appears to be designed", but then go on to
explain why it only appears that way.
Using some variant of the reasons we have given you.
But instead of taking any notice, you lie that they say this because
they are atheist - when it is nothing whatsoever to do with their
atheism.
This is another reason we know you are ignorant of show science works,
because if scientists are theist, they leave their theistic beliefs
out of it as well, and don't even consider a designer/god/etc when
they practice their science.
design when .
So neither atheist scientists nor theist scientists even think about a
designer/god/etc when doing their science - either in the positive or
negative.
Because.
Science.
Doesn't.
Work.
That.
Way.
Post by R. Dean
Post by Christopher A. Lee
Post by R. Dean
So, many scientist turn the multiverse hypothesis
which, states that our universe is only one in a kind of
foam of billions and billions even infinite numbers of
universes, each with it's own set cosmological constants.
No, they haven't.
You just are not reading what I reference. Even Richard Dawkins
acknowledges this.
Liar.
Post by R. Dean
Post by Christopher A. Lee
Where they (eg Hawking) mention it in this context, it is to say that
there is no way of knowing anything about them, let alone whether they
exist or not, as part of an explanation why there is no way to
determine design - because without an un-designed universe for
comparison you can't determine design vs non-design.
I watched his video he says no such thing. This is your invetion
which you are attributing to some unnamed scientist.
Liar.
Post by R. Dean
Post by Christopher A. Lee
All of which has been explained over and over agai - only for you to
keep ignoring it.
I need evidence of this, not just opinion.
Not mere opinion, liar.
Post by R. Dean
Post by Christopher A. Lee
Post by R. Dean
Then it's just a matter of mathematics, because we happen
to live in one of the few universes able to support life.
We live in the only universe about which we know anything - whether or
not there are others.
I'm not defending that.
So why bring it up?
Post by R. Dean
Post by Christopher A. Lee
Post by R. Dean
http://youtu.be/6PXIYmcdKoY
There is some theatrical basis for the multiverse found
in the expansion of the universe.
Also in the interpretation of quantium mechanics. But
there is no direct empirical evidence for other universes.
Irrelevant. Because even if there is a multiverse (it's only
theoretical), we have no way of knowing anything about whatever other
universes may or may not exist.
So we have nothing to compare against, to determine design vs
non-design.
Well?
Post by R. Dean
Post by Christopher A. Lee
Please, pretty please, address this and the other main reason there
is no way to determine it.
You keep repeating this, but you have yet to offer any references or
evidences that any scientist states this in so many words. So, what
I have is your opinion, which I do value to a point, but not enough
to accept without evidence.
You want argument from authority without even trying to understand.
Which makes it clear you don't have the scientific understanding that
you pretend.
Actually I do. I can pass almost any test on science; the scientific
method and explain things in scientific terms in keeping with western
scientific thought. But I choose not to in this present scope, because
Except that you are making bullshit claims in the real world beyond
your belief system. where the scientific method is the only validated
one for objective understanding.
Post by R. Dean
I find in scientific thought it is limited by the fact that there
are certain boundaries that are to be adhered to.
So demonstrate there is a better way, and also show this better way is
valid.
Science is confined to four walls of a box. Each of the four walls
have this warning. This wall is where reality, naturalist materialism
ends. Beyond these walls there exist: irrationality, illogical,
mindless, thoughtless, supernatural, pixies unicorns, fairies etc. We
cannot allow a peek outside these walls - you might get brainwashed or
you may go blind! You cannot let the camel get his nose under
your tent. :~)
Where did you demonstrate that there is anything outside the tent,
imbecile?
Post by R. Dean
Post by Christopher A. Lee
Post by R. Dean
In working in a
scientific lab the Root is the boss If your views are outside the
scientific domain you don't voice them.
Not just a scientific lab, imbecile, but the real world outside your
belief system.
And you don't even understand why the scientific method is the only
validated method of understanding the real world.
Why your lies about scientists who are atheists?
Why your obvious non sequitur from the values of physical constants to
an intention for life?
No one can make such a brash comment. No one can know this. It's
my contention that this is the better explanation, but there is
SO BACK IT UP, instead of just claiming it.
Post by R. Dean
no proof. Without proof you cannot justify such a claim.
Idiot.

You haven't established the connection, just asserted it.

It's up to you to show that it actually follows.

Until then, it remains the non-sequitur you pretend it isn't.
Post by R. Dean
Post by Christopher A. Lee
Why don't you understand that science is about objective conclusions,
not subjective opinions?
Wrong Chris. I certainly do understand this.
Obviously not.

You imagine it is about citing what you think scientists' opinions
are, rather that describing how they reach what you also imagine are
their conclusions.

And again, if you actually knew anything about science you would
understand that scientists who happen to be atheist, don't have the
bias and motivation you lied about.
Post by R. Dean
Post by Christopher A. Lee
Why do you not understand that if anything pointed to design then
science would have gone down that route?
Have you considered that before Darwin, most people including most
contemporary scientist saw design in nature. Darwin, having read
William Paley's book entitled "evidences" which as Paley saw as designed
that implied a designer-God. I suspect Darwin felt a strong compulsion
to explain away Paley and his God: he searched for evidence which he
Only if you're a fucking moron, a liar and an idiot - but then
everybody except yourself knows you are.

Darwin started off as an unthinking, lukewarm theist who believed in a
form of theistic evolution directed by a god who used the then current
paradigm, Lamarck's theory of inherited acquired characteristics - but
his observations didn't fit that model so he had to come up with a new
theory which accounted for them.

Which was natural selection - but he couldn't reconcile his warm,
fuzzy god with its eat-or-be-eaten cruelty.

Which set him on the road to being an agnostic.

He certainly didn't have the motivation you lied about.

And if you actually knew anything about science, you would have known
it doesn't work that way.

And no matter how much you lie about atheism to atheists, atheism is
a non-event. It neither motivates nor justifies anything.

But yo can't allow people to have honest reasons not to see the
design you imagine is there.
Post by R. Dean
could use against Paley's arguments. What Darwin did was
Paley's arguments fail for the reasons you have been given over and
over again but never once addressed.

We don't determine the existence of humans from the existence of
watches - we already know that humans make watches.
Post by R. Dean
to offer an _ALTERNATIVE_ answer to Paley, "design" and Paley's
designer-God. This was evolution.
Bollocks.
Post by R. Dean
Post by Christopher A. Lee
Why have you never addressed the reasons you have been given over and
over again, why there is no way to determine design?
Why do you hide behind the argument from authority rather than
explaining how scientists reach the conclusions you think they do?
Why do you imagine "appears to be designed", followed by an
explanation why there is no way to determine this, means there
actually was design?
The only point I was trying to make is that if design wasn't
there, they had no reason to bring it up.
More bollocks.

How the heck do they refute a commonly held but incorrect belief,
without describing it first?
Post by R. Dean
But they called it
"apparent design" and the "illusion of design". Neither
addressed this specifically any further.
Because that's all it is, imbecile.
Post by R. Dean
But their entire
writings were from their atheistic outlook,
Once again, you repeat the same lie.
Post by R. Dean
as one would
expect.
Only if one is a pig-ignorant, stupid, brainwashed theist who is
incapable of thinking outside his theism.
Post by R. Dean
So, obviously they would try to explain away any
possible evidence of design.
Dom be so fucking stupid.
Post by R. Dean
Post by Christopher A. Lee
Why do you imagine the Anthropic Principle implies the intent for
there to be life?
Heck, why do you imagine it is scientific?
Well, moron?
Post by R. Dean
Post by Christopher A. Lee
Post by R. Dean
Post by Christopher A. Lee
Why not show that you have a functioning mind by addressing the
arguments you have been given?
Of course, lies about scientists not acknowledging what isn't even
there to acknowledge "because they are atheist", meant you immediately
lost whatever case you were trying to make.
Not all scientist are atheist,
Where did I say they were, imbecile?
Post by R. Dean
Post by Christopher A. Lee
I never said they were, imbecile.
What I wrote was about scientist not specifically atheist scientist -
your persecution complex is raising its head.
What "persecution complex", liar?

You keep imputing motives to scientists who are atheists, that aren't
even there.

While ignoring the fact that scientists who are theists leave their
god outside the door when practicing their science.

So it does not matter whether they are theist or atheist - they all
leave gods out of it.
Post by R. Dean
Post by Christopher A. Lee
Post by R. Dean
but all scientist observe the rules of
convention.
Whatever that is meant to mean.
You can't practice the scientific method if you include a
god/designer/etc, unless and until you provide scientific evidence for
one first.
I agree, this goes beyond the four walls of the box I described above.
The only box is the one around your mind.
Post by R. Dean
Post by Christopher A. Lee
Until one is in evidence, there's nothing even there as far as science
is concerned - whether the scientist is theist or atheist.
That's hardly convention - it's just the way science works.
And if you understood this, you wouldn't keep lying about why
scientists who happen to be atheist "won't admit" design that cannot
be determined.
Well?
Post by R. Dean
Post by Christopher A. Lee
You would also know that you need to back up your claims of design,
objectively and non-fallaciously.
Well?
Post by R. Dean
Post by Christopher A. Lee
Post by R. Dean
Post by Christopher A. Lee
Post by R. Dean
But to be clear, I do not claim to have _proof_ of design just that
I think there is evidence which the _better_ explanation is design.
You don't think. That's the problem. You spout nonsense and when
challenged, "back it up" with more nonsense.
As I've said, repeatedly, proof is impossible. The best one can offer is
one's best judgement based upon the evidence discovered by science.
That's what I have honestly tried to do - without success.
You haven't shown any honesty.
Why do you expect me to pretend that I have a commitment to some
absolute infallible knowledge that I don't. And when I cannot
claim to such knowledge, then you accuse me of dishonesty.
I don't, liar,

You just have to back up your unsolicited nonsense - or keep it to
yourself.

When push comes to shove, there is precious little difference between
"Santa Claus is real and has a magic toy factory" and "I believe Santa
Claus is real and has a magic toy factory" - they tell us plenty about
the person's mental pathology, and it ain't flattering.
Post by R. Dean
Post by Christopher A. Lee
You need to explain how you reach your conclusion instead of just
saying it's your interpretation.
You need to defend this instead of just ignoring points against it and
repeating it.
I frequently provide references which I see as justification. You
All you do is hide behind what you imagine authorities say.

You need to justify your conclusions.

But the problem is, they're not conclusions - they're fallacious
rationalisation.
Post by R. Dean
give your opinion and your _spin_ on things, and demand that I
answer this.
More than just "opinion and spin", liar.

Unlike you, I live in the real world.

Why not address the reasons you have been given, over and over again,
why there is no way to determine design?

You can start by showing where my explanation of why Paley was wrong.
Here, I'll repeat it for you...

"We don't determine the existence of humans from the existence of
watches - we already know that humans make watches"

If you had any understanding of science, this wouldn't even need to be
pointed out.

Or of basic logic - you don't swap the subject and the object, you
have to invert them as well.

For example...

Cat implies quadruped, but quadruped does not imply cat.

All you can say in that vein is "not quadruped" implies "not cat".
Post by R. Dean
Post by Christopher A. Lee
You need to address the points against it instead of resorting to ad
hominems.
Which you would also understand if you had any understanding of
science.
That's just your escape.
And that is another lie.

I'm not the liar who lies about "Which is the point, recognition of
design is anathema, because design implies a designer. Face it Chris,
you as an atheist, has (sic) a vested interest in the absence of
design." rather than discussing the reasons you have been given isn't
going to convince anybody.

Or, describing Francis Crick, "As an atheist, he was committed to a
naturalistic explanation, even though he had no specific or detailed
explanation as to how life happened in the distant past."
Jeanne Douglas
2016-11-19 04:51:11 UTC
Permalink
Post by R. Dean
No one can make such a brash comment. No one can know this. It's
my contention that this is the better explanation,
How did you come to that conclusion? What did you base it on? Certainly
there's more than just that it matches your religious beliefs, right?
You must have some actual reasons??? We need to know what they are, so
we can establish their worth.
--
JD


I'm a "nasty woman" and I vote.
Christopher A. Lee
2016-11-19 06:16:14 UTC
Permalink
On Fri, 18 Nov 2016 20:51:11 -0800, Jeanne Douglas
Post by Jeanne Douglas
Post by R. Dean
No one can make such a brash comment. No one can know this. It's
my contention that this is the better explanation,
He comes back every few months with this indefensible claim and then
tries to weasel out of it because he clearly can't defend it.
Post by Jeanne Douglas
How did you come to that conclusion? What did you base it on? Certainly
there's more than just that it matches your religious beliefs, right?
As soon as you mention religious beliefs, he weasels even more by
saying he never mentioned religion, when he clearly reveals theistic
thinking - they always do.

And he weasels out yet again by saying he doesn't identify this
hypothetical designer.

Even though the only reason to propose it, is whichever deity he
believed in when he was a creationist (and yes, I've been looking at
talk.origins threads from some time back, on Google groups).
Post by Jeanne Douglas
You must have some actual reasons??? We need to know what they are, so
we can establish their worth.
As with all these morons who claim they "concluded" exactly the same
god/designer/creator/etc which they coincidentally already believed,
it's like trying to squeeze blood out of a stone.

It stops at "they concluded" without ever explaining why.

This one claims he "concluded" design from the values of the physical
constants - but he steadfastly refuses to say anything other than
"it's the best interpretation of the evidence" - again, without saying
why.

As if he expected that to convince anybody with more than two neurons
to rub together.

But he lost whatever case he was trying to make when he used his
personal lies as ad hominems - and then feigned losing his temper when
he was treated as the dishonest, lying idiot these made him,

Face it, is there a better description for somebody who says....

"Which is the point, recognition of design is anathema, because design
implies a designer. Face it Chris, you as an atheist, has (sic) a
vested interest in the absence of design." rather than discussing the
reasons he has been given?

Or, describing Francis Crick, "As an atheist, he was committed to a
naturalistic explanation, even though he had no specific or detailed
explanation as to how life happened in the distant past."?

He claims to have been a physicist on a NASA project, too - which
sounds as if he's pulling a Bruno.
R. Dean
2016-11-19 18:12:32 UTC
Permalink
Post by Christopher A. Lee
On Fri, 18 Nov 2016 20:51:11 -0800, Jeanne Douglas
Post by Jeanne Douglas
Post by R. Dean
No one can make such a brash comment. No one can know this. It's
my contention that this is the better explanation,
He comes back every few months with this indefensible claim and then
tries to weasel out of it because he clearly can't defend it.
Wrong Chris, I do not try to weasel out I generally stick with it
until I have to leave for some justifiable reason.
Post by Christopher A. Lee
Post by Jeanne Douglas
How did you come to that conclusion? What did you base it on? Certainly
there's more than just that it matches your religious beliefs, right?
As soon as you mention religious beliefs, he weasels even more by
saying he never mentioned religion, when he clearly reveals theistic
thinking - they always do.
That exactly what you expect, and that's exactly what you search
for and then you see religion whether or not it's there. I suspect
it gives you some sense of security when you think that everything
is motivated by religion.
Post by Christopher A. Lee
And he weasels out yet again by saying he doesn't identify this
hypothetical designer.
There is evidence, as I see it, that points to design. But, I know
of absolutely no evidence that points to the identity of the

designer. Anyone who claims to know the identity of the designer
is basing it on faith, not evidence.
Post by Christopher A. Lee
Even though the only reason to propose it, is whichever deity he
believed in when he was a creationist (and yes, I've been looking at
talk.origins threads from some time back, on Google groups).
I been a Intelligent Design advocate for years. At one time I did
have a tendency towards a old earth form of creationism.
Post by Christopher A. Lee
Post by Jeanne Douglas
You must have some actual reasons??? We need to know what they are, so
we can establish their worth.
As with all these morons who claim they "concluded" exactly the same
god/designer/creator/etc which they coincidentally already believed,
it's like trying to squeeze blood out of a stone.
It stops at "they concluded" without ever explaining why.
Not true, I have tried on numerous occasions, which you never or rarely
check out before calling me a liar, idiot or some other insult. That's
actually your primary response to everything. You refuse to look
beyond the four walls of dialectic materialism.
Post by Christopher A. Lee
This one claims he "concluded" design from the values of the physical
constants - but he steadfastly refuses to say anything other than
"it's the best interpretation of the evidence" - again, without saying
why.
As if he expected that to convince anybody with more than two neurons
to rub together.
This is your point not mine. I don't really care what you believe.
I have no interest in changing you prospective. However, I do
have a right to defend my views against, what I see as unjustified
criticism.
Post by Christopher A. Lee
But he lost whatever case he was trying to make when he used his
personal lies as ad hominems - and then feigned losing his temper when
he was treated as the dishonest, lying idiot these made him,
Face it, is there a better description for somebody who says....
"Which is the point, recognition of design is anathema, because design
implies a designer. Face it Chris, you as an atheist, has (sic) a
vested interest in the absence of design." rather than discussing the
reasons he has been given?
That's my opinion derived from everything I've observed. It's difficult
to defend your views when it's your character that's under attack.

Ever heard this: "When your up to your ass in alligators, it's hard to
remember that your purpose was to drain the pond". Author unknown,
Post by Christopher A. Lee
Or, describing Francis Crick, "As an atheist, he was committed to a
naturalistic explanation, even though he had no specific or detailed
explanation as to how life happened in the distant past."?
He claims to have been a physicist on a NASA project, too - which
sounds as if he's pulling a Bruno.
No, I worked as an electrical engineer for a contractor who had a
contract with NASA. I lost my job when the contract expired and
we were outbid by another company.
Christopher A. Lee
2016-11-19 18:28:52 UTC
Permalink
Post by R. Dean
Post by Christopher A. Lee
On Fri, 18 Nov 2016 20:51:11 -0800, Jeanne Douglas
Post by Jeanne Douglas
Post by R. Dean
No one can make such a brash comment. No one can know this. It's
my contention that this is the better explanation,
He comes back every few months with this indefensible claim and then
tries to weasel out of it because he clearly can't defend it.
Wrong Chris, I do not try to weasel out I generally stick with it
until I have to leave for some justifiable reason.
So why do you use weaseling language like not knowing the identity of
this hypothetical designer, when it is clearly only posited because of
your pre-existing theistic/religious/etc belief - because that is all
that is left after the explanations why there is no way to determine
design?
Post by R. Dean
Post by Christopher A. Lee
Post by Jeanne Douglas
How did you come to that conclusion? What did you base it on? Certainly
there's more than just that it matches your religious beliefs, right?
As soon as you mention religious beliefs, he weasels even more by
saying he never mentioned religion, when he clearly reveals theistic
thinking - they always do.
That exactly what you expect, and that's exactly what you search
for and then you see religion whether or not it's there. I suspect
it gives you some sense of security when you think that everything
is motivated by religion.
Liar.

ID clearly is, because it is creationism re-branded with the pretence
that the unevidenced designer doesn't have to be the god they
insisted did it when they were creationists.
Post by R. Dean
Post by Christopher A. Lee
And he weasels out yet again by saying he doesn't identify this
hypothetical designer.
There is evidence, as I see it, that points to design. But, I know
Everything you have offered as evidence, had been refuted or rebutted.

And you have never once addressed the reasons given over and over
again, why there is no way to determine design.
Post by R. Dean
of absolutely no evidence that points to the identity of the
designer. Anyone who claims to know the identity of the designer
is basing it on faith, not evidence.
Just as you are.

Because/

There.

Is.

No.

Way.

To.

Determine.

Design.
Post by R. Dean
Post by Christopher A. Lee
Even though the only reason to propose it, is whichever deity he
believed in when he was a creationist (and yes, I've been looking at
talk.origins threads from some time back, on Google groups).
I been a Intelligent Design advocate for years. At one time I did
have a tendency towards a old earth form of creationism.
We know - from Googling talk.origins.

But creationism is a form of fundamentalist Christianity which insists
that a god did it.

ID is creationism with the pretence that it doesn't have to be that
god.

And in spite of your denial, that is the only reason to posit a
designer.

Here's a NOVA documentary on the Dover ID trial...


Post by R. Dean
Post by Christopher A. Lee
Post by Jeanne Douglas
You must have some actual reasons??? We need to know what they are, so
we can establish their worth.
As with all these morons who claim they "concluded" exactly the same
god/designer/creator/etc which they coincidentally already believed,
it's like trying to squeeze blood out of a stone.
It stops at "they concluded" without ever explaining why.
Not true, I have tried on numerous occasions, which you never or rarely
check out before calling me a liar, idiot or some other insult. That's
Only when you lie - as you do here.

You don't seem to understand that the rest of the world isn't as
ignorant as you, and might actually have some real world education and
understanding of the subject.
Post by R. Dean
actually your primary response to everything. You refuse to look
beyond the four walls of dialectic materialism.
No, liar - I only call people liars for lying, and most of these lies
are when they impute motives that aren't there - and idiots when they
are particularly stupid.
Post by R. Dean
Post by Christopher A. Lee
This one claims he "concluded" design from the values of the physical
constants - but he steadfastly refuses to say anything other than
"it's the best interpretation of the evidence" - again, without saying
why.
As if he expected that to convince anybody with more than two neurons
to rub together.
This is your point not mine. I don't really care what you believe.
Not mere belief, liar.

You have never been able to defend your contention, other than with
more nonsense.
Post by R. Dean
I have no interest in changing you prospective. However, I do
have a right to defend my views against, what I see as unjustified
criticism.
Liar. Every bit of criticism you have had, both here and on
talk.origins. is fully justified.
Post by R. Dean
Post by Christopher A. Lee
But he lost whatever case he was trying to make when he used his
personal lies as ad hominems - and then feigned losing his temper when
he was treated as the dishonest, lying idiot these made him,
Face it, is there a better description for somebody who says....
"Which is the point, recognition of design is anathema, because design
implies a designer. Face it Chris, you as an atheist, has (sic) a
vested interest in the absence of design." rather than discussing the
reasons he has been given?
That's my opinion derived from everything I've observed. It's difficult
to defend your views when it's your character that's under attack.
It's still an insulting lie.
Post by R. Dean
Ever heard this: "When your up to your ass in alligators, it's hard to
remember that your purpose was to drain the pond". Author unknown,
Irrelevant.
Post by R. Dean
Post by Christopher A. Lee
Or, describing Francis Crick, "As an atheist, he was committed to a
naturalistic explanation, even though he had no specific or detailed
explanation as to how life happened in the distant past."?
That was the same lie, this time about a Nobel Prize-winning molecular
biologist.
Post by R. Dean
Post by Christopher A. Lee
He claims to have been a physicist on a NASA project, too - which
sounds as if he's pulling a Bruno.
No, I worked as an electrical engineer for a contractor who had a
contract with NASA. I lost my job when the contract expired and
we were outbid by another company.
And that is supposed to show that you understand science. the
scientific method and scientists?
R. Dean
2016-11-19 23:05:53 UTC
Permalink
Post by Christopher A. Lee
Post by R. Dean
Post by Christopher A. Lee
On Fri, 18 Nov 2016 20:51:11 -0800, Jeanne Douglas
Post by Jeanne Douglas
Post by R. Dean
No one can make such a brash comment. No one can know this. It's
my contention that this is the better explanation,
He comes back every few months with this indefensible claim and then
tries to weasel out of it because he clearly can't defend it.
Wrong Chris, I do not try to weasel out I generally stick with it
until I have to leave for some justifiable reason.
So why do you use weaseling language like not knowing the identity of
this hypothetical designer, when it is clearly only posited because of
your pre-existing theistic/religious/etc belief - because that is all
that is left after the explanations why there is no way to determine
design?
When I've pointed out time after time that I know of no evidence
pointing to the identity of the designer, why do you think I should
claim to have some hidden knowledge? I don't know the identity of the
designer? There's nothing I know that tells me.
Post by Christopher A. Lee
Post by R. Dean
Post by Christopher A. Lee
Post by Jeanne Douglas
How did you come to that conclusion? What did you base it on? Certainly
there's more than just that it matches your religious beliefs, right?
As soon as you mention religious beliefs, he weasels even more by
saying he never mentioned religion, when he clearly reveals theistic
thinking - they always do.
That exactly what you expect, and that's exactly what you search
for and then you see religion whether or not it's there. I suspect
it gives you some sense of security when you think that everything
is motivated by religion.
Liar.
ID clearly is, because it is creationism re-branded with the pretence
that the unevidenced designer doesn't have to be the god they
insisted did it when they were creationists.
<
Wrong. There is a significant difference between creationism and ID.
Different people were founders, headquarters different cities,
different approaches. Creationism is Bibical based, ID is science
based.
Post by Christopher A. Lee
Post by R. Dean
Post by Christopher A. Lee
And he weasels out yet again by saying he doesn't identify this
hypothetical designer.
There is evidence, as I see it, that points to design. But, I know
Everything you have offered as evidence, had been refuted or rebutted.
By calling me a liar, moron idiot. That doesn't do it, but that
is you stock explanation.
Post by Christopher A. Lee
And you have never once addressed the reasons given over and over
again, why there is no way to determine design.
Post by R. Dean
of absolutely no evidence that points to the identity of the
designer. Anyone who claims to know the identity of the designer
is basing it on faith, not evidence.
Just as you are.
Because/
There.
Is.
No.
Way.
To.
Determine.
Design.
Again it's your unsupported claim.
Post by Christopher A. Lee
Post by R. Dean
Post by Christopher A. Lee
Even though the only reason to propose it, is whichever deity he
believed in when he was a creationist (and yes, I've been looking at
talk.origins threads from some time back, on Google groups).
I been a Intelligent Design advocate for years. At one time I did
have a tendency towards a old earth form of creationism.
We know - from Googling talk.origins.
But I wised up.
Post by Christopher A. Lee
But creationism is a form of fundamentalist Christianity which insists
that a god did it.
ID is creationism with the pretence that it doesn't have to be that
god.
No, creationism is biblical based theewfore, it's no stretch to
argue that the God of the Bible is the creator. The ID movement
is not bibically based, therefore it cannot appeal to the Bible
for as a source of information.
Post by Christopher A. Lee
And in spite of your denial, that is the only reason to posit a
designer.
No, I think that that the dozen of fundamental constants which
are balanced on a knife edge is a fact for which the design argument
is the better explanation. I know you disagree, but that's ok.
Post by Christopher A. Lee
Here's a NOVA documentary on the Dover ID trial...
http://youtu.be/7HZzGXnYL5I
I watched this; what was missing was the fact that William (Bill)
Buckingham and Alan Bonsell, members of the Dover Area School District
Board of Education who were both YOUNG EARTH CREATIONIST, had made
various statements supporting teaching creationism alongside evolution.
At a board meeting on June 7, 2004, Buckingham mentioned creationism and
raised objections to the proposed use of the textbook Biology written by
Kenneth R. Miller and Joseph S. Levine, describing it as "laced with
Darwinism" and saying it was "inexcusable to have a book that says man
descended from apes with nothing to counterbalance it."[10] (CAP, by me)

This story made the York newspapers, and Buckingham was telephoned by
Discovery Institute staff attorney Seth Cooper, whose tasks included
"communicating with legislators, school board members, teachers, parents
and students" to "address the topic of ID in a scientifically and
educationally responsible way" in public schools. He later stated that
he made the call to "steer the Dover Board away from trying to include
intelligent design in the classroom or from trying to insert creationism
into its cirriculum [sic]", an account Buckingham has disputed. Cooper
sent the book and DVD of Icons of Evolution to Buckingham, who required
the Dover High School science teachers to watch the DVD. They did not
take up the opportunity to use it in their classes.

The point was it was young earth creationist who started this and was
advised by the ID lawyer not to.. his words "made the call to "steer the
Dover Board away from trying to include intelligent design in the
classroom or from trying to insert creationism into its cirriculum
[sic]", an account Buckingham has disputed".

So who to believe, The ID people had nothing to gain, so I believe they
wanted no part in this fiasco, but were pulled into it.
Post by Christopher A. Lee
Post by R. Dean
Post by Christopher A. Lee
Post by Jeanne Douglas
You must have some actual reasons??? We need to know what they are, so
we can establish their worth.
As with all these morons who claim they "concluded" exactly the same
god/designer/creator/etc which they coincidentally already believed,
it's like trying to squeeze blood out of a stone.
It stops at "they concluded" without ever explaining why.
Not true, I have tried on numerous occasions, which you never or rarely
check out before calling me a liar, idiot or some other insult. That's
Only when you lie - as you do here.
Your standard tact.
<snip>
Christopher A. Lee
2016-11-20 03:57:08 UTC
Permalink
Post by R. Dean
Post by Christopher A. Lee
Post by R. Dean
Post by Christopher A. Lee
On Fri, 18 Nov 2016 20:51:11 -0800, Jeanne Douglas
Post by Jeanne Douglas
Post by R. Dean
No one can make such a brash comment. No one can know this. It's
my contention that this is the better explanation,
He comes back every few months with this indefensible claim and then
tries to weasel out of it because he clearly can't defend it.
Wrong Chris, I do not try to weasel out I generally stick with it
until I have to leave for some justifiable reason.
So why do you use weaseling language like not knowing the identity of
this hypothetical designer, when it is clearly only posited because of
your pre-existing theistic/religious/etc belief - because that is all
that is left after the explanations why there is no way to determine
design?
When I've pointed out time after time that I know of no evidence
pointing to the identity of the designer, why do you think I should
claim to have some hidden knowledge? I don't know the identity of the
designer? There's nothing I know that tells me.
Like I said, the same dishonest, weaseling language.

You avoid admitting it's the same god you believed in when you were an
OEC.

And you still haven't demonstrated this hypothetical designer whose
identity you say you don't know.

It doesn't matter what you do or don't call it.

Even though it's a pre-existing belief because there is still no way
to determine design.

Which latter point you _do_ know because we have gone through it
repeatedly.
Post by R. Dean
Post by Christopher A. Lee
Post by R. Dean
Post by Christopher A. Lee
Post by Jeanne Douglas
How did you come to that conclusion? What did you base it on? Certainly
there's more than just that it matches your religious beliefs, right?
As soon as you mention religious beliefs, he weasels even more by
saying he never mentioned religion, when he clearly reveals theistic
thinking - they always do.
That exactly what you expect, and that's exactly what you search
for and then you see religion whether or not it's there. I suspect
it gives you some sense of security when you think that everything
is motivated by religion.
Liar.
ID clearly is, because it is creationism re-branded with the pretence
that the unevidenced designer doesn't have to be the god they
insisted did it when they were creationists.
<
Wrong. There is a significant difference between creationism and ID.
Different people were founders, headquarters different cities,
different approaches. Creationism is Bibical based, ID is science
based.
Liar.
Post by R. Dean
Post by Christopher A. Lee
Post by R. Dean
Post by Christopher A. Lee
And he weasels out yet again by saying he doesn't identify this
hypothetical designer.
There is evidence, as I see it, that points to design. But, I know
None of which has ever been provided. It is a baseless assertion.
Post by R. Dean
Post by Christopher A. Lee
Everything you have offered as evidence, had been refuted or rebutted.
By calling me a liar, moron idiot. That doesn't do it, but that
is you stock explanation.
Only because you are - and add dishonest to that.

Because all that has been in addition to all the explanations you have
been given but never once taken any notice.
Post by R. Dean
Post by Christopher A. Lee
And you have never once addressed the reasons given over and over
again, why there is no way to determine design.
Post by R. Dean
of absolutely no evidence that points to the identity of the
designer. Anyone who claims to know the identity of the designer
is basing it on faith, not evidence.
Just as you are.
Because/
There.
Is.
No.
Way.
To.
Determine.
Design.
Again it's your unsupported claim.
Well?
Post by R. Dean
Post by Christopher A. Lee
Post by R. Dean
Post by Christopher A. Lee
Even though the only reason to propose it, is whichever deity he
believed in when he was a creationist (and yes, I've been looking at
talk.origins threads from some time back, on Google groups).
I been a Intelligent Design advocate for years. At one time I did
have a tendency towards a old earth form of creationism.
We know - from Googling talk.origins.
But I wised up.
Where?

By switching from the OEC's god to some hypothetical, unevidenced and
unnamed designer?
Post by R. Dean
Post by Christopher A. Lee
But creationism is a form of fundamentalist Christianity which insists
that a god did it.
ID is creationism with the pretence that it doesn't have to be that
god.
No, creationism is biblical based theewfore, it's no stretch to
argue that the God of the Bible is the creator. The ID movement
is not bibically based, therefore it cannot appeal to the Bible
for as a source of information.
It's OEC with the pretence that this unevidenced and unnamed designer
doesn't have to be the OEC's god - as a backdoor attempt to sneak
creationism and religion into schools.

Or have you forgotten the Kitzmiller vs Dover trial?

And the evidence that "Of Pandas and People" started off as a
creationist textbook?
Post by R. Dean
Post by Christopher A. Lee
And in spite of your denial, that is the only reason to posit a
designer.
No, I think that that the dozen of fundamental constants which
are balanced on a knife edge is a fact for which the design argument
is the better explanation. I know you disagree, but that's ok.
Which you refuse even to try and defend.

You have to show how it follows that these show the intention for
there to be life.

Why is this so difficult to understand?
Post by R. Dean
Post by Christopher A. Lee
Here's a NOVA documentary on the Dover ID trial...
http://youtu.be/7HZzGXnYL5I
I watched this; what was missing was the fact that William (Bill)
Buckingham and Alan Bonsell, members of the Dover Area School District
Board of Education who were both YOUNG EARTH CREATIONIST, had made
various statements supporting teaching creationism alongside evolution.
Which is irrelevant.

The "textbook" was a creationist one, with the Bible stuff removed and
a few global changes to replace "creationists" with "design
proponents".

Missed that bit?

Did you also see the bit where Behe's supposed "silver bullet" for
"irreducible complexity" that was supposed to demolish evolution, was
refuted because the flagellum developed from a needle-like probe?

Or where Behe used his own redefinition for the term "science" and was
forced to admit that with it, astrology would also be scientific?
Post by R. Dean
At a board meeting on June 7, 2004, Buckingham mentioned creationism and
raised objections to the proposed use of the textbook Biology written by
Kenneth R. Miller and Joseph S. Levine, describing it as "laced with
Darwinism" and saying it was "inexcusable to have a book that says man
descended from apes with nothing to counterbalance it."[10] (CAP, by me)
Which isn't how science works, let alone science education.
Post by R. Dean
This story made the York newspapers, and Buckingham was telephoned by
Discovery Institute staff attorney Seth Cooper, whose tasks included
"communicating with legislators, school board members, teachers, parents
and students" to "address the topic of ID in a scientifically and
educationally responsible way" in public schools. He later stated that
he made the call to "steer the Dover Board away from trying to include
intelligent design in the classroom or from trying to insert creationism
into its cirriculum [sic]", an account Buckingham has disputed. Cooper
sent the book and DVD of Icons of Evolution to Buckingham, who required
the Dover High School science teachers to watch the DVD. They did not
take up the opportunity to use it in their classes.
So? It was the "textbook" which proved that ID was derived from
creationism, not from science.
Post by R. Dean
The point was it was young earth creationist who started this and was
advised by the ID lawyer not to.. his words "made the call to "steer the
Dover Board away from trying to include intelligent design in the
classroom or from trying to insert creationism into its cirriculum
[sic]", an account Buckingham has disputed".
Forgotten the textbook already? It was the proof that ID was derived
from creationism.
Post by R. Dean
So who to believe, The ID people had nothing to gain, so I believe they
wanted no part in this fiasco, but were pulled into it.
Forgotten the textbook?

It was the proof that ID was derived from creationism.

But in any case, the Discovery "Institute" didn't want the lawsuit
because they weren't ready, because they didn't actually have any ID
science yet - and they still don't, more than a decade later.
Post by R. Dean
Post by Christopher A. Lee
Post by R. Dean
Post by Christopher A. Lee
Post by Jeanne Douglas
You must have some actual reasons??? We need to know what they are, so
we can establish their worth.
And you still haven't provided anything you can defend.
Post by R. Dean
Post by Christopher A. Lee
Post by R. Dean
Post by Christopher A. Lee
As with all these morons who claim they "concluded" exactly the same
god/designer/creator/etc which they coincidentally already believed,
it's like trying to squeeze blood out of a stone.
It stops at "they concluded" without ever explaining why.
Not true, I have tried on numerous occasions, which you never or rarely
check out before calling me a liar, idiot or some other insult. That's
Only when you lie - as you do here.
Your standard tact (sic)
Your standard lie.

PROVIDE SOME ACTUAL ID SCIENCE.

Show _how_ the values of the physical constants lead to what you claim
you "concluded".

So far, it's a non sequitur - and tour refusal to say anything more
than "it is more reasonable" or "it is your interpretation" confirms
that.

Show _why_ our explanations of how there is no way to determine
design, are wrong.

Your refusal to do any of this, is par for the course with theists who
come here and paint themselves into a corner.
Post by R. Dean
<snip>
R. Dean
2016-11-22 07:39:03 UTC
Permalink
Post by Christopher A. Lee
Post by R. Dean
Post by Christopher A. Lee
Post by R. Dean
Post by Christopher A. Lee
On Fri, 18 Nov 2016 20:51:11 -0800, Jeanne Douglas
Post by Jeanne Douglas
Post by R. Dean
No one can make such a brash comment. No one can know this. It's
my contention that this is the better explanation,
He comes back every few months with this indefensible claim and then
tries to weasel out of it because he clearly can't defend it.
Wrong Chris, I do not try to weasel out I generally stick with it
until I have to leave for some justifiable reason.
So why do you use weaseling language like not knowing the identity of
this hypothetical designer, when it is clearly only posited because of
your pre-existing theistic/religious/etc belief - because that is all
that is left after the explanations why there is no way to determine
design?
When I've pointed out time after time that I know of no evidence
pointing to the identity of the designer, why do you think I should
claim to have some hidden knowledge? I don't know the identity of the
designer? There's nothing I know that tells me.
Like I said, the same dishonest, weaseling language.
You avoid admitting it's the same god you believed in when you were an
OEC.
And you still haven't demonstrated this hypothetical designer whose
identity you say you don't know.
It doesn't matter what you do or don't call it.
Even though it's a pre-existing belief because there is still no way
to determine design.
Which latter point you _do_ know because we have gone through it
repeatedly.
Post by R. Dean
Post by Christopher A. Lee
Post by R. Dean
Post by Christopher A. Lee
Post by Jeanne Douglas
How did you come to that conclusion? What did you base it on? Certainly
there's more than just that it matches your religious beliefs, right?
As soon as you mention religious beliefs, he weasels even more by
saying he never mentioned religion, when he clearly reveals theistic
thinking - they always do.
That exactly what you expect, and that's exactly what you search
for and then you see religion whether or not it's there. I suspect
it gives you some sense of security when you think that everything
is motivated by religion.
Liar.
ID clearly is, because it is creationism re-branded with the pretence
that the unevidenced designer doesn't have to be the god they
insisted did it when they were creationists.
<
Wrong. There is a significant difference between creationism and ID.
Different people were founders, headquarters different cities,
different approaches. Creationism is Bibical based, ID is science
based.
Liar.
Post by R. Dean
Post by Christopher A. Lee
Post by R. Dean
Post by Christopher A. Lee
And he weasels out yet again by saying he doesn't identify this
hypothetical designer.
There is evidence, as I see it, that points to design. But, I know
None of which has ever been provided. It is a baseless assertion.
Post by R. Dean
Post by Christopher A. Lee
Everything you have offered as evidence, had been refuted or rebutted.
By calling me a liar, moron idiot. That doesn't do it, but that
is you stock explanation.
Only because you are - and add dishonest to that.
Because all that has been in addition to all the explanations you have
been given but never once taken any notice.
Post by R. Dean
Post by Christopher A. Lee
And you have never once addressed the reasons given over and over
again, why there is no way to determine design.
Post by R. Dean
of absolutely no evidence that points to the identity of the
designer. Anyone who claims to know the identity of the designer
is basing it on faith, not evidence.
Just as you are.
Because/
There.
Is.
No.
Way.
To.
Determine.
Design.
Again it's your unsupported claim.
Well?
Post by R. Dean
Post by Christopher A. Lee
Post by R. Dean
Post by Christopher A. Lee
Even though the only reason to propose it, is whichever deity he
believed in when he was a creationist (and yes, I've been looking at
talk.origins threads from some time back, on Google groups).
I been a Intelligent Design advocate for years. At one time I did
have a tendency towards a old earth form of creationism.
We know - from Googling talk.origins.
But I wised up.
Where?
By switching from the OEC's god to some hypothetical, unevidenced and
unnamed designer?
Post by R. Dean
Post by Christopher A. Lee
But creationism is a form of fundamentalist Christianity which insists
that a god did it.
ID is creationism with the pretence that it doesn't have to be that
god.
No, creationism is biblical based theewfore, it's no stretch to
argue that the God of the Bible is the creator. The ID movement
is not bibically based, therefore it cannot appeal to the Bible
for as a source of information.
It's OEC with the pretence that this unevidenced and unnamed designer
doesn't have to be the OEC's god - as a backdoor attempt to sneak
creationism and religion into schools.
Or have you forgotten the Kitzmiller vs Dover trial?
And the evidence that "Of Pandas and People" started off as a
creationist textbook?
Post by R. Dean
Post by Christopher A. Lee
And in spite of your denial, that is the only reason to posit a
designer.
No, I think that that the dozen of fundamental constants which
are balanced on a knife edge is a fact for which the design argument
is the better explanation. I know you disagree, but that's ok.
Which you refuse even to try and defend.
You have to show how it follows that these show the intention for
there to be life.
Why is this so difficult to understand?
Post by R. Dean
Post by Christopher A. Lee
Here's a NOVA documentary on the Dover ID trial...
http://youtu.be/7HZzGXnYL5I
I watched this; what was missing was the fact that William (Bill)
Buckingham and Alan Bonsell, members of the Dover Area School District
Board of Education who were both YOUNG EARTH CREATIONIST, had made
various statements supporting teaching creationism alongside evolution.
Which is irrelevant.
The "textbook" was a creationist one, with the Bible stuff removed and
a few global changes to replace "creationists" with "design
proponents".
Missed that bit?
Did you also see the bit where Behe's supposed "silver bullet" for
"irreducible complexity" that was supposed to demolish evolution, was
refuted because the flagellum developed from a needle-like probe?
Or where Behe used his own redefinition for the term "science" and was
forced to admit that with it, astrology would also be scientific?
Post by R. Dean
At a board meeting on June 7, 2004, Buckingham mentioned creationism and
raised objections to the proposed use of the textbook Biology written by
Kenneth R. Miller and Joseph S. Levine, describing it as "laced with
Darwinism" and saying it was "inexcusable to have a book that says man
descended from apes with nothing to counterbalance it."[10] (CAP, by me)
Which isn't how science works, let alone science education.
Post by R. Dean
This story made the York newspapers, and Buckingham was telephoned by
Discovery Institute staff attorney Seth Cooper, whose tasks included
"communicating with legislators, school board members, teachers, parents
and students" to "address the topic of ID in a scientifically and
educationally responsible way" in public schools. He later stated that
he made the call to "steer the Dover Board away from trying to include
intelligent design in the classroom or from trying to insert creationism
into its cirriculum [sic]", an account Buckingham has disputed. Cooper
sent the book and DVD of Icons of Evolution to Buckingham, who required
the Dover High School science teachers to watch the DVD. They did not
take up the opportunity to use it in their classes.
So? It was the "textbook" which proved that ID was derived from
creationism, not from science.
Post by R. Dean
The point was it was young earth creationist who started this and was
advised by the ID lawyer not to.. his words "made the call to "steer the
Dover Board away from trying to include intelligent design in the
classroom or from trying to insert creationism into its cirriculum
[sic]", an account Buckingham has disputed".
Forgotten the textbook already? It was the proof that ID was derived
from creationism.
Post by R. Dean
So who to believe, The ID people had nothing to gain, so I believe they
wanted no part in this fiasco, but were pulled into it.
Forgotten the textbook?
It was the creationist who altered their original textbook.
Post by Christopher A. Lee
It was the proof that ID was derived from creationism.
.
I disagree, creationist hi-jacked the ID reputation for their
own purposes.
Post by Christopher A. Lee
But in any case, the Discovery "Institute" didn't want the lawsuit
because they weren't ready, because they didn't actually have any ID
science yet - and they still don't, more than a decade later.
Post by R. Dean
Post by Christopher A. Lee
Post by R. Dean
Post by Christopher A. Lee
Post by Jeanne Douglas
You must have some actual reasons??? We need to know what they are, so
we can establish their worth.
And you still haven't provided anything you can defend.
Post by R. Dean
Post by Christopher A. Lee
Post by R. Dean
Post by Christopher A. Lee
As with all these morons who claim they "concluded" exactly the same
god/designer/creator/etc which they coincidentally already believed,
it's like trying to squeeze blood out of a stone.
It stops at "they concluded" without ever explaining why.
Not true, I have tried on numerous occasions, which you never or rarely
check out before calling me a liar, idiot or some other insult. That's
Only when you lie - as you do here.
Your standard tact (sic)
Your standard lie.
PROVIDE SOME ACTUAL ID SCIENCE.
Show _how_ the values of the physical constants lead to what you claim
you "concluded".
The values of the constants are real, measured and known. There is some
2 dozen finely tuned constants with mathematical values so precise that
if any one of them was off by a small percent, there would be no
universe, no stars, no galaxies, no elements (other than a few created
during the BB) and no life. What is the chances of all these numbers
accidentally and randomly just hitting upon the correct mathematical
values? One perhaps such as the speed of light, or the force of gravity,
or the formation of carbon, (as predicted by Fred Hoyle) the weak
force, the strong force etc.etc.etc.
Post by Christopher A. Lee
So far, it's a non sequitur - and tour refusal to say anything more
than "it is more reasonable" or "it is your interpretation" confirms
that.
Show _why_ our explanations of how there is no way to determine
design, are wrong.
I've challenged you to show that this is not just your own claim,
by pointing to a scientist who backs up your claim.
Post by Christopher A. Lee
Your refusal to do any of this, is par for the course with theists who
come here and paint themselves into a corner.
Post by R. Dean
<snip>
Christopher A. Lee
2016-11-22 12:37:19 UTC
Permalink
Post by R. Dean
Post by Christopher A. Lee
Post by R. Dean
Post by Christopher A. Lee
Post by R. Dean
Post by Christopher A. Lee
On Fri, 18 Nov 2016 20:51:11 -0800, Jeanne Douglas
Post by Jeanne Douglas
Post by R. Dean
No one can make such a brash comment. No one can know this. It's
my contention that this is the better explanation,
He comes back every few months with this indefensible claim and then
tries to weasel out of it because he clearly can't defend it.
Wrong Chris, I do not try to weasel out I generally stick with it
until I have to leave for some justifiable reason.
So why do you use weaseling language like not knowing the identity of
this hypothetical designer, when it is clearly only posited because of
your pre-existing theistic/religious/etc belief - because that is all
that is left after the explanations why there is no way to determine
design?
When I've pointed out time after time that I know of no evidence
pointing to the identity of the designer, why do you think I should
claim to have some hidden knowledge? I don't know the identity of the
designer? There's nothing I know that tells me.
Like I said, the same dishonest, weaseling language.
You avoid admitting it's the same god you believed in when you were an
OEC.
And you still haven't demonstrated this hypothetical designer whose
identity you say you don't know.
It doesn't matter what you do or don't call it.
Even though it's a pre-existing belief because there is still no way
to determine design.
Which latter point you _do_ know because we have gone through it
repeatedly.
Post by R. Dean
Post by Christopher A. Lee
Post by R. Dean
Post by Christopher A. Lee
Post by Jeanne Douglas
How did you come to that conclusion? What did you base it on? Certainly
there's more than just that it matches your religious beliefs, right?
As soon as you mention religious beliefs, he weasels even more by
saying he never mentioned religion, when he clearly reveals theistic
thinking - they always do.
That exactly what you expect, and that's exactly what you search
for and then you see religion whether or not it's there. I suspect
it gives you some sense of security when you think that everything
is motivated by religion.
Liar.
ID clearly is, because it is creationism re-branded with the pretence
that the unevidenced designer doesn't have to be the god they
insisted did it when they were creationists.
<
Wrong. There is a significant difference between creationism and ID.
Different people were founders, headquarters different cities,
different approaches. Creationism is Bibical based, ID is science
based.
Liar.
Post by R. Dean
Post by Christopher A. Lee
Post by R. Dean
Post by Christopher A. Lee
And he weasels out yet again by saying he doesn't identify this
hypothetical designer.
There is evidence, as I see it, that points to design. But, I know
None of which has ever been provided. It is a baseless assertion.
Post by R. Dean
Post by Christopher A. Lee
Everything you have offered as evidence, had been refuted or rebutted.
By calling me a liar, moron idiot. That doesn't do it, but that
is you stock explanation.
Only because you are - and add dishonest to that.
Because all that has been in addition to all the explanations you have
been given but never once taken any notice.
Post by R. Dean
Post by Christopher A. Lee
And you have never once addressed the reasons given over and over
again, why there is no way to determine design.
Post by R. Dean
of absolutely no evidence that points to the identity of the
designer. Anyone who claims to know the identity of the designer
is basing it on faith, not evidence.
Just as you are.
Because/
There.
Is.
No.
Way.
To.
Determine.
Design.
Again it's your unsupported claim.
Well?
Post by R. Dean
Post by Christopher A. Lee
Post by R. Dean
Post by Christopher A. Lee
Even though the only reason to propose it, is whichever deity he
believed in when he was a creationist (and yes, I've been looking at
talk.origins threads from some time back, on Google groups).
I been a Intelligent Design advocate for years. At one time I did
have a tendency towards a old earth form of creationism.
We know - from Googling talk.origins.
But I wised up.
Where?
By switching from the OEC's god to some hypothetical, unevidenced and
unnamed designer?
Post by R. Dean
Post by Christopher A. Lee
But creationism is a form of fundamentalist Christianity which insists
that a god did it.
ID is creationism with the pretence that it doesn't have to be that
god.
No, creationism is biblical based theewfore, it's no stretch to
argue that the God of the Bible is the creator. The ID movement
is not bibically based, therefore it cannot appeal to the Bible
for as a source of information.
It's OEC with the pretence that this unevidenced and unnamed designer
doesn't have to be the OEC's god - as a backdoor attempt to sneak
creationism and religion into schools.
Or have you forgotten the Kitzmiller vs Dover trial?
And the evidence that "Of Pandas and People" started off as a
creationist textbook?
Post by R. Dean
Post by Christopher A. Lee
And in spite of your denial, that is the only reason to posit a
designer.
No, I think that that the dozen of fundamental constants which
are balanced on a knife edge is a fact for which the design argument
is the better explanation. I know you disagree, but that's ok.
Which you refuse even to try and defend.
You have to show how it follows that these show the intention for
there to be life.
Why is this so difficult to understand?
Post by R. Dean
Post by Christopher A. Lee
Here's a NOVA documentary on the Dover ID trial...
http://youtu.be/7HZzGXnYL5I
I watched this; what was missing was the fact that William (Bill)
Buckingham and Alan Bonsell, members of the Dover Area School District
Board of Education who were both YOUNG EARTH CREATIONIST, had made
various statements supporting teaching creationism alongside evolution.
Which is irrelevant.
The "textbook" was a creationist one, with the Bible stuff removed and
a few global changes to replace "creationists" with "design
proponents".
Missed that bit?
Did you also see the bit where Behe's supposed "silver bullet" for
"irreducible complexity" that was supposed to demolish evolution, was
refuted because the flagellum developed from a needle-like probe?
Or where Behe used his own redefinition for the term "science" and was
forced to admit that with it, astrology would also be scientific?
Post by R. Dean
At a board meeting on June 7, 2004, Buckingham mentioned creationism and
raised objections to the proposed use of the textbook Biology written by
Kenneth R. Miller and Joseph S. Levine, describing it as "laced with
Darwinism" and saying it was "inexcusable to have a book that says man
descended from apes with nothing to counterbalance it."[10] (CAP, by me)
Which isn't how science works, let alone science education.
Post by R. Dean
This story made the York newspapers, and Buckingham was telephoned by
Discovery Institute staff attorney Seth Cooper, whose tasks included
"communicating with legislators, school board members, teachers, parents
and students" to "address the topic of ID in a scientifically and
educationally responsible way" in public schools. He later stated that
he made the call to "steer the Dover Board away from trying to include
intelligent design in the classroom or from trying to insert creationism
into its cirriculum [sic]", an account Buckingham has disputed. Cooper
sent the book and DVD of Icons of Evolution to Buckingham, who required
the Dover High School science teachers to watch the DVD. They did not
take up the opportunity to use it in their classes.
So? It was the "textbook" which proved that ID was derived from
creationism, not from science.
Post by R. Dean
The point was it was young earth creationist who started this and was
advised by the ID lawyer not to.. his words "made the call to "steer the
Dover Board away from trying to include intelligent design in the
classroom or from trying to insert creationism into its cirriculum
[sic]", an account Buckingham has disputed".
Forgotten the textbook already? It was the proof that ID was derived
from creationism.
Post by R. Dean
So who to believe, The ID people had nothing to gain, so I believe they
wanted no part in this fiasco, but were pulled into it.
Forgotten the textbook?
It was the creationist who altered their original textbook.
Prove it.
Post by R. Dean
Post by Christopher A. Lee
It was the proof that ID was derived from creationism.
.
I disagree, creationist hi-jacked the ID reputation for their
own purposes.
Prove it or stop lying.
Post by R. Dean
Post by Christopher A. Lee
But in any case, the Discovery "Institute" didn't want the lawsuit
because they weren't ready, because they didn't actually have any ID
science yet - and they still don't, more than a decade later.
Post by R. Dean
Post by Christopher A. Lee
Post by R. Dean
Post by Christopher A. Lee
Post by Jeanne Douglas
You must have some actual reasons??? We need to know what they are, so
we can establish their worth.
And you still haven't provided anything you can defend.
Post by R. Dean
Post by Christopher A. Lee
Post by R. Dean
Post by Christopher A. Lee
As with all these morons who claim they "concluded" exactly the same
god/designer/creator/etc which they coincidentally already believed,
it's like trying to squeeze blood out of a stone.
It stops at "they concluded" without ever explaining why.
Not true, I have tried on numerous occasions, which you never or rarely
check out before calling me a liar, idiot or some other insult. That's
Only when you lie - as you do here.
Your standard tact (sic)
Your standard lie.
PROVIDE SOME ACTUAL ID SCIENCE.
Show _how_ the values of the physical constants lead to what you claim
you "concluded".
The values of the constants are real, measured and known. There is some
2 dozen finely tuned constants with mathematical values so precise that
if any one of them was off by a small percent, there would be no
universe, no stars, no galaxies, no elements (other than a few created
during the BB) and no life. What is the chances of all these numbers
accidentally and randomly just hitting upon the correct mathematical
values? One perhaps such as the speed of light, or the force of gravity,
or the formation of carbon, (as predicted by Fred Hoyle) the weak
force, the strong force etc.etc.etc.
So what?

NONE OF THAT SHOWS ANY INTENTION FOR THERE TO LIFE?

Learn some basic logic - including what a non-sequitur is.
Post by R. Dean
Post by Christopher A. Lee
So far, it's a non sequitur - and your refusal to say anything more
than "it is more reasonable" or "it is your interpretation" confirms
that.
Show _why_ our explanations of how there is no way to determine
design, are wrong.
I've challenged you to show that this is not just your own claim,
by pointing to a scientist who backs up your claim.
Use your allegedly god-given mind, imbecile.

But then you're incapable of it and require authorities to tell you
what you imagine they think.
Post by R. Dean
Post by Christopher A. Lee
Your refusal to do any of this, is par for the course with theists who
come here and paint themselves into a corner.
Post by R. Dean
<snip>
Were you born stupid and dishonest?
R. Dean
2016-11-22 19:22:35 UTC
Permalink
Post by Christopher A. Lee
ocumentary on the Dover ID trial...
Post by R. Dean
Post by Christopher A. Lee
Post by R. Dean
Post by Christopher A. Lee
http://youtu.be/7HZzGXnYL5I
I watched this; what was missing was the fact that William (Bill)
Buckingham and Alan Bonsell, members of the Dover Area School District
Board of Education who were both YOUNG EARTH CREATIONIST, had made
various statements supporting teaching creationism alongside evolution.
Which is irrelevant.
The "textbook" was a creationist one, with the Bible stuff removed and
a few global changes to replace "creationists" with "design
proponents".
Missed that bit?
Did you also see the bit where Behe's supposed "silver bullet" for
"irreducible complexity" that was supposed to demolish evolution, was
refuted because the flagellum developed from a needle-like probe?
Or where Behe used his own redefinition for the term "science" and was
forced to admit that with it, astrology would also be scientific?
Post by R. Dean
At a board meeting on June 7, 2004, Buckingham mentioned creationism and
raised objections to the proposed use of the textbook Biology written by
Kenneth R. Miller and Joseph S. Levine, describing it as "laced with
Darwinism" and saying it was "inexcusable to have a book that says man
descended from apes with nothing to counterbalance it."[10] (CAP, by me)
Which isn't how science works, let alone science education.
Post by R. Dean
This story made the York newspapers, and Buckingham was telephoned by
Discovery Institute staff attorney Seth Cooper, whose tasks included
"communicating with legislators, school board members, teachers, parents
and students" to "address the topic of ID in a scientifically and
educationally responsible way" in public schools. He later stated that
he made the call to "steer the Dover Board away from trying to include
intelligent design in the classroom or from trying to insert creationism
into its cirriculum [sic]", an account Buckingham has disputed. Cooper
sent the book and DVD of Icons of Evolution to Buckingham, who required
the Dover High School science teachers to watch the DVD. They did not
take up the opportunity to use it in their classes.
So? It was the "textbook" which proved that ID was derived from
creationism, not from science.
Post by R. Dean
The point was it was young earth creationist who started this and was
advised by the ID lawyer not to.. his words "made the call to "steer the
Dover Board away from trying to include intelligent design in the
classroom or from trying to insert creationism into its cirriculum
[sic]", an account Buckingham has disputed".
Forgotten the textbook already? It was the proof that ID was derived
from creationism.
Post by R. Dean
So who to believe, The ID people had nothing to gain, so I believe they
wanted no part in this fiasco, but were pulled into it.
Forgotten the textbook?
It was the creationist who altered their original textbook.
Prove it.
The textbook was published before Phillip Johnson wrote the book
"Darwin on trial", which is credited with the beginning of the
ID movement. At this time the creation movement was decades old.
If you recall it was two YEC creationist on the Dover school
board who initiated the creationist movement to get creationism
along with evolution in school. I doubt that being YEC, either
knew of ID at the time.
Post by Christopher A. Lee
Post by R. Dean
Post by Christopher A. Lee
It was the proof that ID was derived from creationism.
.
I disagree, creationist hi-jacked the ID reputation for their
own purposes.
Prove it or stop lying.
I have whether you accept it or not is immaterial. You are a poor
judge. As an atheist you have no compunction about labeling people
you disagree with as liars, idiots. No one is entitled to an
opinion different from yours. This is a clear demonstration of
your intolerance. So, this reaches the limit of my tollerance
of bullies and abusers.
Post by Christopher A. Lee
Post by R. Dean
Post by Christopher A. Lee
But in any case, the Discovery "Institute" didn't want the lawsuit
because they weren't ready, because they didn't actually have any ID
science yet - and they still don't, more than a decade later.
Post by R. Dean
Post by Christopher A. Lee
Post by R. Dean
Post by Christopher A. Lee
Post by Jeanne Douglas
You must have some actual reasons??? We need to know what they are, so
we can establish their worth.
And you still haven't provided anything you can defend.
Post by R. Dean
Post by Christopher A. Lee
Post by R. Dean
Post by Christopher A. Lee
As with all these morons who claim they "concluded" exactly the same
god/designer/creator/etc which they coincidentally already believed,
it's like trying to squeeze blood out of a stone.
It stops at "they concluded" without ever explaining why.
Not true, I have tried on numerous occasions, which you never or rarely
check out before calling me a liar, idiot or some other insult. That's
Only when you lie - as you do here.
Your standard tact (sic)
Your standard lie.
PROVIDE SOME ACTUAL ID SCIENCE.
Show _how_ the values of the physical constants lead to what you claim
you "concluded".
The values of the constants are real, measured and known. There is some
2 dozen finely tuned constants with mathematical values so precise that
if any one of them was off by a small percent, there would be no
universe, no stars, no galaxies, no elements (other than a few created
during the BB) and no life. What is the chances of all these numbers
accidentally and randomly just hitting upon the correct mathematical
values? One perhaps such as the speed of light, or the force of gravity,
or the formation of carbon, (as predicted by Fred Hoyle) the weak
force, the strong force etc.etc.etc.
So what?
NONE OF THAT SHOWS ANY INTENTION FOR THERE TO LIFE?
Learn some basic logic - including what a non-sequitur is.
Post by R. Dean
Post by Christopher A. Lee
So far, it's a non sequitur - and your refusal to say anything more
than "it is more reasonable" or "it is your interpretation" confirms
that.
Show _why_ our explanations of how there is no way to determine
design, are wrong.
I've challenged you to show that this is not just your own claim,
by pointing to a scientist who backs up your claim.
Use your allegedly god-given mind, imbecile.
But then you're incapable of it and require authorities to tell you
what you imagine they think.
Post by R. Dean
Post by Christopher A. Lee
Your refusal to do any of this, is par for the course with theists who
come here and paint themselves into a corner.
Post by R. Dean
<snip>
Were you born stupid and dishonest?
Christopher A. Lee
2016-11-22 20:15:08 UTC
Permalink
Post by R. Dean
Post by Christopher A. Lee
ocumentary on the Dover ID trial...
Post by R. Dean
Post by Christopher A. Lee
Post by R. Dean
Post by Christopher A. Lee
http://youtu.be/7HZzGXnYL5I
I watched this; what was missing was the fact that William (Bill)
Buckingham and Alan Bonsell, members of the Dover Area School District
Board of Education who were both YOUNG EARTH CREATIONIST, had made
various statements supporting teaching creationism alongside evolution.
Which is irrelevant.
The "textbook" was a creationist one, with the Bible stuff removed and
a few global changes to replace "creationists" with "design
proponents".
Missed that bit?
Did you also see the bit where Behe's supposed "silver bullet" for
"irreducible complexity" that was supposed to demolish evolution, was
refuted because the flagellum developed from a needle-like probe?
Or where Behe used his own redefinition for the term "science" and was
forced to admit that with it, astrology would also be scientific?
Post by R. Dean
At a board meeting on June 7, 2004, Buckingham mentioned creationism and
raised objections to the proposed use of the textbook Biology written by
Kenneth R. Miller and Joseph S. Levine, describing it as "laced with
Darwinism" and saying it was "inexcusable to have a book that says man
descended from apes with nothing to counterbalance it."[10] (CAP, by me)
Which isn't how science works, let alone science education.
Post by R. Dean
This story made the York newspapers, and Buckingham was telephoned by
Discovery Institute staff attorney Seth Cooper, whose tasks included
"communicating with legislators, school board members, teachers, parents
and students" to "address the topic of ID in a scientifically and
educationally responsible way" in public schools. He later stated that
he made the call to "steer the Dover Board away from trying to include
intelligent design in the classroom or from trying to insert creationism
into its cirriculum [sic]", an account Buckingham has disputed. Cooper
sent the book and DVD of Icons of Evolution to Buckingham, who required
the Dover High School science teachers to watch the DVD. They did not
take up the opportunity to use it in their classes.
So? It was the "textbook" which proved that ID was derived from
creationism, not from science.
Post by R. Dean
The point was it was young earth creationist who started this and was
advised by the ID lawyer not to.. his words "made the call to "steer the
Dover Board away from trying to include intelligent design in the
classroom or from trying to insert creationism into its cirriculum
[sic]", an account Buckingham has disputed".
Forgotten the textbook already? It was the proof that ID was derived
from creationism.
Post by R. Dean
So who to believe, The ID people had nothing to gain, so I believe they
wanted no part in this fiasco, but were pulled into it.
Forgotten the textbook?
It was the creationist who altered their original textbook.
Prove it.
The textbook was published before Phillip Johnson wrote the book
"Darwin on trial", which is credited with the beginning of the
ID movement. At this time the creation movement was decades old.
If you recall it was two YEC creationist on the Dover school
board who initiated the creationist movement to get creationism
along with evolution in school. I doubt that being YEC, either
knew of ID at the time.
Post by Christopher A. Lee
Post by R. Dean
Post by Christopher A. Lee
It was the proof that ID was derived from creationism.
.
I disagree, creationist hi-jacked the ID reputation for their
own purposes.
Prove it or stop lying.
I have whether you accept it or not is immaterial. You are a poor
judge. As an atheist you have no compunction about labeling people
you disagree with as liars, idiots. No one is entitled to an
opinion different from yours. This is a clear demonstration of
your intolerance. So, this reaches the limit of my tollerance
of bullies and abusers.
What "intolerance",proven serial liar?

ID is a form of creationism. It is OEC with the god you used to
believe did it when you were an OEC, replaced by some unspecified and
equally unevidenced designer.
R. Dean
2016-11-23 01:09:53 UTC
Permalink
Post by Christopher A. Lee
Post by R. Dean
Post by Christopher A. Lee
ocumentary on the Dover ID trial...
Post by R. Dean
Post by Christopher A. Lee
Post by R. Dean
Post by Christopher A. Lee
http://youtu.be/7HZzGXnYL5I
I watched this; what was missing was the fact that William (Bill)
Buckingham and Alan Bonsell, members of the Dover Area School District
Board of Education who were both YOUNG EARTH CREATIONIST, had made
various statements supporting teaching creationism alongside evolution.
Which is irrelevant.
The "textbook" was a creationist one, with the Bible stuff removed and
a few global changes to replace "creationists" with "design
proponents".
Missed that bit?
Did you also see the bit where Behe's supposed "silver bullet" for
"irreducible complexity" that was supposed to demolish evolution, was
refuted because the flagellum developed from a needle-like probe?
Or where Behe used his own redefinition for the term "science" and was
forced to admit that with it, astrology would also be scientific?
Post by R. Dean
At a board meeting on June 7, 2004, Buckingham mentioned creationism and
raised objections to the proposed use of the textbook Biology written by
Kenneth R. Miller and Joseph S. Levine, describing it as "laced with
Darwinism" and saying it was "inexcusable to have a book that says man
descended from apes with nothing to counterbalance it."[10] (CAP, by me)
Which isn't how science works, let alone science education.
Post by R. Dean
This story made the York newspapers, and Buckingham was telephoned by
Discovery Institute staff attorney Seth Cooper, whose tasks included
"communicating with legislators, school board members, teachers, parents
and students" to "address the topic of ID in a scientifically and
educationally responsible way" in public schools. He later stated that
he made the call to "steer the Dover Board away from trying to include
intelligent design in the classroom or from trying to insert creationism
into its cirriculum [sic]", an account Buckingham has disputed. Cooper
sent the book and DVD of Icons of Evolution to Buckingham, who required
the Dover High School science teachers to watch the DVD. They did not
take up the opportunity to use it in their classes.
So? It was the "textbook" which proved that ID was derived from
creationism, not from science.
Post by R. Dean
The point was it was young earth creationist who started this and was
advised by the ID lawyer not to.. his words "made the call to "steer the
Dover Board away from trying to include intelligent design in the
classroom or from trying to insert creationism into its cirriculum
[sic]", an account Buckingham has disputed".
Forgotten the textbook already? It was the proof that ID was derived
from creationism.
Post by R. Dean
So who to believe, The ID people had nothing to gain, so I believe they
wanted no part in this fiasco, but were pulled into it.
Forgotten the textbook?
It was the creationist who altered their original textbook.
Prove it.
The textbook was published before Phillip Johnson wrote the book
"Darwin on trial", which is credited with the beginning of the
ID movement. At this time the creation movement was decades old.
If you recall it was two YEC creationist on the Dover school
board who initiated the creationist movement to get creationism
along with evolution in school. I doubt that being YEC, either
knew of ID at the time.
Post by Christopher A. Lee
Post by R. Dean
Post by Christopher A. Lee
It was the proof that ID was derived from creationism.
.
I disagree, creationist hi-jacked the ID reputation for their
own purposes.
Prove it or stop lying.
I have whether you accept it or not is immaterial. You are a poor
judge. As an atheist you have no compunction about labeling people
you disagree with as liars, idiots. No one is entitled to an
opinion different from yours. This is a clear demonstration of
your intolerance. So, this reaches the limit of my tollerance
of bullies and abusers.
What "intolerance",proven serial liar?
Okay Chris, we have this in common.
Post by Christopher A. Lee
ID is a form of creationism. It is OEC with the god you used to
believe did it when you were an OEC, replaced by some unspecified and
equally unevidenced designer.
Even when I considered myself an OEC, I could not identify the
"creator". I thought of myself more as a deist. However I've
come to a different conclusion today. Today:
I see fine tuned constants as evidence pointing to design
I see homeobox (especially the Pax6 gene) genes as evidence
pointing to design.
I see the fossil record as fundamentally one of stasis as
evidence pointing to design. But I see no evidence pointing to
the identity of the designer. I may _believe_ that Zeus is the
designer, but I see no evidence pointing to Zeus or any other
god as the designer.
Christopher A. Lee
2016-11-23 11:57:26 UTC
Permalink
Post by R. Dean
Post by Christopher A. Lee
Post by R. Dean
Post by Christopher A. Lee
ocumentary on the Dover ID trial...
Post by R. Dean
Post by Christopher A. Lee
Post by R. Dean
Post by Christopher A. Lee
http://youtu.be/7HZzGXnYL5I
I watched this; what was missing was the fact that William (Bill)
Buckingham and Alan Bonsell, members of the Dover Area School District
Board of Education who were both YOUNG EARTH CREATIONIST, had made
various statements supporting teaching creationism alongside evolution.
Which is irrelevant.
The "textbook" was a creationist one, with the Bible stuff removed and
a few global changes to replace "creationists" with "design
proponents".
Missed that bit?
Did you also see the bit where Behe's supposed "silver bullet" for
"irreducible complexity" that was supposed to demolish evolution, was
refuted because the flagellum developed from a needle-like probe?
Or where Behe used his own redefinition for the term "science" and was
forced to admit that with it, astrology would also be scientific?
Post by R. Dean
At a board meeting on June 7, 2004, Buckingham mentioned creationism and
raised objections to the proposed use of the textbook Biology written by
Kenneth R. Miller and Joseph S. Levine, describing it as "laced with
Darwinism" and saying it was "inexcusable to have a book that says man
descended from apes with nothing to counterbalance it."[10] (CAP, by me)
Which isn't how science works, let alone science education.
Post by R. Dean
This story made the York newspapers, and Buckingham was telephoned by
Discovery Institute staff attorney Seth Cooper, whose tasks included
"communicating with legislators, school board members, teachers, parents
and students" to "address the topic of ID in a scientifically and
educationally responsible way" in public schools. He later stated that
he made the call to "steer the Dover Board away from trying to include
intelligent design in the classroom or from trying to insert creationism
into its cirriculum [sic]", an account Buckingham has disputed. Cooper
sent the book and DVD of Icons of Evolution to Buckingham, who required
the Dover High School science teachers to watch the DVD. They did not
take up the opportunity to use it in their classes.
So? It was the "textbook" which proved that ID was derived from
creationism, not from science.
Post by R. Dean
The point was it was young earth creationist who started this and was
advised by the ID lawyer not to.. his words "made the call to "steer the
Dover Board away from trying to include intelligent design in the
classroom or from trying to insert creationism into its cirriculum
[sic]", an account Buckingham has disputed".
Forgotten the textbook already? It was the proof that ID was derived
from creationism.
Post by R. Dean
So who to believe, The ID people had nothing to gain, so I believe they
wanted no part in this fiasco, but were pulled into it.
Forgotten the textbook?
It was the creationist who altered their original textbook.
Prove it.
The textbook was published before Phillip Johnson wrote the book
"Darwin on trial", which is credited with the beginning of the
ID movement. At this time the creation movement was decades old.
If you recall it was two YEC creationist on the Dover school
board who initiated the creationist movement to get creationism
along with evolution in school. I doubt that being YEC, either
knew of ID at the time.
Post by Christopher A. Lee
Post by R. Dean
Post by Christopher A. Lee
It was the proof that ID was derived from creationism.
.
I disagree, creationist hi-jacked the ID reputation for their
own purposes.
Prove it or stop lying.
I have whether you accept it or not is immaterial. You are a poor
judge. As an atheist you have no compunction about labeling people
you disagree with as liars, idiots. No one is entitled to an
opinion different from yours. This is a clear demonstration of
your intolerance. So, this reaches the limit of my tollerance
of bullies and abusers.
What "intolerance",proven serial liar?
Okay Chris, we have this in common.
You merely reap what you sow.
Post by R. Dean
Post by Christopher A. Lee
ID is a form of creationism. It is OEC with the god you used to
believe did it when you were an OEC, replaced by some unspecified and
equally unevidenced designer.
Even when I considered myself an OEC, I could not identify the
"creator". I thought of myself more as a deist. However I've
I see fine tuned constants as evidence pointing to design
I see homeobox (especially the Pax6 gene) genes as evidence
pointing to design.
HOW SO?

You need to explain how you reach this conclusion, which has been
thoroughly debunked both here and on talk.origins.

And you have to do this objectively, not subjectively - because that's
how science works.

But in any case, even though you keep pretending that ID creationism
isn't old Earth creationism, you keep using standard, failed OEC
canards,

Just because you see what you want to see, even if it isn't there,
doesn't make it the evidence you want it to be.
Post by R. Dean
I see the fossil record as fundamentally one of stasis as
evidence pointing to design.
By repeating another standard creationist canard.

It is not actual stasis. Gould and Eldredge are paleontologists, who
talk on a geological timescale. What creationists imagine is stasis,
is merely that evolution happens faster in smaller populations, which
then expand to fill their ecological niche after which it happens much
more slowly.

Only a small proportion of specimens fossilised - and in a small
population, it means we don't always see the transitions - but we
have seen enough of them.

It's also worth nothing that both Gould and Eldredge accept evolution,
they just say it isn't as gradual as undergraduates are taught.
Post by R. Dean
But I see no evidence pointing to
the identity of the designer.
A designer for which you have no evidence whatsoever.
Post by R. Dean
I may _believe_ that Zeus is the
designer, but I see no evidence pointing to Zeus or any other
god as the designer.
Idiot.
R. Dean
2016-11-23 17:33:59 UTC
Permalink
Post by Christopher A. Lee
Post by R. Dean
Post by Christopher A. Lee
Post by R. Dean
Post by Christopher A. Lee
ocumentary on the Dover ID trial...
Post by R. Dean
Post by Christopher A. Lee
Post by R. Dean
Post by Christopher A. Lee
http://youtu.be/7HZzGXnYL5I
I watched this; what was missing was the fact that William (Bill)
Buckingham and Alan Bonsell, members of the Dover Area School District
Board of Education who were both YOUNG EARTH CREATIONIST, had made
various statements supporting teaching creationism alongside evolution.
Which is irrelevant.
The "textbook" was a creationist one, with the Bible stuff removed and
a few global changes to replace "creationists" with "design
proponents".
Missed that bit?
Did you also see the bit where Behe's supposed "silver bullet" for
"irreducible complexity" that was supposed to demolish evolution, was
refuted because the flagellum developed from a needle-like probe?
Or where Behe used his own redefinition for the term "science" and was
forced to admit that with it, astrology would also be scientific?
Post by R. Dean
At a board meeting on June 7, 2004, Buckingham mentioned creationism and
raised objections to the proposed use of the textbook Biology written by
Kenneth R. Miller and Joseph S. Levine, describing it as "laced with
Darwinism" and saying it was "inexcusable to have a book that says man
descended from apes with nothing to counterbalance it."[10] (CAP, by me)
Which isn't how science works, let alone science education.
Post by R. Dean
This story made the York newspapers, and Buckingham was telephoned by
Discovery Institute staff attorney Seth Cooper, whose tasks included
"communicating with legislators, school board members, teachers, parents
and students" to "address the topic of ID in a scientifically and
educationally responsible way" in public schools. He later stated that
he made the call to "steer the Dover Board away from trying to include
intelligent design in the classroom or from trying to insert creationism
into its cirriculum [sic]", an account Buckingham has disputed. Cooper
sent the book and DVD of Icons of Evolution to Buckingham, who required
the Dover High School science teachers to watch the DVD. They did not
take up the opportunity to use it in their classes.
So? It was the "textbook" which proved that ID was derived from
creationism, not from science.
Post by R. Dean
The point was it was young earth creationist who started this and was
advised by the ID lawyer not to.. his words "made the call to "steer the
Dover Board away from trying to include intelligent design in the
classroom or from trying to insert creationism into its cirriculum
[sic]", an account Buckingham has disputed".
Forgotten the textbook already? It was the proof that ID was derived
from creationism.
Post by R. Dean
So who to believe, The ID people had nothing to gain, so I believe they
wanted no part in this fiasco, but were pulled into it.
Forgotten the textbook?
It was the creationist who altered their original textbook.
Prove it.
The textbook was published before Phillip Johnson wrote the book
"Darwin on trial", which is credited with the beginning of the
ID movement. At this time the creation movement was decades old.
If you recall it was two YEC creationist on the Dover school
board who initiated the creationist movement to get creationism
along with evolution in school. I doubt that being YEC, either
knew of ID at the time.
Post by Christopher A. Lee
Post by R. Dean
Post by Christopher A. Lee
It was the proof that ID was derived from creationism.
.
I disagree, creationist hi-jacked the ID reputation for their
own purposes.
Prove it or stop lying.
I have whether you accept it or not is immaterial. You are a poor
judge. As an atheist you have no compunction about labeling people
you disagree with as liars, idiots. No one is entitled to an
opinion different from yours. This is a clear demonstration of
your intolerance. So, this reaches the limit of my tollerance
of bullies and abusers.
What "intolerance",proven serial liar?
Okay Chris, we have this in common.
You merely reap what you sow.
Post by R. Dean
Post by Christopher A. Lee
ID is a form of creationism. It is OEC with the god you used to
believe did it when you were an OEC, replaced by some unspecified and
equally unevidenced designer.
Even when I considered myself an OEC, I could not identify the
"creator". I thought of myself more as a deist. However I've
I see fine tuned constants as evidence pointing to design
I see homeobox (especially the Pax6 gene) genes as evidence
pointing to design.
HOW SO?
You need to explain how you reach this conclusion, which has been
thoroughly debunked both here and on talk.origins.
And you have to do this objectively, not subjectively - because that's
how science works.
But in any case, even though you keep pretending that ID creationism
isn't old Earth creationism, you keep using standard, failed OEC
canards,
Just because you see what you want to see, even if it isn't there,
doesn't make it the evidence you want it to be.
Post by R. Dean
I see the fossil record as fundamentally one of stasis as
evidence pointing to design.
By repeating another standard creationist canard.
It is not actual stasis. Gould and Eldredge are paleontologists, who
talk on a geological timescale. What creationists imagine is stasis,
is merely that evolution happens faster in smaller populations, which
then expand to fill their ecological niche after which it happens much
more slowly.
That's your spin. Both write about the overwhelming characteristic of
the fossil record as being one of sudden appearance in the rocks,
long periods of stasis then disappearance from the record. And
stasis as the as the most ubiquitous trait of the record.
Post by Christopher A. Lee
Only a small proportion of specimens fossilised - and in a small
population, it means we don't always see the transitions - but we
have seen enough of them.
Too often these "transitional fossils" are isolated in time without
antecedents and without decedents.
Post by Christopher A. Lee
It's also worth nothing that both Gould and Eldredge accept evolution,
they just say it isn't as gradual as undergraduates are taught.
I know both were dedicated evolutionist who tried to bring Darwin theory
in line with what the fossils told them.
Post by Christopher A. Lee
Post by R. Dean
But I see no evidence pointing to
the identity of the designer.
A designer for which you have no evidence whatsoever.
Talk about diversion. I was excplaining why there's no evidence pointing
to the identity of the designer. You inject your bias rather
than acknowledge my actual statement.
Post by Christopher A. Lee
Post by R. Dean
I may _believe_ that Zeus is the
designer, but I see no evidence pointing to Zeus or any other
god as the designer.
Idiot.
This is your last insult that I going to read. So, no more. I will not
respond to you again. Unless you can be civil.
Christopher A. Lee
2016-11-23 17:49:37 UTC
Permalink
Post by R. Dean
Post by Christopher A. Lee
Post by R. Dean
Post by Christopher A. Lee
Post by R. Dean
Post by Christopher A. Lee
ocumentary on the Dover ID trial...
Post by R. Dean
Post by Christopher A. Lee
Post by R. Dean
Post by Christopher A. Lee
http://youtu.be/7HZzGXnYL5I
I watched this; what was missing was the fact that William (Bill)
Buckingham and Alan Bonsell, members of the Dover Area School District
Board of Education who were both YOUNG EARTH CREATIONIST, had made
various statements supporting teaching creationism alongside evolution.
Which is irrelevant.
The "textbook" was a creationist one, with the Bible stuff removed and
a few global changes to replace "creationists" with "design
proponents".
Missed that bit?
Did you also see the bit where Behe's supposed "silver bullet" for
"irreducible complexity" that was supposed to demolish evolution, was
refuted because the flagellum developed from a needle-like probe?
Or where Behe used his own redefinition for the term "science" and was
forced to admit that with it, astrology would also be scientific?
Post by R. Dean
At a board meeting on June 7, 2004, Buckingham mentioned creationism and
raised objections to the proposed use of the textbook Biology written by
Kenneth R. Miller and Joseph S. Levine, describing it as "laced with
Darwinism" and saying it was "inexcusable to have a book that says man
descended from apes with nothing to counterbalance it."[10] (CAP, by me)
Which isn't how science works, let alone science education.
Post by R. Dean
This story made the York newspapers, and Buckingham was telephoned by
Discovery Institute staff attorney Seth Cooper, whose tasks included
"communicating with legislators, school board members, teachers, parents
and students" to "address the topic of ID in a scientifically and
educationally responsible way" in public schools. He later stated that
he made the call to "steer the Dover Board away from trying to include
intelligent design in the classroom or from trying to insert creationism
into its cirriculum [sic]", an account Buckingham has disputed. Cooper
sent the book and DVD of Icons of Evolution to Buckingham, who required
the Dover High School science teachers to watch the DVD. They did not
take up the opportunity to use it in their classes.
So? It was the "textbook" which proved that ID was derived from
creationism, not from science.
Post by R. Dean
The point was it was young earth creationist who started this and was
advised by the ID lawyer not to.. his words "made the call to "steer the
Dover Board away from trying to include intelligent design in the
classroom or from trying to insert creationism into its cirriculum
[sic]", an account Buckingham has disputed".
Forgotten the textbook already? It was the proof that ID was derived
from creationism.
Post by R. Dean
So who to believe, The ID people had nothing to gain, so I believe they
wanted no part in this fiasco, but were pulled into it.
Forgotten the textbook?
It was the creationist who altered their original textbook.
Prove it.
The textbook was published before Phillip Johnson wrote the book
"Darwin on trial", which is credited with the beginning of the
ID movement. At this time the creation movement was decades old.
If you recall it was two YEC creationist on the Dover school
board who initiated the creationist movement to get creationism
along with evolution in school. I doubt that being YEC, either
knew of ID at the time.
Post by Christopher A. Lee
Post by R. Dean
Post by Christopher A. Lee
It was the proof that ID was derived from creationism.
.
I disagree, creationist hi-jacked the ID reputation for their
own purposes.
Prove it or stop lying.
I have whether you accept it or not is immaterial. You are a poor
judge. As an atheist you have no compunction about labeling people
you disagree with as liars, idiots. No one is entitled to an
opinion different from yours. This is a clear demonstration of
your intolerance. So, this reaches the limit of my tollerance
of bullies and abusers.
What "intolerance",proven serial liar?
Okay Chris, we have this in common.
You merely reap what you sow.
Post by R. Dean
Post by Christopher A. Lee
ID is a form of creationism. It is OEC with the god you used to
believe did it when you were an OEC, replaced by some unspecified and
equally unevidenced designer.
Even when I considered myself an OEC, I could not identify the
"creator". I thought of myself more as a deist. However I've
I see fine tuned constants as evidence pointing to design
I see homeobox (especially the Pax6 gene) genes as evidence
pointing to design.
HOW SO?
You need to explain how you reach this conclusion, which has been
thoroughly debunked both here and on talk.origins.
And you have to do this objectively, not subjectively - because that's
how science works.
But in any case, even though you keep pretending that ID creationism
isn't old Earth creationism, you keep using standard, failed OEC
canards,
Just because you see what you want to see, even if it isn't there,
doesn't make it the evidence you want it to be.
Post by R. Dean
I see the fossil record as fundamentally one of stasis as
evidence pointing to design.
By repeating another standard creationist canard.
It is not actual stasis. Gould and Eldredge are paleontologists, who
talk on a geological timescale. What creationists imagine is stasis,
is merely that evolution happens faster in smaller populations, which
then expand to fill their ecological niche after which it happens much
more slowly.
That's your spin.
No, liar.

Why don't you learn something about the causes and mechanisms of
evolution?

That way you won't make such a public fool of yourself.
Post by R. Dean
Both write about the overwhelming characteristic of
the fossil record as being one of sudden appearance in the rocks,
long periods of stasis then disappearance from the record. And
stasis as the as the most ubiquitous trait of the record.
Once again, you demonstrate that you twist what is written to fit
your pre-existing belief.

This particular falsehood is described in the talk.origins quote-mine
project at

\\http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/quotes/mine/part1-2.html

Quote #14

"Paleontologists have paid an enormous price for Darwin's
argument. We fancy ourselves as the only true students of life's
history, yet to preserve our favored account of evolution by natural
selection we view our data as so bad that we almost never see the very
process we profess to study. ...The history of most fossil species
includes tow [sic] features particularly inconsistent with gradualism:
1. Stasis. Most species exhibit no directional change during their
tenure on earth. They appear in the fossil record looking much the
same as when they disappear; morphological change I [sic] usually
limited and directionless. 2. Sudden appearance. In any local area, a
species does not arise gradually by the steady transformation of its
ancestors; it appears all at once and 'fully formed.'" (Gould, Stephen
J. The Panda's Thumb, 1980, p. 181-182)

Snipped in the ellipsis is:

"We believe that Huxley was right in his warning. The modern
theory of evolution does not require gradual change. In fact, the
operation of Darwinian processes should yield exactly what we see in
the fossil record. It is gradualism we should reject, not Darwinism."

Following this passage is:

"Evolution proceeds in two major modes. In the first, phyletic
transformation, an entire population changes from one state to
another. .... The second mode, speciation, replenishes the earth. New
species branch off from a persisting parental stock.

"Darwin, to be sure, acknowledged and discussed the process of
speciation. But he cast his discussion of evolutionary change almost
totally in the mold of phyletic transformation. In this context, the
phenomenon of stasis and sudden appearance could hardly be attributed
to anything but imperfection of the record; for if new species arise
by transformation of entire ancestral populations, and if we almost
never see the transformation (because species are essentially static
through their range), then our record must be hopelessly incomplete.

"Eldredge and I believe that speciation is responsible for almost
all evolutionary change. Moreover, the way in which it occurs
virtually guarantees that sudden appearance and stasis shall dominate
the fossil record." to p183.
Post by R. Dean
Post by Christopher A. Lee
Only a small proportion of specimens fossilised - and in a small
population, it means we don't always see the transitions - but we
have seen enough of them.
Too often these "transitional fossils" are isolated in time without
antecedents and without decedents.
More made-up bullshit.
Post by R. Dean
Post by Christopher A. Lee
It's also worth nothing that both Gould and Eldredge accept evolution,
they just say it isn't as gradual as undergraduates are taught.
I know both were dedicated evolutionist who tried to bring Darwin theory
in line with what the fossils told them.
You don't even know what the fossils told them because you never
bothered to check what they actually wrote.
Post by R. Dean
Post by Christopher A. Lee
Post by R. Dean
But I see no evidence pointing to
the identity of the designer.
A designer for which you have no evidence whatsoever.
Talk about diversion. I was excplaining why there's no evidence pointing
to the identity of the designer. You inject your bias rather
than acknowledge my actual statement.
No, liar.

_You_ keep bring this up - and it is irrelevant who or what y ou
imagine it is, it is _still_ the remains of the god that you believed
did it when you were an oOEC.
Post by R. Dean
Post by Christopher A. Lee
Post by R. Dean
I may _believe_ that Zeus is the
designer, but I see no evidence pointing to Zeus or any other
god as the designer.
Idiot.
This is your last insult that I going to read. So, no more. I will not
respond to you again. Unless you can be civil.
Fact, not insult, liar.

Keep posting the same contentious bullshit here (alt.atheism) and it
will keep getting treated the same way.
R. Dean
2016-11-26 19:42:28 UTC
Permalink
Post by Christopher A. Lee
Post by R. Dean
Post by Christopher A. Lee
Post by R. Dean
Post by Christopher A. Lee
Post by R. Dean
Post by Christopher A. Lee
ocumentary on the Dover ID trial...
Post by R. Dean
Post by Christopher A. Lee
Post by R. Dean
Post by Christopher A. Lee
http://youtu.be/7HZzGXnYL5I
I watched this; what was missing was the fact that William (Bill)
Buckingham and Alan Bonsell, members of the Dover Area School District
Board of Education who were both YOUNG EARTH CREATIONIST, had made
various statements supporting teaching creationism alongside evolution.
Which is irrelevant.
The "textbook" was a creationist one, with the Bible stuff removed and
a few global changes to replace "creationists" with "design
proponents".
Missed that bit?
Did you also see the bit where Behe's supposed "silver bullet" for
"irreducible complexity" that was supposed to demolish evolution, was
refuted because the flagellum developed from a needle-like probe?
Or where Behe used his own redefinition for the term "science" and was
forced to admit that with it, astrology would also be scientific?
Post by R. Dean
At a board meeting on June 7, 2004, Buckingham mentioned creationism and
raised objections to the proposed use of the textbook Biology written by
Kenneth R. Miller and Joseph S. Levine, describing it as "laced with
Darwinism" and saying it was "inexcusable to have a book that says man
descended from apes with nothing to counterbalance it."[10] (CAP, by me)
Which isn't how science works, let alone science education.
Post by R. Dean
This story made the York newspapers, and Buckingham was telephoned by
Discovery Institute staff attorney Seth Cooper, whose tasks included
"communicating with legislators, school board members, teachers, parents
and students" to "address the topic of ID in a scientifically and
educationally responsible way" in public schools. He later stated that
he made the call to "steer the Dover Board away from trying to include
intelligent design in the classroom or from trying to insert creationism
into its cirriculum [sic]", an account Buckingham has disputed. Cooper
sent the book and DVD of Icons of Evolution to Buckingham, who required
the Dover High School science teachers to watch the DVD. They did not
take up the opportunity to use it in their classes.
So? It was the "textbook" which proved that ID was derived from
creationism, not from science.
Post by R. Dean
The point was it was young earth creationist who started this and was
advised by the ID lawyer not to.. his words "made the call to "steer the
Dover Board away from trying to include intelligent design in the
classroom or from trying to insert creationism into its cirriculum
[sic]", an account Buckingham has disputed".
Forgotten the textbook already? It was the proof that ID was derived
from creationism.
Post by R. Dean
So who to believe, The ID people had nothing to gain, so I believe they
wanted no part in this fiasco, but were pulled into it.
Forgotten the textbook?
It was the creationist who altered their original textbook.
Prove it.
The textbook was published before Phillip Johnson wrote the book
"Darwin on trial", which is credited with the beginning of the
ID movement. At this time the creation movement was decades old.
If you recall it was two YEC creationist on the Dover school
board who initiated the creationist movement to get creationism
along with evolution in school. I doubt that being YEC, either
knew of ID at the time.
Post by Christopher A. Lee
Post by R. Dean
Post by Christopher A. Lee
It was the proof that ID was derived from creationism.
.
I disagree, creationist hi-jacked the ID reputation for their
own purposes.
Prove it or stop lying.
I have whether you accept it or not is immaterial. You are a poor
judge. As an atheist you have no compunction about labeling people
you disagree with as liars, idiots. No one is entitled to an
opinion different from yours. This is a clear demonstration of
your intolerance. So, this reaches the limit of my tollerance
of bullies and abusers.
What "intolerance",proven serial liar?
Okay Chris, we have this in common.
You merely reap what you sow.
Post by R. Dean
Post by Christopher A. Lee
ID is a form of creationism. It is OEC with the god you used to
believe did it when you were an OEC, replaced by some unspecified and
equally unevidenced designer.
Even when I considered myself an OEC, I could not identify the
"creator". I thought of myself more as a deist. However I've
I see fine tuned constants as evidence pointing to design
I see homeobox (especially the Pax6 gene) genes as evidence
pointing to design.
HOW SO?
You need to explain how you reach this conclusion, which has been
thoroughly debunked both here and on talk.origins.
And you have to do this objectively, not subjectively - because that's
how science works.
But in any case, even though you keep pretending that ID creationism
isn't old Earth creationism, you keep using standard, failed OEC
canards,
Just because you see what you want to see, even if it isn't there,
doesn't make it the evidence you want it to be.
Post by R. Dean
I see the fossil record as fundamentally one of stasis as
evidence pointing to design.
By repeating another standard creationist canard.
It is not actual stasis. Gould and Eldredge are paleontologists, who
talk on a geological timescale. What creationists imagine is stasis,
is merely that evolution happens faster in smaller populations, which
then expand to fill their ecological niche after which it happens much
more slowly.
That's your spin.
No, liar.
Why don't you learn something about the causes and mechanisms of
evolution?
That way you won't make such a public fool of yourself.
Post by R. Dean
Both write about the overwhelming characteristic of
the fossil record as being one of sudden appearance in the rocks,
long periods of stasis then disappearance from the record. And
stasis as the as the most ubiquitous trait of the record.
Once again, you demonstrate that you twist what is written to fit
your pre-existing belief.
This particular falsehood is described in the talk.origins quote-mine
project at
\\http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/quotes/mine/part1-2.html
Quote #14
"Paleontologists have paid an enormous price for Darwin's
argument. We fancy ourselves as the only true students of life's
history, yet to preserve our favored account of evolution by natural
selection we view our data as so bad that we almost never see the very
process we profess to study. ...The history of most fossil species
1. Stasis. Most species exhibit no directional change during their
tenure on earth. They appear in the fossil record looking much the
same as when they disappear; morphological change I [sic] usually
limited and directionless. 2. Sudden appearance. In any local area, a
species does not arise gradually by the steady transformation of its
ancestors; it appears all at once and 'fully formed.'" (Gould, Stephen
J. The Panda's Thumb, 1980, p. 181-182)
"We believe that Huxley was right in his warning. The modern
theory of evolution does not require gradual change. In fact, the
operation of Darwinian processes should yield exactly what we see in
the fossil record. It is gradualism we should reject, not Darwinism."
"Evolution proceeds in two major modes. In the first, phyletic
transformation, an entire population changes from one state to
another. .... The second mode, speciation, replenishes the earth. New
species branch off from a persisting parental stock.
"Darwin, to be sure, acknowledged and discussed the process of
speciation. But he cast his discussion of evolutionary change almost
totally in the mold of phyletic transformation. In this context, the
phenomenon of stasis and sudden appearance could hardly be attributed
to anything but imperfection of the record; for if new species arise
by transformation of entire ancestral populations, and if we almost
never see the transformation (because species are essentially static
through their range), then our record must be hopelessly incomplete.
"Eldredge and I believe that speciation is responsible for almost
all evolutionary change. Moreover, the way in which it occurs
virtually guarantees that sudden appearance and stasis shall dominate
the fossil record." to p183.
Post by R. Dean
Post by Christopher A. Lee
Only a small proportion of specimens fossilised - and in a small
population, it means we don't always see the transitions - but we
have seen enough of them.
Too often these "transitional fossils" are isolated in time without
antecedents and without decedents.
Why are you denying this: archaeopteryx is a prime example of this.
There is no know ancestor forms leading up to archie or decedents from
archie leading to modern birds. Archie is isolated in the fossil record.
Post by Christopher A. Lee
More made-up bullshit.
Post by R. Dean
Post by Christopher A. Lee
It's also worth nothing that both Gould and Eldredge accept evolution,
they just say it isn't as gradual as undergraduates are taught.
I know both were dedicated evolutionist who tried to bring Darwin theory
in line with what the fossils told them.
You don't even know what the fossils told them because you never
bothered to check what they actually wrote.
I've read several both by both Gould and Eldredge.
Post by Christopher A. Lee
Post by R. Dean
Post by Christopher A. Lee
Post by R. Dean
But I see no evidence pointing to
the identity of the designer.
A designer for which you have no evidence whatsoever.
Talk about diversion. I was excplaining why there's no evidence pointing
to the identity of the designer. You inject your bias rather
than acknowledge my actual statement.
No, liar.
That's exactly what you did, you bastard.
Post by Christopher A. Lee
_You_ keep bring this up - and it is irrelevant who or what y ou
imagine it is, it is _still_ the remains of the god that you believed
did it when you were an oOEC.
Even if I do, it's a matter of belief, not of some evidence pointing
to the idenitity. I do consider myself christian, but a Christian Deist
Post by Christopher A. Lee
Post by R. Dean
Post by Christopher A. Lee
Post by R. Dean
I may _believe_ that Zeus is the
designer, but I see no evidence pointing to Zeus or any other
god as the designer.
Idiot.
I came to my view regarding Design, based upon my occupation, education
observation and my studies .
I also know that engineers are one if not the main group of professional
people who are most inclined to see design as the more likely
explanation for "apparent design" being actual design.
Christopher A. Lee
2016-11-26 20:54:15 UTC
Permalink
Post by R. Dean
Post by Christopher A. Lee
Post by R. Dean
Post by Christopher A. Lee
Post by R. Dean
Post by Christopher A. Lee
Post by R. Dean
Post by Christopher A. Lee
ocumentary on the Dover ID trial...
Post by R. Dean
Post by Christopher A. Lee
Post by R. Dean
Post by Christopher A. Lee
http://youtu.be/7HZzGXnYL5I
I watched this; what was missing was the fact that William (Bill)
Buckingham and Alan Bonsell, members of the Dover Area School District
Board of Education who were both YOUNG EARTH CREATIONIST, had made
various statements supporting teaching creationism alongside evolution.
Which is irrelevant.
The "textbook" was a creationist one, with the Bible stuff removed and
a few global changes to replace "creationists" with "design
proponents".
Missed that bit?
Did you also see the bit where Behe's supposed "silver bullet" for
"irreducible complexity" that was supposed to demolish evolution, was
refuted because the flagellum developed from a needle-like probe?
Or where Behe used his own redefinition for the term "science" and was
forced to admit that with it, astrology would also be scientific?
Post by R. Dean
At a board meeting on June 7, 2004, Buckingham mentioned creationism and
raised objections to the proposed use of the textbook Biology written by
Kenneth R. Miller and Joseph S. Levine, describing it as "laced with
Darwinism" and saying it was "inexcusable to have a book that says man
descended from apes with nothing to counterbalance it."[10] (CAP, by me)
Which isn't how science works, let alone science education.
Post by R. Dean
This story made the York newspapers, and Buckingham was telephoned by
Discovery Institute staff attorney Seth Cooper, whose tasks included
"communicating with legislators, school board members, teachers, parents
and students" to "address the topic of ID in a scientifically and
educationally responsible way" in public schools. He later stated that
he made the call to "steer the Dover Board away from trying to include
intelligent design in the classroom or from trying to insert creationism
into its cirriculum [sic]", an account Buckingham has disputed. Cooper
sent the book and DVD of Icons of Evolution to Buckingham, who required
the Dover High School science teachers to watch the DVD. They did not
take up the opportunity to use it in their classes.
So? It was the "textbook" which proved that ID was derived from
creationism, not from science.
Post by R. Dean
The point was it was young earth creationist who started this and was
advised by the ID lawyer not to.. his words "made the call to "steer the
Dover Board away from trying to include intelligent design in the
classroom or from trying to insert creationism into its cirriculum
[sic]", an account Buckingham has disputed".
Forgotten the textbook already? It was the proof that ID was derived
from creationism.
Post by R. Dean
So who to believe, The ID people had nothing to gain, so I believe they
wanted no part in this fiasco, but were pulled into it.
Forgotten the textbook?
It was the creationist who altered their original textbook.
Prove it.
The textbook was published before Phillip Johnson wrote the book
"Darwin on trial", which is credited with the beginning of the
ID movement. At this time the creation movement was decades old.
If you recall it was two YEC creationist on the Dover school
board who initiated the creationist movement to get creationism
along with evolution in school. I doubt that being YEC, either
knew of ID at the time.
Post by Christopher A. Lee
Post by R. Dean
Post by Christopher A. Lee
It was the proof that ID was derived from creationism.
.
I disagree, creationist hi-jacked the ID reputation for their
own purposes.
Prove it or stop lying.
I have whether you accept it or not is immaterial. You are a poor
judge. As an atheist you have no compunction about labeling people
you disagree with as liars, idiots. No one is entitled to an
opinion different from yours. This is a clear demonstration of
your intolerance. So, this reaches the limit of my tollerance
of bullies and abusers.
What "intolerance",proven serial liar?
Okay Chris, we have this in common.
You merely reap what you sow.
Post by R. Dean
Post by Christopher A. Lee
ID is a form of creationism. It is OEC with the god you used to
believe did it when you were an OEC, replaced by some unspecified and
equally unevidenced designer.
Even when I considered myself an OEC, I could not identify the
"creator". I thought of myself more as a deist. However I've
I see fine tuned constants as evidence pointing to design
I see homeobox (especially the Pax6 gene) genes as evidence
pointing to design.
HOW SO?
You need to explain how you reach this conclusion, which has been
thoroughly debunked both here and on talk.origins.
And you have to do this objectively, not subjectively - because that's
how science works.
But in any case, even though you keep pretending that ID creationism
isn't old Earth creationism, you keep using standard, failed OEC
canards,
Just like their falsehoods about Gould and punctuated equilibrium.
Post by R. Dean
Post by Christopher A. Lee
Post by R. Dean
Post by Christopher A. Lee
Just because you see what you want to see, even if it isn't there,
doesn't make it the evidence you want it to be.
Post by R. Dean
I see the fossil record as fundamentally one of stasis as
evidence pointing to design.
By repeating another standard creationist canard.
It is not actual stasis. Gould and Eldredge are paleontologists, who
talk on a geological timescale. What creationists imagine is stasis,
is merely that evolution happens faster in smaller populations, which
then expand to fill their ecological niche after which it happens much
more slowly.
That's your spin.
No, liar.
Why don't you learn something about the causes and mechanisms of
evolution?
That way you won't make such a public fool of yourself.
Like learning what punctuated equilibrium is and what it isn't, and
why it isn't a problem for evolution.
Post by R. Dean
Post by Christopher A. Lee
Post by R. Dean
Both write about the overwhelming characteristic of
the fossil record as being one of sudden appearance in the rocks,
long periods of stasis then disappearance from the record. And
stasis as the as the most ubiquitous trait of the record.
Once again, you demonstrate that you twist what is written to fit
your pre-existing belief.
This particular falsehood is described in the talk.origins quote-mine
project at
\\http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/quotes/mine/part1-2.html
Quote #14
"Paleontologists have paid an enormous price for Darwin's
argument. We fancy ourselves as the only true students of life's
history, yet to preserve our favored account of evolution by natural
selection we view our data as so bad that we almost never see the very
process we profess to study. ...The history of most fossil species
1. Stasis. Most species exhibit no directional change during their
tenure on earth. They appear in the fossil record looking much the
same as when they disappear; morphological change I [sic] usually
limited and directionless. 2. Sudden appearance. In any local area, a
species does not arise gradually by the steady transformation of its
ancestors; it appears all at once and 'fully formed.'" (Gould, Stephen
J. The Panda's Thumb, 1980, p. 181-182)
"We believe that Huxley was right in his warning. The modern
theory of evolution does not require gradual change. In fact, the
operation of Darwinian processes should yield exactly what we see in
the fossil record. It is gradualism we should reject, not Darwinism."
"Evolution proceeds in two major modes. In the first, phyletic
transformation, an entire population changes from one state to
another. .... The second mode, speciation, replenishes the earth. New
species branch off from a persisting parental stock.
"Darwin, to be sure, acknowledged and discussed the process of
speciation. But he cast his discussion of evolutionary change almost
totally in the mold of phyletic transformation. In this context, the
phenomenon of stasis and sudden appearance could hardly be attributed
to anything but imperfection of the record; for if new species arise
by transformation of entire ancestral populations, and if we almost
never see the transformation (because species are essentially static
through their range), then our record must be hopelessly incomplete.
"Eldredge and I believe that speciation is responsible for almost
all evolutionary change. Moreover, the way in which it occurs
virtually guarantees that sudden appearance and stasis shall dominate
the fossil record." to p183.
Well?
Post by R. Dean
Post by Christopher A. Lee
Post by R. Dean
Post by Christopher A. Lee
Only a small proportion of specimens fossilised - and in a small
population, it means we don't always see the transitions - but we
have seen enough of them.
Too often these "transitional fossils" are isolated in time without
antecedents and without decedents.
Why are you denying this: archaeopteryx is a prime example of this.
There is no know ancestor forms leading up to archie or decedents from
archie leading to modern birds. Archie is isolated in the fossil record.
Even if that were true, so what?

It was predicted (do you know what that word means?) that birds were
descended from dinosaurs, and that a fossil would be found with
features of both.

And yes, it appears to have been an evolutionary dead end.

Nobody claims that archaeopteryx is _the_ transitional species between
dinosaurs and birds - it is just that it has the predicted features of
both.
Post by R. Dean
Post by Christopher A. Lee
More made-up bullshit.
Post by R. Dean
Post by Christopher A. Lee
It's also worth nothing that both Gould and Eldredge accept evolution,
they just say it isn't as gradual as undergraduates are taught.
I know both were dedicated evolutionist who tried to bring Darwin theory
in line with what the fossils told them.
You don't even know what the fossils told them because you never
bothered to check what they actually wrote.
I've read several both by both Gould and Eldredge.
Pity you haven't read them for comprehension instead of repeating
standard creationist canards.
Post by R. Dean
Post by Christopher A. Lee
Post by R. Dean
Post by Christopher A. Lee
Post by R. Dean
But I see no evidence pointing to
the identity of the designer.
A designer for which you have no evidence whatsoever.
Talk about diversion. I was excplaining why there's no evidence pointing
to the identity of the designer. You inject your bias rather
than acknowledge my actual statement.
No, liar.
That's exactly what you did, you bastard.
No, you lying bastard. You're projecting your own bias, your own need
for there to be a designer onto those who wouldn't even give it a
thought if creationists (whether OEC, YEC or ID) kept their nonsense
where it belongs.
Post by R. Dean
Post by Christopher A. Lee
_You_ keep bring this up - and it is irrelevant who or what y ou
imagine it is, it is _still_ the remains of the god that you believed
did it when you were an OEC.
Even if I do, it's a matter of belief, not of some evidence pointing
to the idenitity. I do consider myself christian, but a Christian Deist
Who was once an old Earth Creationist, and who can't let go of the god
he believed did it - even though there is no evidence for a designer.
Post by R. Dean
Post by Christopher A. Lee
Post by R. Dean
Post by Christopher A. Lee
Post by R. Dean
I may _believe_ that Zeus is the
designer, but I see no evidence pointing to Zeus or any other
god as the designer.
Idiot.
I came to my view regarding Design, based upon my occupation, education
observation and my studies .
Stop lying.

You were an old Earth creationist who got that bullshit from the OEC
movement, and you repeat the same canards and falsehoods while
pretending that the designer doesn't have to be the OEC's god.
Post by R. Dean
I also know that engineers are one if not the main group of professional
people who are most inclined to see design as the more likely
explanation for "apparent design" being actual design.
And other engineers see what was jury-rigged from what was already
there.
R. Dean
2016-11-28 23:51:53 UTC
Permalink
Post by Christopher A. Lee
Post by R. Dean
Post by Christopher A. Lee
Post by R. Dean
Post by Christopher A. Lee
Post by R. Dean
Post by Christopher A. Lee
Post by R. Dean
Post by Christopher A. Lee
ocumentary on the Dover ID trial...
Post by R. Dean
Post by Christopher A. Lee
Post by R. Dean
Post by Christopher A. Lee
http://youtu.be/7HZzGXnYL5I
I watched this; what was missing was the fact that William (Bill)
Buckingham and Alan Bonsell, members of the Dover Area School District
Board of Education who were both YOUNG EARTH CREATIONIST, had made
various statements supporting teaching creationism alongside evolution.
Which is irrelevant.
The "textbook" was a creationist one, with the Bible stuff removed and
a few global changes to replace "creationists" with "design
proponents".
Missed that bit?
Did you also see the bit where Behe's supposed "silver bullet" for
"irreducible complexity" that was supposed to demolish evolution, was
refuted because the flagellum developed from a needle-like probe?
Or where Behe used his own redefinition for the term "science" and was
forced to admit that with it, astrology would also be scientific?
Post by R. Dean
At a board meeting on June 7, 2004, Buckingham mentioned creationism and
raised objections to the proposed use of the textbook Biology written by
Kenneth R. Miller and Joseph S. Levine, describing it as "laced with
Darwinism" and saying it was "inexcusable to have a book that says man
descended from apes with nothing to counterbalance it."[10] (CAP, by me)
Which isn't how science works, let alone science education.
Post by R. Dean
This story made the York newspapers, and Buckingham was telephoned by
Discovery Institute staff attorney Seth Cooper, whose tasks included
"communicating with legislators, school board members, teachers, parents
and students" to "address the topic of ID in a scientifically and
educationally responsible way" in public schools. He later stated that
he made the call to "steer the Dover Board away from trying to include
intelligent design in the classroom or from trying to insert creationism
into its cirriculum [sic]", an account Buckingham has disputed. Cooper
sent the book and DVD of Icons of Evolution to Buckingham, who required
the Dover High School science teachers to watch the DVD. They did not
take up the opportunity to use it in their classes.
So? It was the "textbook" which proved that ID was derived from
creationism, not from science.
Post by R. Dean
The point was it was young earth creationist who started this and was
advised by the ID lawyer not to.. his words "made the call to "steer the
Dover Board away from trying to include intelligent design in the
classroom or from trying to insert creationism into its cirriculum
[sic]", an account Buckingham has disputed".
Forgotten the textbook already? It was the proof that ID was derived
from creationism.
Post by R. Dean
So who to believe, The ID people had nothing to gain, so I believe they
wanted no part in this fiasco, but were pulled into it.
Forgotten the textbook?
It was the creationist who altered their original textbook.
Prove it.
The textbook was published before Phillip Johnson wrote the book
"Darwin on trial", which is credited with the beginning of the
ID movement. At this time the creation movement was decades old.
If you recall it was two YEC creationist on the Dover school
board who initiated the creationist movement to get creationism
along with evolution in school. I doubt that being YEC, either
knew of ID at the time.
Post by Christopher A. Lee
Post by R. Dean
Post by Christopher A. Lee
It was the proof that ID was derived from creationism.
.
I disagree, creationist hi-jacked the ID reputation for their
own purposes.
Prove it or stop lying.
I have whether you accept it or not is immaterial. You are a poor
judge. As an atheist you have no compunction about labeling people
you disagree with as liars, idiots. No one is entitled to an
opinion different from yours. This is a clear demonstration of
your intolerance. So, this reaches the limit of my tollerance
of bullies and abusers.
What "intolerance",proven serial liar?
Okay Chris, we have this in common.
You merely reap what you sow.
Post by R. Dean
Post by Christopher A. Lee
ID is a form of creationism. It is OEC with the god you used to
believe did it when you were an OEC, replaced by some unspecified and
equally unevidenced designer.
Even when I considered myself an OEC, I could not identify the
"creator". I thought of myself more as a deist. However I've
I see fine tuned constants as evidence pointing to design
I see homeobox (especially the Pax6 gene) genes as evidence
pointing to design.
HOW SO?
You need to explain how you reach this conclusion, which has been
thoroughly debunked both here and on talk.origins.
And you have to do this objectively, not subjectively - because that's
how science works.
But in any case, even though you keep pretending that ID creationism
isn't old Earth creationism, you keep using standard, failed OEC
canards,
Just like their falsehoods about Gould and punctuated equilibrium.
Post by R. Dean
Post by Christopher A. Lee
Post by R. Dean
Post by Christopher A. Lee
Just because you see what you want to see, even if it isn't there,
doesn't make it the evidence you want it to be.
Post by R. Dean
I see the fossil record as fundamentally one of stasis as
evidence pointing to design.
By repeating another standard creationist canard.
It is not actual stasis. Gould and Eldredge are paleontologists, who
talk on a geological timescale. What creationists imagine is stasis,
is merely that evolution happens faster in smaller populations, which
then expand to fill their ecological niche after which it happens much
more slowly.
That's your spin.
No, liar.
Why don't you learn something about the causes and mechanisms of
evolution?
That way you won't make such a public fool of yourself.
Like learning what punctuated equilibrium is and what it isn't, and
why it isn't a problem for evolution.
Post by R. Dean
Post by Christopher A. Lee
Post by R. Dean
Both write about the overwhelming characteristic of
the fossil record as being one of sudden appearance in the rocks,
long periods of stasis then disappearance from the record. And
stasis as the as the most ubiquitous trait of the record.
Once again, you demonstrate that you twist what is written to fit
your pre-existing belief.
This particular falsehood is described in the talk.origins quote-mine
project at
\\http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/quotes/mine/part1-2.html
Quote #14
"Paleontologists have paid an enormous price for Darwin's
argument. We fancy ourselves as the only true students of life's
history, yet to preserve our favored account of evolution by natural
selection we view our data as so bad that we almost never see the very
process we profess to study. ...The history of most fossil species
1. Stasis. Most species exhibit no directional change during their
tenure on earth. They appear in the fossil record looking much the
same as when they disappear; morphological change I [sic] usually
limited and directionless. 2. Sudden appearance. In any local area, a
species does not arise gradually by the steady transformation of its
ancestors; it appears all at once and 'fully formed.'" (Gould, Stephen
J. The Panda's Thumb, 1980, p. 181-182)
"We believe that Huxley was right in his warning. The modern
theory of evolution does not require gradual change. In fact, the
operation of Darwinian processes should yield exactly what we see in
the fossil record. It is gradualism we should reject, not Darwinism."
"Evolution proceeds in two major modes. In the first, phyletic
transformation, an entire population changes from one state to
another. .... The second mode, speciation, replenishes the earth. New
species branch off from a persisting parental stock.
"Darwin, to be sure, acknowledged and discussed the process of
speciation. But he cast his discussion of evolutionary change almost
totally in the mold of phyletic transformation. In this context, the
phenomenon of stasis and sudden appearance could hardly be attributed
to anything but imperfection of the record; for if new species arise
by transformation of entire ancestral populations, and if we almost
never see the transformation (because species are essentially static
through their range), then our record must be hopelessly incomplete.
"Eldredge and I believe that speciation is responsible for almost
all evolutionary change. Moreover, the way in which it occurs
virtually guarantees that sudden appearance and stasis shall dominate
the fossil record." to p183.
Well?
Post by R. Dean
Post by Christopher A. Lee
Post by R. Dean
Post by Christopher A. Lee
Only a small proportion of specimens fossilised - and in a small
population, it means we don't always see the transitions - but we
have seen enough of them.
Too often these "transitional fossils" are isolated in time without
antecedents and without decedents.
Why are you denying this: archaeopteryx is a prime example of this.
There is no know ancestor forms leading up to archie or decedents from
archie leading to modern birds. Archie is isolated in the fossil record.
Even if that were true, so what?
It was predicted (do you know what that word means?) that birds were
descended from dinosaurs, and that a fossil would be found with
features of both.
And yes, it appears to have been an evolutionary dead end.
Nobody claims that archaeopteryx is _the_ transitional species between
dinosaurs and birds - it is just that it has the predicted features of
both.
Post by R. Dean
Post by Christopher A. Lee
More made-up bullshit.
Post by R. Dean
Post by Christopher A. Lee
It's also worth nothing that both Gould and Eldredge accept evolution,
they just say it isn't as gradual as undergraduates are taught.
I know both were dedicated evolutionist who tried to bring Darwin theory
in line with what the fossils told them.
You don't even know what the fossils told them because you never
bothered to check what they actually wrote.
I've read several both by both Gould and Eldredge.
Pity you haven't read them for comprehension instead of repeating
standard creationist canards.
Post by R. Dean
Post by Christopher A. Lee
Post by R. Dean
Post by Christopher A. Lee
Post by R. Dean
But I see no evidence pointing to
the identity of the designer.
A designer for which you have no evidence whatsoever.
Talk about diversion. I was excplaining why there's no evidence pointing
to the identity of the designer. You inject your bias rather
than acknowledge my actual statement.
No, liar.
That's exactly what you did, you bastard.
No, you lying bastard. You're projecting your own bias, your own need
for there to be a designer onto those who wouldn't even give it a
thought if creationists (whether OEC, YEC or ID) kept their nonsense
where it belongs.
I found an article in Discover entitled "Sciences Alternative to and
Intelligent Creator: the Multiverse Theory".
Subtitled: Our universe is perfectly tailored for life. That may be
the work of God or the result of our universe being one of many.

In order to head off your charges of quote mining or quoting out of
context, here is the reference. Read it or don't - I don't think you
will. If you don't you have no grounds to comment on it.
Post by Christopher A. Lee
Post by R. Dean
Post by Christopher A. Lee
_You_ keep bring this up - and it is irrelevant who or what y ou
imagine it is, it is _still_ the remains of the god that you believed
did it when you were an OEC.
Even if I do, it's a matter of belief, not of some evidence pointing
to the idenitity. I do consider myself christian, but a Christian Deist
Who was once an old Earth Creationist, and who can't let go of the god
he believed did it - even though there is no evidence for a designer.
As I said, I see evidence of design, but I know of no evidence pointing
to the identity of the designer. What I may believe is another matter.
Why can you not accept this is _my_ view. What is it to you?
Post by Christopher A. Lee
Post by R. Dean
Post by Christopher A. Lee
Post by R. Dean
Post by Christopher A. Lee
Post by R. Dean
I may _believe_ that Zeus is the
designer, but I see no evidence pointing to Zeus or any other
god as the designer.
Idiot.
I came to my view regarding Design, based upon my occupation, education
observation and my studies .
Stop lying.
Why is it so important to you that I conform to your notions? I really
do not understand this. Can you explain it?
Post by Christopher A. Lee
You were an old Earth creationist who got that bullshit from the OEC
movement, and you repeat the same canards and falsehoods while
pretending that the designer doesn't have to be the OEC's god.
I have never accepted the Genesis account, nor do I now. In fact, the
Old Testament, from a Christian prospective is fulfilled, obsolete
and set aside.
Post by Christopher A. Lee
Post by R. Dean
I also know that engineers are one if not the main group of professional
people who are most inclined to see design as the more likely
explanation for "apparent design" being actual design.
And other engineers see what was jury-rigged from what was already
there.
Or we may just say this is a model "scaled up".

R. Dean
2016-11-19 17:31:11 UTC
Permalink
Post by Jeanne Douglas
Post by R. Dean
No one can make such a brash comment. No one can know this. It's
my contention that this is the better explanation,
How did you come to that conclusion? What did you base it on? Certainly
there's more than just that it matches your religious beliefs, right?
You must have some actual reasons??? We need to know what they are, so
we can establish their worth.
My conclusions are not based on my religious beliefs. If they were, I
would be quoting the Bible, Billy Graham, the Pope or some other
religious source. But I _NEVER_ do. I certainly do have actual reasons
which I have presented numerous times. But in each case you and Chris
have taken defensive positions, rather than really examine my reasons
for my conclusions. I give references, your response, "Why should I go
to these references?"
I remember you. And being defensive is not examining my reasons in order
to establish their worth.
Christopher A. Lee
2016-11-19 17:48:52 UTC
Permalink
Post by R. Dean
Post by Jeanne Douglas
Post by R. Dean
No one can make such a brash comment. No one can know this. It's
my contention that this is the better explanation,
How did you come to that conclusion? What did you base it on? Certainly
there's more than just that it matches your religious beliefs, right?
You must have some actual reasons??? We need to know what they are, so
we can establish their worth.
My conclusions are not based on my religious beliefs. If they were, I
would be quoting the Bible, Billy Graham, the Pope or some other
religious source.
No. Because the only reason to propose a designer is one's
pre-existing belief.
Post by R. Dean
But I _NEVER_ do. I certainly do have actual reasons
which I have presented numerous times.
No. All you have offered are fallacies like non-sequiturs, argument
from what you imagine authorities say but don't, and ad hominems whose
premises are lies.
Post by R. Dean
But in each case you and Chris
have taken defensive positions,
Liar.

We have shown you (s) where you have gone wrong, and (b) why there
cannot be any evidence for design.
Post by R. Dean
rather than really examine my reasons
for my conclusions. I give references, your response, "Why should I go
to these references?"
No, liar - you make things up that authors don't say, and you never
address what people have taken the time and trouble to explain, you
just repeat the same old nonsense as if it had never been refuted or
rebutted every time you crash the atheist group.

You need to explain things in your own words, to make sure you know
just how your "authorities" reach the conclusions you think they do.

And you also need to show us where our explanations go wrong.
Post by R. Dean
I remember you. And being defensive is not examining my reasons in order
to establish their worth.
Done over and over again, liar.
R. Dean
2016-11-19 20:30:12 UTC
Permalink
Post by Christopher A. Lee
Post by R. Dean
Post by Jeanne Douglas
Post by R. Dean
No one can make such a brash comment. No one can know this. It's
my contention that this is the better explanation,
How did you come to that conclusion? What did you base it on? Certainly
there's more than just that it matches your religious beliefs, right?
You must have some actual reasons??? We need to know what they are, so
we can establish their worth.
My conclusions are not based on my religious beliefs. If they were, I
would be quoting the Bible, Billy Graham, the Pope or some other
religious source.
No. Because the only reason to propose a designer is one's
pre-existing belief.
You don't allow for anyone to have a view that contradicts you pre
existing notion that religion is the basis for believing anything that's
different from your views. This is intolerance.
Post by Christopher A. Lee
Post by R. Dean
But I _NEVER_ do. I certainly do have actual reasons
which I have presented numerous times.
No. All you have offered are fallacies like non-sequiturs, argument
from what you imagine authorities say but don't, and ad hominems whose
premises are lies.
Not going over this again. You have a short memory.
Post by Christopher A. Lee
Post by R. Dean
But in each case you and Chris
have taken defensive positions,
Liar.
We have shown you (s) where you have gone wrong, and (b) why there
cannot be any evidence for design.
That's just an unsupported claim that _you_ make! But I know
why you make that claim. You cannot see beyond the four walls
that you are in.
Post by Christopher A. Lee
Post by R. Dean
rather than really examine my reasons
for my conclusions. I give references, your response, "Why should I go
to these references?"
No, liar - you make things up that authors don't say, and you never
address what people have taken the time and trouble to explain, you
just repeat the same old nonsense as if it had never been refuted or
rebutted every time you crash the atheist group.
Nonsense! Since you refuse to go to my references, you have no idea what
they say. You just ad lib what you think they _must_ mean.
Post by Christopher A. Lee
You need to explain things in your own words, to make sure you know
just how your "authorities" reach the conclusions you think they do.
I do not. I'm not a mind reader, so I just have to take them at their
word rather than try to spin what they say. That's what you do.
Post by Christopher A. Lee
And you also need to show us where our explanations go wrong.
I've tried. But what do I get? Liar, idiot moron etc.
Post by Christopher A. Lee
Post by R. Dean
I remember you. And being defensive is not examining my reasons in order
to establish their worth.
Done over and over again, liar.
You have to go to the sites I reference. Which so often is refused.
By "why should I?"
Christopher A. Lee
2016-11-19 20:55:41 UTC
Permalink
Post by R. Dean
Post by Christopher A. Lee
Post by R. Dean
Post by Jeanne Douglas
Post by R. Dean
No one can make such a brash comment. No one can know this. It's
my contention that this is the better explanation,
How did you come to that conclusion? What did you base it on? Certainly
there's more than just that it matches your religious beliefs, right?
You must have some actual reasons??? We need to know what they are, so
we can establish their worth.
My conclusions are not based on my religious beliefs. If they were, I
would be quoting the Bible, Billy Graham, the Pope or some other
religious source.
No. Because the only reason to propose a designer is one's
pre-existing belief.
You don't allow for anyone to have a view that contradicts you pre
existing notion that religion is the basis for believing anything that's
diff
Where did I ever say that, pathological liar?

You morons can't grasp just how much of your religious beliefs you
take for granted.

I've already explained why the obvious conclusion is that the only
reason to posit a designer, is to rationalise your theistic religious
belief.

But instead of even trying to address this, you resort to this kind of
personal lie.

All it does, is confirm that you can neither address this nor admit
it.
Post by R. Dean
Post by Christopher A. Lee
Post by R. Dean
But I _NEVER_ do. I certainly do have actual reasons
which I have presented numerous times.
No. All you have offered are fallacies like non-sequiturs, argument
from what you imagine authorities say but don't, and ad hominems whose
premises are lies.
Not going over this again. You have a short memory.
No, liar. Your "reasons" have been addressed and amount to nothing
more than non-sequiturs, argument from the bogus authority of
scientists who don't hold the positions you attribute to them, etc.
Post by R. Dean
Post by Christopher A. Lee
Post by R. Dean
But in each case you and Chris
have taken defensive positions,
Liar.
We have shown you (s) where you have gone wrong, and (b) why there
cannot be any evidence for design.
That's just an unsupported claim that _you_ make!
Why can't you stop lying about this?

You know perfectly well that the reason we recognise things designed
by humans, is because we already know enough about humans to recognise
things we desisting.

To this at a theoretical designer-of-the-universe level, we would
already have to know enough about it, to recognise what it designed,

But in any case, at our own level, we have things that we didn't
design (ie natural) for comparison.

Which we can't do at the theoretical designer-of-the universe level
because we don't have another universe for comparison.

Both of which have been explained over and over again.

But you have never addressed this,
Post by R. Dean
But I know
why you make that claim.
No, liar, you make up amateur-psychologised falsehoods which reflect
yourself.
Post by R. Dean
You cannot see beyond the four walls
that you are in.
Just like that one.
Post by R. Dean
Post by Christopher A. Lee
Post by R. Dean
rather than really examine my reasons
for my conclusions. I give references, your response, "Why should I go
to these references?"
No, liar - you make things up that authors don't say, and you never
address what people have taken the time and trouble to explain, you
just repeat the same old nonsense as if it had never been refuted or
rebutted every time you crash the atheist group.
Nonsense! Since you refuse to go to my references, you have no idea what
they say. You just ad lib what you think they _must_ mean.
No. liar. I and others have refuted your misrepresentations of
scientists writing popular books for the laayman, your use of the
Anthropic Principle, etc.

But you ignore this and keep repeating more of the same nonsense.

If you actually had anything, you would have given that first.
Post by R. Dean
Post by Christopher A. Lee
You need to explain things in your own words, to make sure you know
just how your "authorities" reach the conclusions you think they do.
I do not. I'm not a mind reader, so I just have to take them at their
word rather than try to spin what they say. That's what you do.
You mean, you hide behind them without knowing how they reach the
conclusions you attribute to them.

You know, like when you cited several dedescribing the physical
constants and inferred they meant design.
Post by R. Dean
Post by Christopher A. Lee
And you also need to show us where our explanations go wrong.
I've tried. But what do I get? Liar, idiot moron etc.
Where have you done that, liar?

The closest youcame to that was accusing me of making a catch-22 when
it was your own catch-22 - that you would have to know enough about
this hypotyetical designer first, to know that designed the universe.
Post by R. Dean
Post by Christopher A. Lee
Post by R. Dean
I remember you. And being defensive is not examining my reasons in order
to establish their worth.
Done over and over again, liar.
You have to go to the sites I reference. Which so often is refused.
By "why should I?"
The ones you were hiding behind, so you didn't have to defend what you
imagined they were saying.
Lucifer Morningstar
2016-11-15 22:34:36 UTC
Permalink
Post by R. Dean
There is some theatrical basis for the multiverse found
in the expansion of the universe.
Also in the interpretation of quantium mechanics. But
there is no direct empirical evidence for other universes.
That's true. The multiverse idea was made up by someone
who wants an explanation and who has no concept of science.
--
I call shenanigans on all theistic religions
Christopher A. Lee
2016-11-16 00:02:19 UTC
Permalink
On Wed, 16 Nov 2016 09:34:36 +1100, Lucifer Morningstar
Post by Lucifer Morningstar
Post by R. Dean
There is some theatrical basis for the multiverse found
in the expansion of the universe.
Also in the interpretation of quantium mechanics. But
there is no direct empirical evidence for other universes.
That's true. The multiverse idea was made up by someone
who wants an explanation and who has no concept of science.
Bollocks.
Lucifer Morningstar
2016-11-16 01:01:46 UTC
Permalink
On Tue, 15 Nov 2016 18:02:19 -0600, Christopher A. Lee
Post by Christopher A. Lee
On Wed, 16 Nov 2016 09:34:36 +1100, Lucifer Morningstar
Post by Lucifer Morningstar
Post by R. Dean
There is some theatrical basis for the multiverse found
in the expansion of the universe.
Also in the interpretation of quantium mechanics. But
there is no direct empirical evidence for other universes.
That's true. The multiverse idea was made up by someone
who wants an explanation and who has no concept of science.
Bollocks.
That's what the multiverse is. Pure made up nonsense.
--
I call shenanigans on all theistic religions
Christopher A. Lee
2016-11-16 01:10:44 UTC
Permalink
On Wed, 16 Nov 2016 12:01:46 +1100, Lucifer Morningstar
Post by Lucifer Morningstar
On Tue, 15 Nov 2016 18:02:19 -0600, Christopher A. Lee
Post by Christopher A. Lee
On Wed, 16 Nov 2016 09:34:36 +1100, Lucifer Morningstar
Post by Lucifer Morningstar
Post by R. Dean
There is some theatrical basis for the multiverse found
in the expansion of the universe.
Also in the interpretation of quantium mechanics. But
there is no direct empirical evidence for other universes.
That's true. The multiverse idea was made up by someone
who wants an explanation and who has no concept of science.
Bollocks.
That's what the multiverse is. Pure made up nonsense.
Bollocks,

It's one of many scenarios by cosmologists and astrophysicists for
what the big bang might have occurred "in" - because it didn't happen
in our universe.

But unlike theists and their goddidit, I don't know any scientists who
finniest that it is the actual answer,
R. Dean
2016-11-16 02:05:55 UTC
Permalink
Post by Christopher A. Lee
On Wed, 16 Nov 2016 12:01:46 +1100, Lucifer Morningstar
Post by Lucifer Morningstar
On Tue, 15 Nov 2016 18:02:19 -0600, Christopher A. Lee
Post by Christopher A. Lee
On Wed, 16 Nov 2016 09:34:36 +1100, Lucifer Morningstar
Post by Lucifer Morningstar
Post by R. Dean
There is some theatrical basis for the multiverse found
in the expansion of the universe.
Also in the interpretation of quantium mechanics. But
there is no direct empirical evidence for other universes.
That's true. The multiverse idea was made up by someone
who wants an explanation and who has no concept of science.
Bollocks.
That's what the multiverse is. Pure made up nonsense.
Bollocks,
It's one of many scenarios by cosmologists and astrophysicists for
what the big bang might have occurred "in" - because it didn't happen
in our universe.
What are you talking about? The big bang didn't occur in our universe or
at the beginning of our universe?
Post by Christopher A. Lee
But unlike theists and their goddidit, I don't know any scientists who
finniest that it is the actual answer,
I agree no scientist is willing to accept anything that is not
materialic in it's nature.
Christopher A. Lee
2016-11-16 02:13:07 UTC
Permalink
Post by R. Dean
Post by Christopher A. Lee
On Wed, 16 Nov 2016 12:01:46 +1100, Lucifer Morningstar
Post by Lucifer Morningstar
On Tue, 15 Nov 2016 18:02:19 -0600, Christopher A. Lee
Post by Christopher A. Lee
On Wed, 16 Nov 2016 09:34:36 +1100, Lucifer Morningstar
Post by Lucifer Morningstar
Post by R. Dean
There is some theatrical basis for the multiverse found
in the expansion of the universe.
Also in the interpretation of quantium mechanics. But
there is no direct empirical evidence for other universes.
That's true. The multiverse idea was made up by someone
who wants an explanation and who has no concept of science.
Bollocks.
That's what the multiverse is. Pure made up nonsense.
Bollocks,
It's one of many scenarios by cosmologists and astrophysicists for
what the big bang might have occurred "in" - because it didn't happen
in our universe.
What are you talking about? The big bang didn't occur in our universe or
at the beginning of our universe?
Learn to read.
Post by R. Dean
Post by Christopher A. Lee
But unlike theists and their goddidit, I don't know any scientists who
finniest that it is the actual answer,
That should have been "insist".
Post by R. Dean
I agree no scientist is willing to accept anything that is not
materialic in it's nature.
There's no "willing to accept".

You need to try, at least, to understand what science is and how it's
practiced instead of inventing emotionally prejudicial
misrepresentations.
Lucifer Morningstar
2016-11-16 06:17:41 UTC
Permalink
On Tue, 15 Nov 2016 19:10:44 -0600, Christopher A. Lee
Post by Christopher A. Lee
On Wed, 16 Nov 2016 12:01:46 +1100, Lucifer Morningstar
Post by Lucifer Morningstar
On Tue, 15 Nov 2016 18:02:19 -0600, Christopher A. Lee
Post by Christopher A. Lee
On Wed, 16 Nov 2016 09:34:36 +1100, Lucifer Morningstar
Post by Lucifer Morningstar
Post by R. Dean
There is some theatrical basis for the multiverse found
in the expansion of the universe.
Also in the interpretation of quantium mechanics. But
there is no direct empirical evidence for other universes.
That's true. The multiverse idea was made up by someone
who wants an explanation and who has no concept of science.
Bollocks.
That's what the multiverse is. Pure made up nonsense.
Bollocks,
It's one of many scenarios by cosmologists and astrophysicists for
what the big bang might have occurred "in" - because it didn't happen
in our universe.
Bollocks.

Its nonsense made up to provide an answer where there is none.
Post by Christopher A. Lee
But unlike theists and their goddidit, I don't know any scientists who
finniest that it is the actual answer,
Its not even a possible answer.
--
I call shenanigans on all theistic religions
R. Dean
2016-11-16 02:00:04 UTC
Permalink
Post by Lucifer Morningstar
On Tue, 15 Nov 2016 18:02:19 -0600, Christopher A. Lee
Post by Christopher A. Lee
On Wed, 16 Nov 2016 09:34:36 +1100, Lucifer Morningstar
Post by Lucifer Morningstar
Post by R. Dean
There is some theatrical basis for the multiverse found
in the expansion of the universe.
Also in the interpretation of quantium mechanics. But
there is no direct empirical evidence for other universes.
That's true. The multiverse idea was made up by someone
who wants an explanation and who has no concept of science.
Bollocks.
That's what the multiverse is. Pure made up nonsense.
I absolutely agree. The atheist, Richard Dawkins states
that "the Anthropic
principle is profoundly atheistic" in it's meaning.

However, he does not deny the fine tuning of the constants.
but why does he consider it "profoundly atheist". Can
you explain his conclusion?
Christopher A. Lee
2016-11-16 02:14:08 UTC
Permalink
Post by R. Dean
Post by Lucifer Morningstar
On Tue, 15 Nov 2016 18:02:19 -0600, Christopher A. Lee
Post by Christopher A. Lee
On Wed, 16 Nov 2016 09:34:36 +1100, Lucifer Morningstar
Post by Lucifer Morningstar
Post by R. Dean
There is some theatrical basis for the multiverse found
in the expansion of the universe.
Also in the interpretation of quantium mechanics. But
there is no direct empirical evidence for other universes.
That's true. The multiverse idea was made up by someone
who wants an explanation and who has no concept of science.
Bollocks.
That's what the multiverse is. Pure made up nonsense.
I absolutely agree. The atheist, Richard Dawkins states
that "the Anthropic
principle is profoundly atheistic" in it's meaning.
http://youtu.be/a5O--OSa9mg
However, he does not deny the fine tuning of the constants.
but why does he consider it "profoundly atheist". Can
you explain his conclusion?
Stop lying, proven serially lying troll.
Lucifer Morningstar
2016-11-16 06:14:16 UTC
Permalink
Post by R. Dean
Post by Lucifer Morningstar
On Tue, 15 Nov 2016 18:02:19 -0600, Christopher A. Lee
Post by Christopher A. Lee
On Wed, 16 Nov 2016 09:34:36 +1100, Lucifer Morningstar
Post by Lucifer Morningstar
Post by R. Dean
There is some theatrical basis for the multiverse found
in the expansion of the universe.
Also in the interpretation of quantium mechanics. But
there is no direct empirical evidence for other universes.
That's true. The multiverse idea was made up by someone
who wants an explanation and who has no concept of science.
Bollocks.
That's what the multiverse is. Pure made up nonsense.
I absolutely agree. The atheist, Richard Dawkins states
that "the Anthropic
principle is profoundly atheistic" in it's meaning.
http://youtu.be/a5O--OSa9mg
However, he does not deny the fine tuning of the constants.
but why does he consider it "profoundly atheist". Can
you explain his conclusion?
I don't know but I did notice he included the ridiculous
multiverse 'theory' in as fiction.
--
I call shenanigans on all theistic religions
R. Dean
2016-11-17 03:13:22 UTC
Permalink
Post by Lucifer Morningstar
Post by R. Dean
Post by Lucifer Morningstar
On Tue, 15 Nov 2016 18:02:19 -0600, Christopher A. Lee
Post by Christopher A. Lee
On Wed, 16 Nov 2016 09:34:36 +1100, Lucifer Morningstar
Post by Lucifer Morningstar
Post by R. Dean
There is some theatrical basis for the multiverse found
in the expansion of the universe.
Also in the interpretation of quantium mechanics. But
there is no direct empirical evidence for other universes.
That's true. The multiverse idea was made up by someone
who wants an explanation and who has no concept of science.
Bollocks.
That's what the multiverse is. Pure made up nonsense.
I absolutely agree. The atheist, Richard Dawkins states
that "the Anthropic
principle is profoundly atheistic" in it's meaning.
http://youtu.be/a5O--OSa9mg
However, he does not deny the fine tuning of the constants.
but why does he consider it "profoundly atheist". Can
you explain his conclusion?
I don't know but I did notice he included the ridiculous
multiverse 'theory' in as fiction.
No, Dawkins said "I think is a rather elegant explanation, I think it's
probably true, but I don't know enough physics to know." This was at
about 4:10 minutes into his lecture where he discusses the multiverse

hypothesis.

This was one of four possible explanations for the fine tuned
constants "problem".
Call me lazy but I not going to transcribe all four.
But you can read the four at:
http://youtu.be/a5O--OSa9mg
Lucifer Morningstar
2016-11-17 04:06:01 UTC
Permalink
Post by R. Dean
Post by Lucifer Morningstar
Post by R. Dean
http://youtu.be/a5O--OSa9mg
However, he does not deny the fine tuning of the constants.
but why does he consider it "profoundly atheist". Can
you explain his conclusion?
I don't know but I did notice he included the ridiculous
multiverse 'theory' in as fiction.
No, Dawkins said "I think is a rather elegant explanation, I think it's
probably true, but I don't know enough physics to know." This was at
about 4:10 minutes into his lecture where he discusses the multiverse
hypothesis.
This was one of four possible explanations for the fine tuned
constants "problem".
Call me lazy but I not going to transcribe all four.
http://youtu.be/a5O--OSa9mg
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multiverse

Some physicists say the multiverse is not a legitimate topic of
scientific inquiry. Concerns have been raised about whether attempts
to exempt the multiverse from experimental verification could erode
public confidence in science and ultimately damage the study of
fundamental physics. Some have argued that the multiverse is a
philosophical rather than a scientific hypothesis because it cannot be
falsified.

Arguments against multiverse theories

In his 2003 New York Times opinion piece, A Brief History of the
Multiverse, the author and cosmologist Paul Davies offered a variety
of arguments that multiverse theories are non-scientific :

For a start, how is the existence of the other universes to be
tested? To be sure, all cosmologists accept that there are some
regions of the universe that lie beyond the reach of our telescopes,
but somewhere on the slippery slope between that and the idea that
there are an infinite number of universes, credibility reaches a
limit. As one slips down that slope, more and more must be accepted on
faith, and less and less is open to scientific verification. Extreme
multiverse explanations are therefore reminiscent of theological
discussions. Indeed, invoking an infinity of unseen universes to
explain the unusual features of the one we do see is just as ad hoc as
invoking an unseen Creator. The multiverse theory may be dressed up in
scientific language, but in essence it requires the same leap of
faith.
--
I call shenanigans on all theistic religions
R. Dean
2016-11-17 04:47:52 UTC
Permalink
Post by Christopher A. Lee
Post by R. Dean
Post by Lucifer Morningstar
Post by R. Dean
http://youtu.be/a5O--OSa9mg
However, he does not deny the fine tuning of the constants.
but why does he consider it "profoundly atheist". Can
you explain his conclusion?
I don't know but I did notice he included the ridiculous
multiverse 'theory' in as fiction.
No, Dawkins said "I think is a rather elegant explanation, I think it's
probably true, but I don't know enough physics to know." This was at
about 4:10 minutes into his lecture where he discusses the multiverse
hypothesis.
This was one of four possible explanations for the fine tuned
constants "problem".
Call me lazy but I not going to transcribe all four.
http://youtu.be/a5O--OSa9mg
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multiverse
Some physicists say the multiverse is not a legitimate topic of
scientific inquiry. Concerns have been raised about whether attempts
to exempt the multiverse from experimental verification could erode
public confidence in science and ultimately damage the study of
fundamental physics. Some have argued that the multiverse is a
philosophical rather than a scientific hypothesis because it cannot be
falsified.
Arguments against multiverse theories
In his 2003 New York Times opinion piece, A Brief History of the
Multiverse, the author and cosmologist Paul Davies offered a variety
For a start, how is the existence of the other universes to be
tested? To be sure, all cosmologists accept that there are some
regions of the universe that lie beyond the reach of our telescopes,
but somewhere on the slippery slope between that and the idea that
there are an infinite number of universes, credibility reaches a
limit. As one slips down that slope, more and more must be accepted on
faith, and less and less is open to scientific verification. Extreme
multiverse explanations are therefore reminiscent of theological
discussions. Indeed, invoking an infinity of unseen universes to
explain the unusual features of the one we do see is just as ad hoc as
invoking an unseen Creator. The multiverse theory may be dressed up in
scientific language, but in essence it requires the same leap of
faith.
The multiverse hypothesis is one of four potential explanations for
the Fine Tuned constants. Dawkins list a four in the reference.
1) Denial; 2) Theory or Everything; 3) multiverse; 4) computer
simulation. Dawkins did not voice his preference for any of these
explanations.

Here it is again:

http://youtu.be/a5O--OSa9mg
Lucifer Morningstar
2016-11-17 08:39:03 UTC
Permalink
Post by R. Dean
Post by Christopher A. Lee
Post by R. Dean
Post by Lucifer Morningstar
Post by R. Dean
http://youtu.be/a5O--OSa9mg
However, he does not deny the fine tuning of the constants.
but why does he consider it "profoundly atheist". Can
you explain his conclusion?
I don't know but I did notice he included the ridiculous
multiverse 'theory' in as fiction.
No, Dawkins said "I think is a rather elegant explanation, I think it's
probably true, but I don't know enough physics to know." This was at
about 4:10 minutes into his lecture where he discusses the multiverse
hypothesis.
This was one of four possible explanations for the fine tuned
constants "problem".
Call me lazy but I not going to transcribe all four.
http://youtu.be/a5O--OSa9mg
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multiverse
Some physicists say the multiverse is not a legitimate topic of
scientific inquiry. Concerns have been raised about whether attempts
to exempt the multiverse from experimental verification could erode
public confidence in science and ultimately damage the study of
fundamental physics. Some have argued that the multiverse is a
philosophical rather than a scientific hypothesis because it cannot be
falsified.
Arguments against multiverse theories
In his 2003 New York Times opinion piece, A Brief History of the
Multiverse, the author and cosmologist Paul Davies offered a variety
For a start, how is the existence of the other universes to be
tested? To be sure, all cosmologists accept that there are some
regions of the universe that lie beyond the reach of our telescopes,
but somewhere on the slippery slope between that and the idea that
there are an infinite number of universes, credibility reaches a
limit. As one slips down that slope, more and more must be accepted on
faith, and less and less is open to scientific verification. Extreme
multiverse explanations are therefore reminiscent of theological
discussions. Indeed, invoking an infinity of unseen universes to
explain the unusual features of the one we do see is just as ad hoc as
invoking an unseen Creator. The multiverse theory may be dressed up in
scientific language, but in essence it requires the same leap of
faith.
The multiverse hypothesis is one of four potential explanations for
the Fine Tuned constants. Dawkins list a four in the reference.
1) Denial; 2) Theory or Everything; 3) multiverse; 4) computer
simulation. Dawkins did not voice his preference for any of these
explanations.
Theory of everything is denial. Multiverse is denial. Computer
simulation is denial.
So we have 1) Denial; 2) Denial; 3) Denial; 4) Denial;
--
I call shenanigans on all theistic religions
R. Dean
2016-11-18 23:38:47 UTC
Permalink
Post by Lucifer Morningstar
Post by R. Dean
Post by Christopher A. Lee
Post by R. Dean
Post by Lucifer Morningstar
Post by R. Dean
http://youtu.be/a5O--OSa9mg
However, he does not deny the fine tuning of the constants.
but why does he consider it "profoundly atheist". Can
you explain his conclusion?
I don't know but I did notice he included the ridiculous
multiverse 'theory' in as fiction.
No, Dawkins said "I think is a rather elegant explanation, I think it's
probably true, but I don't know enough physics to know." This was at
about 4:10 minutes into his lecture where he discusses the multiverse
hypothesis.
This was one of four possible explanations for the fine tuned
constants "problem".
Call me lazy but I not going to transcribe all four.
http://youtu.be/a5O--OSa9mg
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multiverse
Some physicists say the multiverse is not a legitimate topic of
scientific inquiry. Concerns have been raised about whether attempts
to exempt the multiverse from experimental verification could erode
public confidence in science and ultimately damage the study of
fundamental physics. Some have argued that the multiverse is a
philosophical rather than a scientific hypothesis because it cannot be
falsified.
Arguments against multiverse theories
In his 2003 New York Times opinion piece, A Brief History of the
Multiverse, the author and cosmologist Paul Davies offered a variety
For a start, how is the existence of the other universes to be
tested? To be sure, all cosmologists accept that there are some
regions of the universe that lie beyond the reach of our telescopes,
but somewhere on the slippery slope between that and the idea that
there are an infinite number of universes, credibility reaches a
limit. As one slips down that slope, more and more must be accepted on
faith, and less and less is open to scientific verification. Extreme
multiverse explanations are therefore reminiscent of theological
discussions. Indeed, invoking an infinity of unseen universes to
explain the unusual features of the one we do see is just as ad hoc as
invoking an unseen Creator. The multiverse theory may be dressed up in
scientific language, but in essence it requires the same leap of
faith.
The multiverse hypothesis is one of four potential explanations for
the Fine Tuned constants. Dawkins list a four in the reference.
1) Denial; 2) Theory or Everything; 3) multiverse; 4) computer
simulation. Dawkins did not voice his preference for any of these
explanations.
Theory of everything is denial. Multiverse is denial. Computer
simulation is denial.
So we have 1) Denial; 2) Denial; 3) Denial; 4) Denial;
Then we are still confronted by fine tuned constants.
Christopher A. Lee
2016-11-17 17:49:48 UTC
Permalink
Post by R. Dean
Post by Christopher A. Lee
Post by R. Dean
Post by Lucifer Morningstar
Post by R. Dean
http://youtu.be/a5O--OSa9mg
However, he does not deny the fine tuning of the constants.
but why does he consider it "profoundly atheist". Can
you explain his conclusion?
I don't know but I did notice he included the ridiculous
multiverse 'theory' in as fiction.
No, Dawkins said "I think is a rather elegant explanation, I think it's
probably true, but I don't know enough physics to know." This was at
about 4:10 minutes into his lecture where he discusses the multiverse
hypothesis.
This was one of four possible explanations for the fine tuned
constants "problem".
Call me lazy but I not going to transcribe all four.
http://youtu.be/a5O--OSa9mg
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multiverse
Some physicists say the multiverse is not a legitimate topic of
scientific inquiry. Concerns have been raised about whether attempts
to exempt the multiverse from experimental verification could erode
public confidence in science and ultimately damage the study of
fundamental physics. Some have argued that the multiverse is a
philosophical rather than a scientific hypothesis because it cannot be
falsified.
Arguments against multiverse theories
In his 2003 New York Times opinion piece, A Brief History of the
Multiverse, the author and cosmologist Paul Davies offered a variety
For a start, how is the existence of the other universes to be
tested? To be sure, all cosmologists accept that there are some
regions of the universe that lie beyond the reach of our telescopes,
but somewhere on the slippery slope between that and the idea that
there are an infinite number of universes, credibility reaches a
limit. As one slips down that slope, more and more must be accepted on
faith, and less and less is open to scientific verification. Extreme
multiverse explanations are therefore reminiscent of theological
discussions. Indeed, invoking an infinity of unseen universes to
explain the unusual features of the one we do see is just as ad hoc as
invoking an unseen Creator. The multiverse theory may be dressed up in
scientific language, but in essence it requires the same leap of
faith.
The multiverse hypothesis is one of four potential explanations for
the Fine Tuned constants. Dawkins list a four in the reference.
1) Denial; 2) Theory or Everything; 3) multiverse; 4) computer
simulation. Dawkins did not voice his preference for any of these
explanations.
No. We've been through this before.

They are NOT "an explanation for the fine tuned constants".

Here's a response I made to Bill Esque, who uses exactly the same
arguments you do, exactly the same lies about atheists and scientists
as ad hominems to ignore what both of you have had explained over and
over again, and exactly the same phrasing when he loses his temper
that you do.

The first clue was that you both use "character assassination" when
you are treated as a liar for your lies, etc.

As do several of your other nyms.

Read the goddamned thing and tell me where he says it is "one of four
possible explanations for the fine tuned constants "problem"".

At 2.50, he says....

"IF [and he emphasises the "if"] [does Bill understand what "if"
means?] the universe, the constants of the universe are indeed fine
tuned, how do we explain it? How do we explain the APPEARANCE [again,
his emphasis] that the universe is tuned to bring us into existence?"

[Me: he's speculating on top of an initial speculation - but then he's
only offering scenarios for the initial speculation, which is in the
form of "assuming for the sake of argument]

"Theists say God did it. God tuned. God twiddled the knobs and tuned
the physical constants to have exactly the right values. That is, of
course, no explanation at all because it leaves unexplained the tuner.
It's just pushing the problem back one step. so we can instantly
discount explanation number one."

[me: we can also discount it until this hypothetical God is
demonstrated]

"Explanation number two is adopted by physicist, I think, Steven
Weinberg who was quoted earlier in this conference. Steven Weinberg. a
Nobel prize winning physicist from Texas [me: joint with the Pakistani
Abdus Salam and one other]. I think his view is that we don't yet
understand enough physics and when we do, when we have the longed-for
Theory Of Everything, the TOE, we will then realise that these knobs
are not for tuning - there is no freedom, there are no degrees of
freedom, there is only one way for a universe to be."

[Me: I agree with the first part, but I don't like speculating on what
the TOE might say on the subject, although I suspect he might be right
about the second part - it is the most parsimonious of the scenarios]

"But that might leave some people unsatisfied, because it still seems
a bit uncanny that the only way for a universe to be is the way that
eventually gave rise to us."

"Me: I suspect he is talking about the layman who demands an
explanation, rather than the scientist who is happy with "We don't
know yet, but this is what we do know, and we're looking for more
data"]

"The third explanation is, I think, the one that is probably favoured
by... Oh, no, there are four actually: Victor Stenger who will be
known to and greatly respected by many people here, denies that the
universe is fine tuned at all, and that is a serious point of view
that we ought not to forget."

[Me: that is pretty close to Weinberg's view, except that it
bypasses the as yet undiscovered TOE]

But assuming that it is fine tuned [Me: assuming for the sake of
argument], the final idea, which I think probably most physicists have
some time for, is the multiverse theory. This is the theory that
arises out of the inflationary model of the universe and it suggests
that the universe that we know, the only universe that we have any
knowledge or any means of measuring, is a bubble in a foam of billions
of bubbles, each one a separate universe and each one having a
different set of physical laws and constants. So there's a vast range
of range of universes with different physical laws and constants. A
tiny minority of those universes have their constants tuned in such a
way that the universe lasts more than a picosecond, lasts long enough
to make galaxies, lasts long enough to make stars, long enough to make
chemistry and to make the evolution of life happen"

[Me: All of which is a speculative answer to a speculation. William of
Ockham would have had something to say about that. Even the multiverse
is speculative]

"A tiny minority of universes in this bubbling foam have what it
takes, and then the Anthropic principle kicks in"

[Me: what it actually says, not how Bill Esque interprets it, ie that
we only observe the universe to comment on it because we are here, if
it were any different we wouldn't be here - it says nothing about any
intent for life]

"Of all those bubbles in the foam of the multiverse, we have to be
living in one of the minority of universes that has what it takes to
give rise to us, because we are here"

[Me: Don't forget, this is all "assuming for the sake of argument that
the multiverse is more than just theoretical"]

"Once again, physicists find that a bit of a stretch, they find it not
exactly implausible but they think of it as a bit of a cop out. I
actually think it's rather an elegant explanation - I think it's
probably true but I don't know enough physics to know"

[Me: it's just his opinion, and it's gone way beyond where there is
any knowledge. I suspect he didn't mean to say that, it's just how it
came out]

"I think I'll just go on to the final science fiction speculation that
is rounding off this theme of the theological implications of science
fiction. Another science fiction theme explored by Daniel Galouye, who
is another of my favourite science fiction authors, in his third book,
I can't remember the title, his idea, and it's been used by others as
well, is that our world may be a gigantic computer simulation in a
computer elsewhere in the universe. We are virtual creatures living in
a virtual world. A kind of Second Life but a much bigger and grander
second life."

"I don't know whether you can rule that out, it may be philosophically
absurd, but even if it were true, once again, you would have the
regress. You cannot have complexity to build a computer, to build
Second Life software to "run" us unless the creatures who built that
computer evolved, or maybe they're also somebody else's Second Life.
Sooner of later regresses of that kind have to be terminated."

[Me again...]

I fail to see how Wm. Esque could read what he did, into that.

Incidentally, I spent all afternoon stepping through that video to
make a transcription.

Twice, because I had a problem with the sound two thirds of the way
through and ended up rebooting when I uninstalled and reinstalled the
sound driver,
Post by R. Dean
http://youtu.be/a5O--OSa9mg
R. Dean
2016-11-19 01:02:07 UTC
Permalink
Post by Christopher A. Lee
Post by R. Dean
Post by Christopher A. Lee
Post by R. Dean
Post by Lucifer Morningstar
Post by R. Dean
http://youtu.be/a5O--OSa9mg
However, he does not deny the fine tuning of the constants.
but why does he consider it "profoundly atheist". Can
you explain his conclusion?
I don't know but I did notice he included the ridiculous
multiverse 'theory' in as fiction.
No, Dawkins said "I think is a rather elegant explanation, I think it's
probably true, but I don't know enough physics to know." This was at
about 4:10 minutes into his lecture where he discusses the multiverse
hypothesis.
This was one of four possible explanations for the fine tuned
constants "problem".
Call me lazy but I not going to transcribe all four.
http://youtu.be/a5O--OSa9mg
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multiverse
Some physicists say the multiverse is not a legitimate topic of
scientific inquiry. Concerns have been raised about whether attempts
to exempt the multiverse from experimental verification could erode
public confidence in science and ultimately damage the study of
fundamental physics. Some have argued that the multiverse is a
philosophical rather than a scientific hypothesis because it cannot be
falsified.
Arguments against multiverse theories
In his 2003 New York Times opinion piece, A Brief History of the
Multiverse, the author and cosmologist Paul Davies offered a variety
For a start, how is the existence of the other universes to be
tested? To be sure, all cosmologists accept that there are some
regions of the universe that lie beyond the reach of our telescopes,
but somewhere on the slippery slope between that and the idea that
there are an infinite number of universes, credibility reaches a
limit. As one slips down that slope, more and more must be accepted on
faith, and less and less is open to scientific verification. Extreme
multiverse explanations are therefore reminiscent of theological
discussions. Indeed, invoking an infinity of unseen universes to
explain the unusual features of the one we do see is just as ad hoc as
invoking an unseen Creator. The multiverse theory may be dressed up in
scientific language, but in essence it requires the same leap of
faith.
The multiverse hypothesis is one of four potential explanations for
the Fine Tuned constants. Dawkins list a four in the reference.
1) Denial; 2) Theory or Everything; 3) multiverse; 4) computer
simulation. Dawkins did not voice his preference for any of these
explanations.
No. We've been through this before.
They are NOT "an explanation for the fine tuned constants".
Neither Dawkins nor I said they _WERE_ explanations, but rather
four _POTENTIAL_ explanations. There's a difference!
Post by Christopher A. Lee
Here's a response I made to Bill Esque, who uses exactly the same
arguments you do, exactly the same lies about atheists and scientists
as ad hominems to ignore what both of you have had explained over and
over again, and exactly the same phrasing when he loses his temper
that you do.
Not surprising your intolerance brings out the same frustration
from everyone who bothers responding to you.
Post by Christopher A. Lee
The first clue was that you both use "character assassination" when
you are treated as a liar for your lies, etc.
And is that so unusual? I've read Bill Escue, I don't agree with
him. He's far more of a fundamentalist than I am.
Post by Christopher A. Lee
As do several of your other nyms.
Just don't respond to those you call nyt. Respond to R. Dean that's
me!
Post by Christopher A. Lee
Read the goddamned thing and tell me where he says it is "one of four
possible explanations for the fine tuned constants "problem"".
At 2.50, he says....
"IF [and he emphasises the "if"] [does Bill understand what "if"
means?] the universe, the constants of the universe are indeed fine
tuned, how do we explain it? How do we explain the APPEARANCE [again,
his emphasis] that the universe is tuned to bring us into existence?"
[Me: he's speculating on top of an initial speculation - but then he's
only offering scenarios for the initial speculation, which is in the
form of "assuming for the sake of argument]
"Theists say God did it. God tuned. God twiddled the knobs and tuned
the physical constants to have exactly the right values. That is, of
course, no explanation at all because it leaves unexplained the tuner.
It's just pushing the problem back one step. so we can instantly
discount explanation number one."
[me: we can also discount it until this hypothetical God is
demonstrated]
"Explanation number two is adopted by physicist, I think, Steven
Weinberg who was quoted earlier in this conference. Steven Weinberg. a
Nobel prize winning physicist from Texas [me: joint with the Pakistani
Abdus Salam and one other]. I think his view is that we don't yet
understand enough physics and when we do, when we have the longed-for
Theory Of Everything, the TOE, we will then realise that these knobs
are not for tuning - there is no freedom, there are no degrees of
freedom, there is only one way for a universe to be."
[Me: I agree with the first part, but I don't like speculating on what
the TOE might say on the subject, although I suspect he might be right
about the second part - it is the most parsimonious of the scenarios]
"But that might leave some people unsatisfied, because it still seems
a bit uncanny that the only way for a universe to be is the way that
eventually gave rise to us."
"Me: I suspect he is talking about the layman who demands an
explanation, rather than the scientist who is happy with "We don't
know yet, but this is what we do know, and we're looking for more
data"]
He doesn't make it clear who he is speaking of. Maybe we don't know
everything yet, but there is much about the constants that we do
know. The have very specific values that if even on varied by a
small degree, we would not be here. How the values came to be just
right for the development of the universe and life itself, is what
the lecture by Dawkins was about.
Post by Christopher A. Lee
"The third explanation is, I think, the one that is probably favoured
by... Oh, no, there are four actually: Victor Stenger who will be
known to and greatly respected by many people here, denies that the
universe is fine tuned at all, and that is a serious point of view
that we ought not to forget."
[Me: that is pretty close to Weinberg's view, except that it
bypasses the as yet undiscovered TOE]
But assuming that it is fine tuned [Me: assuming for the sake of
argument], the final idea, which I think probably most physicists have
some time for, is the multiverse theory. This is the theory that
arises out of the inflationary model of the universe and it suggests
that the universe that we know, the only universe that we have any
knowledge or any means of measuring, is a bubble in a foam of billions
of bubbles, each one a separate universe and each one having a
different set of physical laws and constants. So there's a vast range
of range of universes with different physical laws and constants. A
tiny minority of those universes have their constants tuned in such a
way that the universe lasts more than a picosecond, lasts long enough
to make galaxies, lasts long enough to make stars, long enough to make
chemistry and to make the evolution of life happen"
[Me: All of which is a speculative answer to a speculation. William of
Ockham would have had something to say about that. Even the multiverse
is speculative]
It is, but why are some well known scientist speculating about the
multiverse idea? There must be a reason.
Post by Christopher A. Lee
"A tiny minority of universes in this bubbling foam have what it
takes, and then the Anthropic principle kicks in"
[Me: what it actually says, not how Bill Esque interprets it, ie that
we only observe the universe to comment on it because we are here, if
it were any different we wouldn't be here - it says nothing about any
intent for life]
"Of all those bubbles in the foam of the multiverse, we have to be
living in one of the minority of universes that has what it takes to
give rise to us, because we are here"
[Me: Don't forget, this is all "assuming for the sake of argument that
the multiverse is more than just theoretical"]
I disagree that it is theory. At best it's supposition.
Post by Christopher A. Lee
"Once again, physicists find that a bit of a stretch, they find it not
exactly implausible but they think of it as a bit of a cop out. I
actually think it's rather an elegant explanation - I think it's
probably true but I don't know enough physics to know"
[Me: it's just his opinion, and it's gone way beyond where there is
any knowledge. I suspect he didn't mean to say that, it's just how it
came out]
Whether or not Dawkins believes it, it is something that some scientist
turn.
Post by Christopher A. Lee
"I think I'll just go on to the final science fiction speculation that
is rounding off this theme of the theological implications of science
fiction. Another science fiction theme explored by Daniel Galouye, who
is another of my favourite science fiction authors, in his third book,
I can't remember the title, his idea, and it's been used by others as
well, is that our world may be a gigantic computer simulation in a
computer elsewhere in the universe. We are virtual creatures living in
a virtual world. A kind of Second Life but a much bigger and grander
second life."
"I don't know whether you can rule that out, it may be philosophically
absurd, but even if it were true, once again, you would have the
regress. You cannot have complexity to build a computer, to build
Second Life software to "run" us unless the creatures who built that
computer evolved, or maybe they're also somebody else's Second Life.
Sooner of later regresses of that kind have to be terminated."
[Me again...]
I fail to see how Wm. Esque could read what he did, into that.
Incidentally, I spent all afternoon stepping through that video to
make a transcription.
This took so much of your time, Chris I sincerely appreciate your
effort. You're a good man. I think under different circumstances,
although we disagree on much, we could be good friends. But then
my wife and I don't agree on much, but I love her dearly.
Post by Christopher A. Lee
Twice, because I had a problem with the sound two thirds of the way
through and ended up rebooting when I uninstalled and reinstalled the
sound driver,
Thank you,
Chris
Post by Christopher A. Lee
Post by R. Dean
http://youtu.be/a5O--OSa9mg
Christopher A. Lee
2016-11-19 01:18:54 UTC
Permalink
Post by R. Dean
Post by Christopher A. Lee
Post by R. Dean
Post by Christopher A. Lee
Post by R. Dean
Post by Lucifer Morningstar
Post by R. Dean
http://youtu.be/a5O--OSa9mg
However, he does not deny the fine tuning of the constants.
but why does he consider it "profoundly atheist". Can
you explain his conclusion?
I don't know but I did notice he included the ridiculous
multiverse 'theory' in as fiction.
No, Dawkins said "I think is a rather elegant explanation, I think it's
probably true, but I don't know enough physics to know." This was at
about 4:10 minutes into his lecture where he discusses the multiverse
hypothesis.
This was one of four possible explanations for the fine tuned
constants "problem".
Call me lazy but I not going to transcribe all four.
http://youtu.be/a5O--OSa9mg
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multiverse
Some physicists say the multiverse is not a legitimate topic of
scientific inquiry. Concerns have been raised about whether attempts
to exempt the multiverse from experimental verification could erode
public confidence in science and ultimately damage the study of
fundamental physics. Some have argued that the multiverse is a
philosophical rather than a scientific hypothesis because it cannot be
falsified.
Arguments against multiverse theories
In his 2003 New York Times opinion piece, A Brief History of the
Multiverse, the author and cosmologist Paul Davies offered a variety
For a start, how is the existence of the other universes to be
tested? To be sure, all cosmologists accept that there are some
regions of the universe that lie beyond the reach of our telescopes,
but somewhere on the slippery slope between that and the idea that
there are an infinite number of universes, credibility reaches a
limit. As one slips down that slope, more and more must be accepted on
faith, and less and less is open to scientific verification. Extreme
multiverse explanations are therefore reminiscent of theological
discussions. Indeed, invoking an infinity of unseen universes to
explain the unusual features of the one we do see is just as ad hoc as
invoking an unseen Creator. The multiverse theory may be dressed up in
scientific language, but in essence it requires the same leap of
faith.
The multiverse hypothesis is one of four potential explanations for
the Fine Tuned constants. Dawkins list a four in the reference.
1) Denial; 2) Theory or Everything; 3) multiverse; 4) computer
simulation. Dawkins did not voice his preference for any of these
explanations.
No. We've been through this before.
They are NOT "an explanation for the fine tuned constants".
Neither Dawkins nor I said they _WERE_ explanations, but rather
four _POTENTIAL_ explanations. There's a difference!
But not for the reasons you pretend.
Post by R. Dean
Post by Christopher A. Lee
Here's a response I made to Bill Esque, who uses exactly the same
arguments you do, exactly the same lies about atheists and scientists
as ad hominems to ignore what both of you have had explained over and
over again, and exactly the same phrasing when he loses his temper
that you do.
Not surprising your intolerance brings out the same frustration
from everyone who bothers responding to you.
What "intolerance", imbecile? You merely reap what your unsolicited
nonsense, rudeness, stupidity and personal lies sow.
Post by R. Dean
Post by Christopher A. Lee
The first clue was that you both use "character assassination" when
you are treated as a liar for your lies, etc.
And is that so unusual? I've read Bill Escue, I don't agree with
him. He's far more of a fundamentalist than I am.
Yet you both use the same playbook.
Post by R. Dean
Post by Christopher A. Lee
As do several of your other nyms.
Just don't respond to those you call nyt. Respond to R. Dean that's
me!
And Dan Wood, Steve Wolfe, Penny Nickels, etc,
Post by R. Dean
Post by Christopher A. Lee
Read the goddamned thing and tell me where he says it is "one of four
possible explanations for the fine tuned constants "problem"".
At 2.50, he says....
"IF [and he emphasises the "if"] [does Bill understand what "if"
means?] the universe, the constants of the universe are indeed fine
tuned, how do we explain it? How do we explain the APPEARANCE [again,
his emphasis] that the universe is tuned to bring us into existence?"
[Me: he's speculating on top of an initial speculation - but then he's
only offering scenarios for the initial speculation, which is in the
form of "assuming for the sake of argument]
"Theists say God did it. God tuned. God twiddled the knobs and tuned
the physical constants to have exactly the right values. That is, of
course, no explanation at all because it leaves unexplained the tuner.
It's just pushing the problem back one step. so we can instantly
discount explanation number one."
[me: we can also discount it until this hypothetical God is
demonstrated]
"Explanation number two is adopted by physicist, I think, Steven
Weinberg who was quoted earlier in this conference. Steven Weinberg. a
Nobel prize winning physicist from Texas [me: joint with the Pakistani
Abdus Salam and one other]. I think his view is that we don't yet
understand enough physics and when we do, when we have the longed-for
Theory Of Everything, the TOE, we will then realise that these knobs
are not for tuning - there is no freedom, there are no degrees of
freedom, there is only one way for a universe to be."
[Me: I agree with the first part, but I don't like speculating on what
the TOE might say on the subject, although I suspect he might be right
about the second part - it is the most parsimonious of the scenarios]
"But that might leave some people unsatisfied, because it still seems
a bit uncanny that the only way for a universe to be is the way that
eventually gave rise to us."
"Me: I suspect he is talking about the layman who demands an
explanation, rather than the scientist who is happy with "We don't
know yet, but this is what we do know, and we're looking for more
data"]
He doesn't make it clear who he is speaking of. Maybe we don't know
everything yet, but there is much about the constants that we do
know. The have very specific values that if even on varied by a
small degree, we would not be here. How the values came to be just
right for the development of the universe and life itself, is what
the lecture by Dawkins was about.
But that in no way implies any intention for there to be life.
Post by R. Dean
Post by Christopher A. Lee
"The third explanation is, I think, the one that is probably favoured
by... Oh, no, there are four actually: Victor Stenger who will be
known to and greatly respected by many people here, denies that the
universe is fine tuned at all, and that is a serious point of view
that we ought not to forget."
[Me: that is pretty close to Weinberg's view, except that it
bypasses the as yet undiscovered TOE]
But assuming that it is fine tuned [Me: assuming for the sake of
argument], the final idea, which I think probably most physicists have
some time for, is the multiverse theory. This is the theory that
arises out of the inflationary model of the universe and it suggests
that the universe that we know, the only universe that we have any
knowledge or any means of measuring, is a bubble in a foam of billions
of bubbles, each one a separate universe and each one having a
different set of physical laws and constants. So there's a vast range
of range of universes with different physical laws and constants. A
tiny minority of those universes have their constants tuned in such a
way that the universe lasts more than a picosecond, lasts long enough
to make galaxies, lasts long enough to make stars, long enough to make
chemistry and to make the evolution of life happen"
[Me: All of which is a speculative answer to a speculation. William of
Ockham would have had something to say about that. Even the multiverse
is speculative]
It is, but why are some well known scientist speculating about the
multiverse idea? There must be a reason.
A speculation as to what or where the big bang occurred in. Please try
to keep up.
Post by R. Dean
Post by Christopher A. Lee
"A tiny minority of universes in this bubbling foam have what it
takes, and then the Anthropic principle kicks in"
[Me: what it actually says, not how Bill Esque interprets it, ie that
we only observe the universe to comment on it because we are here, if
it were any different we wouldn't be here - it says nothing about any
intent for life]
"Of all those bubbles in the foam of the multiverse, we have to be
living in one of the minority of universes that has what it takes to
give rise to us, because we are here"
[Me: Don't forget, this is all "assuming for the sake of argument that
the multiverse is more than just theoretical"]
I disagree that it is theory. At best it's supposition.
I said theoretical.


It's not much more than speculation.
Post by R. Dean
Post by Christopher A. Lee
"Once again, physicists find that a bit of a stretch, they find it not
exactly implausible but they think of it as a bit of a cop out. I
actually think it's rather an elegant explanation - I think it's
probably true but I don't know enough physics to know"
[Me: it's just his opinion, and it's gone way beyond where there is
any knowledge. I suspect he didn't mean to say that, it's just how it
came out]
Whether or not Dawkins believes it, it is something that some scientist
turn.
But not for the reason you invented.
Post by R. Dean
Post by Christopher A. Lee
"I think I'll just go on to the final science fiction speculation that
is rounding off this theme of the theological implications of science
fiction. Another science fiction theme explored by Daniel Galouye, who
is another of my favourite science fiction authors, in his third book,
I can't remember the title, his idea, and it's been used by others as
well, is that our world may be a gigantic computer simulation in a
computer elsewhere in the universe. We are virtual creatures living in
a virtual world. A kind of Second Life but a much bigger and grander
second life."
"I don't know whether you can rule that out, it may be philosophically
absurd, but even if it were true, once again, you would have the
regress. You cannot have complexity to build a computer, to build
Second Life software to "run" us unless the creatures who built that
computer evolved, or maybe they're also somebody else's Second Life.
Sooner of later regresses of that kind have to be terminated."
[Me again...]
I fail to see how Wm. Esque could read what he did, into that.
Incidentally, I spent all afternoon stepping through that video to
make a transcription.
This took so much of your time, Chris I sincerely appreciate your
effort. You're a good man. I think under different circumstances,
although we disagree on much, we could be good friends. But then
my wife and I don't agree on much, but I love her dearly.
The problem isn't just that you are talking nonsense where you are way
out of your depth, you keep repeating it every few months when you
know it is highly contentious.
Post by R. Dean
Post by Christopher A. Lee
Twice, because I had a problem with the sound two thirds of the way
through and ended up rebooting when I uninstalled and reinstalled the
sound driver,
Thank you,
Chris
Post by Christopher A. Lee
Post by R. Dean
http://youtu.be/a5O--OSa9mg
Jeanne Douglas
2016-11-19 03:31:41 UTC
Permalink
Post by Christopher A. Lee
Post by R. Dean
Post by Christopher A. Lee
Post by R. Dean
Post by Christopher A. Lee
Post by R. Dean
Post by Lucifer Morningstar
Post by R. Dean
http://youtu.be/a5O--OSa9mg
However, he does not deny the fine tuning of the constants.
but why does he consider it "profoundly atheist". Can
you explain his conclusion?
I don't know but I did notice he included the ridiculous
multiverse 'theory' in as fiction.
No, Dawkins said "I think is a rather elegant explanation, I think it's
probably true, but I don't know enough physics to know." This was at
about 4:10 minutes into his lecture where he discusses the multiverse
hypothesis.
This was one of four possible explanations for the fine tuned
constants "problem".
Call me lazy but I not going to transcribe all four.
http://youtu.be/a5O--OSa9mg
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multiverse
Some physicists say the multiverse is not a legitimate topic of
scientific inquiry. Concerns have been raised about whether attempts
to exempt the multiverse from experimental verification could erode
public confidence in science and ultimately damage the study of
fundamental physics. Some have argued that the multiverse is a
philosophical rather than a scientific hypothesis because it cannot be
falsified.
Arguments against multiverse theories
In his 2003 New York Times opinion piece, A Brief History of the
Multiverse, the author and cosmologist Paul Davies offered a variety
For a start, how is the existence of the other universes to be
tested? To be sure, all cosmologists accept that there are some
regions of the universe that lie beyond the reach of our telescopes,
but somewhere on the slippery slope between that and the idea that
there are an infinite number of universes, credibility reaches a
limit. As one slips down that slope, more and more must be accepted on
faith, and less and less is open to scientific verification. Extreme
multiverse explanations are therefore reminiscent of theological
discussions. Indeed, invoking an infinity of unseen universes to
explain the unusual features of the one we do see is just as ad hoc as
invoking an unseen Creator. The multiverse theory may be dressed up in
scientific language, but in essence it requires the same leap of
faith.
The multiverse hypothesis is one of four potential explanations for
the Fine Tuned constants. Dawkins list a four in the reference.
1) Denial; 2) Theory or Everything; 3) multiverse; 4) computer
simulation. Dawkins did not voice his preference for any of these
explanations.
No. We've been through this before.
They are NOT "an explanation for the fine tuned constants".
Neither Dawkins nor I said they _WERE_ explanations, but rather
four _POTENTIAL_ explanations. There's a difference!
But not for the reasons you pretend.
Post by R. Dean
Post by Christopher A. Lee
Here's a response I made to Bill Esque, who uses exactly the same
arguments you do, exactly the same lies about atheists and scientists
as ad hominems to ignore what both of you have had explained over and
over again, and exactly the same phrasing when he loses his temper
that you do.
Not surprising your intolerance brings out the same frustration
from everyone who bothers responding to you.
What "intolerance", imbecile? You merely reap what your unsolicited
nonsense, rudeness, stupidity and personal lies sow.
Pointing out factual errors is not "intolerance".

Unless you're stupid or dishonest enough to think that one should be
tolerant of many-times corrected errors and lies. No, not even you.
--
JD


I'm a "nasty woman" and I vote.
R. Dean
2016-11-19 04:48:20 UTC
Permalink
Post by Jeanne Douglas
Post by Christopher A. Lee
Post by R. Dean
Post by Christopher A. Lee
Post by R. Dean
Post by Christopher A. Lee
Post by R. Dean
Post by Lucifer Morningstar
Post by R. Dean
http://youtu.be/a5O--OSa9mg
However, he does not deny the fine tuning of the constants.
but why does he consider it "profoundly atheist". Can
you explain his conclusion?
I don't know but I did notice he included the ridiculous
multiverse 'theory' in as fiction.
No, Dawkins said "I think is a rather elegant explanation, I think it's
probably true, but I don't know enough physics to know." This was at
about 4:10 minutes into his lecture where he discusses the multiverse
hypothesis.
This was one of four possible explanations for the fine tuned
constants "problem".
Call me lazy but I not going to transcribe all four.
http://youtu.be/a5O--OSa9mg
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multiverse
Some physicists say the multiverse is not a legitimate topic of
scientific inquiry. Concerns have been raised about whether attempts
to exempt the multiverse from experimental verification could erode
public confidence in science and ultimately damage the study of
fundamental physics. Some have argued that the multiverse is a
philosophical rather than a scientific hypothesis because it cannot be
falsified.
Arguments against multiverse theories
In his 2003 New York Times opinion piece, A Brief History of the
Multiverse, the author and cosmologist Paul Davies offered a variety
For a start, how is the existence of the other universes to be
tested? To be sure, all cosmologists accept that there are some
regions of the universe that lie beyond the reach of our telescopes,
but somewhere on the slippery slope between that and the idea that
there are an infinite number of universes, credibility reaches a
limit. As one slips down that slope, more and more must be accepted on
faith, and less and less is open to scientific verification. Extreme
multiverse explanations are therefore reminiscent of theological
discussions. Indeed, invoking an infinity of unseen universes to
explain the unusual features of the one we do see is just as ad hoc as
invoking an unseen Creator. The multiverse theory may be dressed up in
scientific language, but in essence it requires the same leap of
faith.
The multiverse hypothesis is one of four potential explanations for
the Fine Tuned constants. Dawkins list a four in the reference.
1) Denial; 2) Theory or Everything; 3) multiverse; 4) computer
simulation. Dawkins did not voice his preference for any of these
explanations.
No. We've been through this before.
They are NOT "an explanation for the fine tuned constants".
Neither Dawkins nor I said they _WERE_ explanations, but rather
four _POTENTIAL_ explanations. There's a difference!
But not for the reasons you pretend.
Post by R. Dean
Post by Christopher A. Lee
Here's a response I made to Bill Esque, who uses exactly the same
arguments you do, exactly the same lies about atheists and scientists
as ad hominems to ignore what both of you have had explained over and
over again, and exactly the same phrasing when he loses his temper
that you do.
Not surprising your intolerance brings out the same frustration
from everyone who bothers responding to you.
What "intolerance", imbecile? You merely reap what your unsolicited
nonsense, rudeness, stupidity and personal lies sow.
Pointing out factual errors is not "intolerance".
Unless you're stupid or dishonest enough to think that one should be
tolerant of many-times corrected errors and lies. No, not even you.
What factual errors have you pointed out??
R. Dean
2016-11-18 22:37:19 UTC
Permalink
Post by Christopher A. Lee
Post by R. Dean
Post by Lucifer Morningstar
Post by R. Dean
http://youtu.be/a5O--OSa9mg
However, he does not deny the fine tuning of the constants.
but why does he consider it "profoundly atheist". Can
you explain his conclusion?
I don't know but I did notice he included the ridiculous
multiverse 'theory' in as fiction.
No, Dawkins said "I think is a rather elegant explanation, I think it's
probably true, but I don't know enough physics to know." This was at
about 4:10 minutes into his lecture where he discusses the multiverse
hypothesis.
So, you were mistaken about Dawkins. He did not say the multiverse
was fiction. But I agree with what you wrongly attributed to
Dawkins. It is fiction.
Hypothesis? I don't think it rises, even to the rank of a hypothesis.
This is from the same article you referenced from Wikipidia below.
Anthropic principle
Main article: Anthropic principle

The concept of other universes has been proposed to explain how our own
universe appears to be fine-tuned for conscious life as we experience it.

If there were a large (possibly infinite) number of universes, each with
possibly different physical laws (or different fundamental physical
constants), then some of these universes (even if very few) would have
the combination of laws and fundamental parameters that are suitable for
the development of matter, astronomical structures, elemental diversity,
stars, and planets that can exist long enough for life to emerge and evolve.
Contrary to several people on these NGs fine tuning is a scientific
concept first advanced by a scientist - Physicst, Brandon Carter
Post by Christopher A. Lee
Post by R. Dean
This was one of four possible explanations for the fine tuned
constants "problem".
Call me lazy but I not going to transcribe all four.
http://youtu.be/a5O--OSa9mg
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multiverse
Some physicists say the multiverse is not a legitimate topic of
scientific inquiry. Concerns have been raised about whether attempts
to exempt the multiverse from experimental verification could erode
public confidence in science and ultimately damage the study of
fundamental physics. Some have argued that the multiverse is a
philosophical rather than a scientific hypothesis because it cannot be
falsified.
Arguments against multiverse theories
In his 2003 New York Times opinion piece, A Brief History of the
Multiverse, the author and cosmologist Paul Davies offered a variety
For a start, how is the existence of the other universes to be
tested? To be sure, all cosmologists accept that there are some
regions of the universe that lie beyond the reach of our telescopes,
but somewhere on the slippery slope between that and the idea that
there are an infinite number of universes, credibility reaches a
limit. As one slips down that slope, more and more must be accepted on
faith, and less and less is open to scientific verification. Extreme
multiverse explanations are therefore reminiscent of theological
discussions. Indeed, invoking an infinity of unseen universes to
explain the unusual features of the one we do see is just as ad hoc as
invoking an unseen Creator. The multiverse theory may be dressed up in
scientific language, but in essence it requires the same leap of
faith.
Lucifer Morningstar
2016-11-19 03:39:49 UTC
Permalink
Post by R. Dean
Post by Christopher A. Lee
Post by R. Dean
Post by Lucifer Morningstar
Post by R. Dean
http://youtu.be/a5O--OSa9mg
However, he does not deny the fine tuning of the constants.
but why does he consider it "profoundly atheist". Can
you explain his conclusion?
I don't know but I did notice he included the ridiculous
multiverse 'theory' in as fiction.
No, Dawkins said "I think is a rather elegant explanation, I think it's
probably true, but I don't know enough physics to know." This was at
about 4:10 minutes into his lecture where he discusses the multiverse
hypothesis.
So, you were mistaken about Dawkins. He did not say the multiverse
was fiction. But I agree with what you wrongly attributed to
Dawkins. It is fiction.
Hypothesis? I don't think it rises, even to the rank of a hypothesis.
This is from the same article you referenced from Wikipidia below.
Anthropic principle
Main article: Anthropic principle
The concept of other universes has been proposed to explain how our own
universe appears to be fine-tuned for conscious life as we experience it.
If there were a large (possibly infinite) number of universes, each with
possibly different physical laws (or different fundamental physical
constants), then some of these universes (even if very few) would have
the combination of laws and fundamental parameters that are suitable for
the development of matter, astronomical structures, elemental diversity,
stars, and planets that can exist long enough for life to emerge and evolve.
That's no more scientific than proposing a God that has always
existed.
Post by R. Dean
Contrary to several people on these NGs fine tuning is a scientific
concept first advanced by a scientist - Physicst, Brandon Carter
He wasn't doing so as a scientist.
Post by R. Dean
Post by Christopher A. Lee
Post by R. Dean
This was one of four possible explanations for the fine tuned
constants "problem".
Call me lazy but I not going to transcribe all four.
http://youtu.be/a5O--OSa9mg
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multiverse
Some physicists say the multiverse is not a legitimate topic of
scientific inquiry. Concerns have been raised about whether attempts
to exempt the multiverse from experimental verification could erode
public confidence in science and ultimately damage the study of
fundamental physics. Some have argued that the multiverse is a
philosophical rather than a scientific hypothesis because it cannot be
falsified.
Arguments against multiverse theories
In his 2003 New York Times opinion piece, A Brief History of the
Multiverse, the author and cosmologist Paul Davies offered a variety
For a start, how is the existence of the other universes to be
tested? To be sure, all cosmologists accept that there are some
regions of the universe that lie beyond the reach of our telescopes,
but somewhere on the slippery slope between that and the idea that
there are an infinite number of universes, credibility reaches a
limit. As one slips down that slope, more and more must be accepted on
faith, and less and less is open to scientific verification. Extreme
multiverse explanations are therefore reminiscent of theological
discussions. Indeed, invoking an infinity of unseen universes to
explain the unusual features of the one we do see is just as ad hoc as
invoking an unseen Creator. The multiverse theory may be dressed up in
scientific language, but in essence it requires the same leap of
faith.
--
I call shenanigans on all theistic religions
R. Dean
2016-11-16 03:31:22 UTC
Permalink
Post by Lucifer Morningstar
On Tue, 15 Nov 2016 18:02:19 -0600, Christopher A. Lee
Post by Christopher A. Lee
On Wed, 16 Nov 2016 09:34:36 +1100, Lucifer Morningstar
Post by Lucifer Morningstar
Post by R. Dean
There is some theatrical basis for the multiverse found
in the expansion of the universe.
Also in the interpretation of quantium mechanics. But
there is no direct empirical evidence for other universes.
That's true. The multiverse idea was made up by someone
who wants an explanation and who has no concept of science.
Bollocks.
That's what the multiverse is. Pure made up nonsense.
Okay, but who or what group made up the multiverse nonsense?
Lucifer Morningstar
2016-11-16 05:52:11 UTC
Permalink
Post by R. Dean
Post by Lucifer Morningstar
On Tue, 15 Nov 2016 18:02:19 -0600, Christopher A. Lee
Post by Christopher A. Lee
On Wed, 16 Nov 2016 09:34:36 +1100, Lucifer Morningstar
Post by Lucifer Morningstar
Post by R. Dean
There is some theatrical basis for the multiverse found
in the expansion of the universe.
Also in the interpretation of quantium mechanics. But
there is no direct empirical evidence for other universes.
That's true. The multiverse idea was made up by someone
who wants an explanation and who has no concept of science.
Bollocks.
That's what the multiverse is. Pure made up nonsense.
Okay, but who or what group made up the multiverse nonsense?
I don't know but it should be recorded somewhere.
The multiverse idea was made up by someone desperate for
an answer. It has no scientific basis.
Black holes went from being a crazy idea to being 'fact'
without any being discovered. The Big Bang theory seems
to have been accepted as fact without being proven.
--
I call shenanigans on all theistic religions
Melzzzzz
2016-11-16 06:42:45 UTC
Permalink
On Wed, 16 Nov 2016 16:52:11 +1100
Post by Lucifer Morningstar
Post by R. Dean
Post by Lucifer Morningstar
On Tue, 15 Nov 2016 18:02:19 -0600, Christopher A. Lee
Post by Christopher A. Lee
On Wed, 16 Nov 2016 09:34:36 +1100, Lucifer Morningstar
On Tue, 15 Nov 2016 13:18:04 -0500, "R. Dean" <"R.
Post by R. Dean
There is some theatrical basis for the multiverse found
in the expansion of the universe.
Also in the interpretation of quantium mechanics. But
there is no direct empirical evidence for other universes.
That's true. The multiverse idea was made up by someone
who wants an explanation and who has no concept of science.
Bollocks.
That's what the multiverse is. Pure made up nonsense.
Okay, but who or what group made up the multiverse nonsense?
I don't know but it should be recorded somewhere.
The multiverse idea was made up by someone desperate for
an answer. It has no scientific basis.
Black holes went from being a crazy idea to being 'fact'
without any being discovered.
What about supposed pictures of black holes? Science is sure they are
there...

The Big Bang theory seems
Post by Lucifer Morningstar
to have been accepted as fact without being proven.
Big Bang theory is based on observation. Also flat standing still Earth
from Bible is based on observation. What you see is what you think it
is. But be prepared for radical changes as instruments of observation
get more advanced ;)
--
press any key to continue or any other to quit
Lucifer Morningstar
2016-11-16 09:05:11 UTC
Permalink
Post by Melzzzzz
On Wed, 16 Nov 2016 16:52:11 +1100
Post by Lucifer Morningstar
Post by R. Dean
Post by Lucifer Morningstar
On Tue, 15 Nov 2016 18:02:19 -0600, Christopher A. Lee
Post by Christopher A. Lee
On Wed, 16 Nov 2016 09:34:36 +1100, Lucifer Morningstar
On Tue, 15 Nov 2016 13:18:04 -0500, "R. Dean" <"R.
Post by R. Dean
There is some theatrical basis for the multiverse found
in the expansion of the universe.
Also in the interpretation of quantium mechanics. But
there is no direct empirical evidence for other universes.
That's true. The multiverse idea was made up by someone
who wants an explanation and who has no concept of science.
Bollocks.
That's what the multiverse is. Pure made up nonsense.
Okay, but who or what group made up the multiverse nonsense?
I don't know but it should be recorded somewhere.
The multiverse idea was made up by someone desperate for
an answer. It has no scientific basis.
Black holes went from being a crazy idea to being 'fact'
without any being discovered.
What about supposed pictures of black holes? Science is sure they are
there...
That's my point. Some scientists believe black holes exist even
though none have been detected.
Post by Melzzzzz
Post by Lucifer Morningstar
The Big Bang theory seems
to have been accepted as fact without being proven.
Big Bang theory is based on observation.
BB ia based on interpretation. Nobody observed BB.
Post by Melzzzzz
Also flat standing still Earth
from Bible is based on observation. What you see is what you think it
is. But be prepared for radical changes as instruments of observation
get more advanced ;)
BB theory makes assumptions that are not valid.
--
I call shenanigans on all theistic religions
Christopher A. Lee
2016-11-16 11:57:00 UTC
Permalink
On Wed, 16 Nov 2016 20:05:11 +1100, Lucifer Morningstar
Post by Lucifer Morningstar
Post by Melzzzzz
On Wed, 16 Nov 2016 16:52:11 +1100
Post by Lucifer Morningstar
Post by R. Dean
Post by Lucifer Morningstar
On Tue, 15 Nov 2016 18:02:19 -0600, Christopher A. Lee
Post by Christopher A. Lee
On Wed, 16 Nov 2016 09:34:36 +1100, Lucifer Morningstar
On Tue, 15 Nov 2016 13:18:04 -0500, "R. Dean" <"R.
Post by R. Dean
There is some theatrical basis for the multiverse found
in the expansion of the universe.
Also in the interpretation of quantium mechanics. But
there is no direct empirical evidence for other universes.
That's true. The multiverse idea was made up by someone
who wants an explanation and who has no concept of science.
Bollocks.
That's what the multiverse is. Pure made up nonsense.
Okay, but who or what group made up the multiverse nonsense?
I don't know but it should be recorded somewhere.
The multiverse idea was made up by someone desperate for
an answer. It has no scientific basis.
Black holes went from being a crazy idea to being 'fact'
without any being discovered.
What about supposed pictures of black holes? Science is sure they are
there...
That's my point. Some scientists believe black holes exist even
though none have been detected.
Of course they have, imbecile.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multiverse
Post by Lucifer Morningstar
Post by Melzzzzz
Post by Lucifer Morningstar
The Big Bang theory seems
to have been accepted as fact without being proven.
Big Bang theory is based on observation.
BB ia based on interpretation. Nobody observed BB.
Sigh.

But the predicted effects have been observed. First by Penzias and
Wilson who won a Nobel Prize, and subsequently the Berkeley/NASA COBE
project and even the Hubble space telescope, which has observed the
early state of the universe going back to less than half a billion
years after it - and confirmed the predictions of our model as far
back as them
Post by Lucifer Morningstar
Post by Melzzzzz
Also flat standing still Earth
from Bible is based on observation. What you see is what you think it
is. But be prepared for radical changes as instruments of observation
get more advanced ;)
BB theory makes assumptions that are not valid.
Such as?
Lucifer Morningstar
2016-11-16 21:07:16 UTC
Permalink
On Wed, 16 Nov 2016 05:57:00 -0600, Christopher A. Lee
Post by Christopher A. Lee
On Wed, 16 Nov 2016 20:05:11 +1100, Lucifer Morningstar
Post by Lucifer Morningstar
Post by Melzzzzz
On Wed, 16 Nov 2016 16:52:11 +1100
Post by Lucifer Morningstar
Post by R. Dean
Post by Lucifer Morningstar
On Tue, 15 Nov 2016 18:02:19 -0600, Christopher A. Lee
Post by Christopher A. Lee
On Wed, 16 Nov 2016 09:34:36 +1100, Lucifer Morningstar
On Tue, 15 Nov 2016 13:18:04 -0500, "R. Dean" <"R.
Post by R. Dean
There is some theatrical basis for the multiverse found
in the expansion of the universe.
Also in the interpretation of quantium mechanics. But
there is no direct empirical evidence for other universes.
That's true. The multiverse idea was made up by someone
who wants an explanation and who has no concept of science.
Bollocks.
That's what the multiverse is. Pure made up nonsense.
Okay, but who or what group made up the multiverse nonsense?
I don't know but it should be recorded somewhere.
The multiverse idea was made up by someone desperate for
an answer. It has no scientific basis.
From https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multiverse .

Some physicists say the multiverse is not a legitimate topic of
scientific inquiry. Concerns have been raised about whether attempts
to exempt the multiverse from experimental verification could erode
public confidence in science and ultimately damage the study of
fundamental physics. Some have argued that the multiverse is a
philosophical rather than a scientific hypothesis because it cannot be
falsified.

Arguments against multiverse theories

In his 2003 New York Times opinion piece, A Brief History of the
Multiverse, the author and cosmologist Paul Davies offered a variety
of arguments that multiverse theories are non-scientific :

For a start, how is the existence of the other universes to be
tested? To be sure, all cosmologists accept that there are some
regions of the universe that lie beyond the reach of our telescopes,
but somewhere on the slippery slope between that and the idea that
there are an infinite number of universes, credibility reaches a
limit. As one slips down that slope, more and more must be accepted on
faith, and less and less is open to scientific verification. Extreme
multiverse explanations are therefore reminiscent of theological
discussions. Indeed, invoking an infinity of unseen universes to
explain the unusual features of the one we do see is just as ad hoc as
invoking an unseen Creator. The multiverse theory may be dressed up in
scientific language, but in essence it requires the same leap of
faith.
Post by Christopher A. Lee
Post by Lucifer Morningstar
Post by Melzzzzz
Post by Lucifer Morningstar
Black holes went from being a crazy idea to being 'fact'
without any being discovered.
What about supposed pictures of black holes? Science is sure they are
there...
That's my point. Some scientists believe black holes exist even
though none have been detected.
Of course they have, imbecile.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multiverse
Nothing in there supporting the existence of black holes.
Post by Christopher A. Lee
Post by Lucifer Morningstar
Post by Melzzzzz
Post by Lucifer Morningstar
The Big Bang theory seems
to have been accepted as fact without being proven.
Big Bang theory is based on observation.
BB is based on interpretation. Nobody observed BB.
Sigh.
But the predicted effects have been observed. First by Penzias and
Wilson who won a Nobel Prize, and subsequently the Berkeley/NASA COBE
project and even the Hubble space telescope, which has observed the
early state of the universe going back to less than half a billion
years after it - and confirmed the predictions of our model as far
back as them
The assumption is that nothing changes as we go back in time.
Post by Christopher A. Lee
Post by Lucifer Morningstar
Post by Melzzzzz
Also flat standing still Earth
from Bible is based on observation. What you see is what you think it
is. But be prepared for radical changes as instruments of observation
get more advanced ;)
BB theory makes assumptions that are not valid.
Such as?
That nothing changed as we go back in time.
--
I call shenanigans on all theistic religions
Christopher A. Lee
2016-11-16 21:18:18 UTC
Permalink
On Thu, 17 Nov 2016 08:07:16 +1100, Lucifer Morningstar
Post by Lucifer Morningstar
On Wed, 16 Nov 2016 05:57:00 -0600, Christopher A. Lee
Post by Christopher A. Lee
On Wed, 16 Nov 2016 20:05:11 +1100, Lucifer Morningstar
Post by Lucifer Morningstar
Post by Melzzzzz
On Wed, 16 Nov 2016 16:52:11 +1100
Post by Lucifer Morningstar
Post by R. Dean
Post by Lucifer Morningstar
On Tue, 15 Nov 2016 18:02:19 -0600, Christopher A. Lee
Post by Christopher A. Lee
On Wed, 16 Nov 2016 09:34:36 +1100, Lucifer Morningstar
On Tue, 15 Nov 2016 13:18:04 -0500, "R. Dean" <"R.
Post by R. Dean
There is some theatrical basis for the multiverse found
in the expansion of the universe.
Also in the interpretation of quantium mechanics. But
there is no direct empirical evidence for other universes.
That's true. The multiverse idea was made up by someone
who wants an explanation and who has no concept of science.
Bollocks.
That's what the multiverse is. Pure made up nonsense.
Okay, but who or what group made up the multiverse nonsense?
I don't know but it should be recorded somewhere.
The multiverse idea was made up by someone desperate for
an answer. It has no scientific basis.
From https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multiverse .
Some physicists say the multiverse is not a legitimate topic of
scientific inquiry. Concerns have been raised about whether attempts
to exempt the multiverse from experimental verification could erode
public confidence in science and ultimately damage the study of
fundamental physics. Some have argued that the multiverse is a
philosophical rather than a scientific hypothesis because it cannot be
falsified.
Arguments against multiverse theories
In his 2003 New York Times opinion piece, A Brief History of the
Multiverse, the author and cosmologist Paul Davies offered a variety
For a start, how is the existence of the other universes to be
tested? To be sure, all cosmologists accept that there are some
regions of the universe that lie beyond the reach of our telescopes,
but somewhere on the slippery slope between that and the idea that
there are an infinite number of universes, credibility reaches a
limit. As one slips down that slope, more and more must be accepted on
faith, and less and less is open to scientific verification. Extreme
multiverse explanations are therefore reminiscent of theological
discussions. Indeed, invoking an infinity of unseen universes to
explain the unusual features of the one we do see is just as ad hoc as
invoking an unseen Creator. The multiverse theory may be dressed up in
scientific language, but in essence it requires the same leap of
faith.
What part of "nobody insists it is anything more than theoretical" are
you pretending not to understand?

It is just one of many scenarios suggested, for watever or wherever
the big bang occured "in".

That's all.

Nobody insists that any one of them is the correct one.

Given that spacetime itself expanded from the big bang, and that we
are inside the big bang's event horizon, it is reasonable to suggest
that it happened "in" a somewhere with a different frame of reference.
However, we have no idea what this "somewhere" is and can only
speculate.

And the multiverse is one of these speculations.
Post by Lucifer Morningstar
Post by Christopher A. Lee
Post by Lucifer Morningstar
Post by Melzzzzz
Post by Lucifer Morningstar
Black holes went from being a crazy idea to being 'fact'
without any being discovered.
What about supposed pictures of black holes? Science is sure they are
there...
That's my point. Some scientists believe black holes exist even
though none have been detected.
Of course they have, imbecile.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multiverse
Nothing in there supporting the existence of black holes.
That link should have been pasted a paragraph or so earlier.

A link to the Wikipedia bage on black holes should have been pasted
here.
Post by Lucifer Morningstar
Post by Christopher A. Lee
Post by Lucifer Morningstar
Post by Melzzzzz
Post by Lucifer Morningstar
The Big Bang theory seems
to have been accepted as fact without being proven.
Big Bang theory is based on observation.
BB is based on interpretation. Nobody observed BB.
Sigh.
But the predicted effects have been observed. First by Penzias and
Wilson who won a Nobel Prize, and subsequently the Berkeley/NASA COBE
project and even the Hubble space telescope, which has observed the
early state of the universe going back to less than half a billion
years after it - and confirmed the predictions of our model as far
back as them
The assumption is that nothing changes as we go back in time.
Whose assumption? Yours?
Post by Lucifer Morningstar
Post by Christopher A. Lee
Post by Lucifer Morningstar
Post by Melzzzzz
Also flat standing still Earth
from Bible is based on observation. What you see is what you think it
is. But be prepared for radical changes as instruments of observation
get more advanced ;)
BB theory makes assumptions that are not valid.
Such as?
That nothing changed as we go back in time.
Bollocks.

Troll much?
Lucifer Morningstar
2016-11-16 21:40:48 UTC
Permalink
On Wed, 16 Nov 2016 15:18:18 -0600, Christopher A. Lee
Post by Christopher A. Lee
On Thu, 17 Nov 2016 08:07:16 +1100, Lucifer Morningstar
Post by Lucifer Morningstar
On Wed, 16 Nov 2016 05:57:00 -0600, Christopher A. Lee
Post by Christopher A. Lee
On Wed, 16 Nov 2016 20:05:11 +1100, Lucifer Morningstar
Post by Lucifer Morningstar
Post by Melzzzzz
On Wed, 16 Nov 2016 16:52:11 +1100
Post by Lucifer Morningstar
Post by R. Dean
Post by Lucifer Morningstar
On Tue, 15 Nov 2016 18:02:19 -0600, Christopher A. Lee
Post by Christopher A. Lee
On Wed, 16 Nov 2016 09:34:36 +1100, Lucifer Morningstar
On Tue, 15 Nov 2016 13:18:04 -0500, "R. Dean" <"R.
Post by R. Dean
There is some theatrical basis for the multiverse found
in the expansion of the universe.
Also in the interpretation of quantium mechanics. But
there is no direct empirical evidence for other universes.
That's true. The multiverse idea was made up by someone
who wants an explanation and who has no concept of science.
Bollocks.
That's what the multiverse is. Pure made up nonsense.
Okay, but who or what group made up the multiverse nonsense?
I don't know but it should be recorded somewhere.
The multiverse idea was made up by someone desperate for
an answer. It has no scientific basis.
From https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multiverse .
Some physicists say the multiverse is not a legitimate topic of
scientific inquiry. Concerns have been raised about whether attempts
to exempt the multiverse from experimental verification could erode
public confidence in science and ultimately damage the study of
fundamental physics. Some have argued that the multiverse is a
philosophical rather than a scientific hypothesis because it cannot be
falsified.
Arguments against multiverse theories
In his 2003 New York Times opinion piece, A Brief History of the
Multiverse, the author and cosmologist Paul Davies offered a variety
For a start, how is the existence of the other universes to be
tested? To be sure, all cosmologists accept that there are some
regions of the universe that lie beyond the reach of our telescopes,
but somewhere on the slippery slope between that and the idea that
there are an infinite number of universes, credibility reaches a
limit. As one slips down that slope, more and more must be accepted on
faith, and less and less is open to scientific verification. Extreme
multiverse explanations are therefore reminiscent of theological
discussions. Indeed, invoking an infinity of unseen universes to
explain the unusual features of the one we do see is just as ad hoc as
invoking an unseen Creator. The multiverse theory may be dressed up in
scientific language, but in essence it requires the same leap of
faith.
What part of "nobody insists it is anything more than theoretical" are
you pretending not to understand?
It is just one of many scenarios suggested, for watever or wherever
the big bang occured "in".
I don't understand how it does that. Please explain.
Post by Christopher A. Lee
That's all.
Nobody insists that any one of them is the correct one.
Given that spacetime itself expanded from the big bang, and that we
are inside the big bang's event horizon, it is reasonable to suggest
that it happened "in" a somewhere with a different frame of reference.
However, we have no idea what this "somewhere" is and can only
speculate.
And the multiverse is one of these speculations.
I hope you will explain your theory.
Post by Christopher A. Lee
Post by Lucifer Morningstar
Post by Christopher A. Lee
Post by Lucifer Morningstar
Post by Melzzzzz
Post by Lucifer Morningstar
Black holes went from being a crazy idea to being 'fact'
without any being discovered.
What about supposed pictures of black holes? Science is sure they are
there...
That's my point. Some scientists believe black holes exist even
though none have been detected.
Of course they have, imbecile.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multiverse
Nothing in there supporting the existence of black holes.
That link should have been pasted a paragraph or so earlier.
A link to the Wikipedia bage on black holes should have been pasted
here.
Post by Lucifer Morningstar
Post by Christopher A. Lee
Post by Lucifer Morningstar
Post by Melzzzzz
Post by Lucifer Morningstar
The Big Bang theory seems
to have been accepted as fact without being proven.
Big Bang theory is based on observation.
BB is based on interpretation. Nobody observed BB.
Sigh.
But the predicted effects have been observed. First by Penzias and
Wilson who won a Nobel Prize, and subsequently the Berkeley/NASA COBE
project and even the Hubble space telescope, which has observed the
early state of the universe going back to less than half a billion
years after it - and confirmed the predictions of our model as far
back as them
The assumption is that nothing changes as we go back in time.
Whose assumption? Yours?
The BB theorists.
Post by Christopher A. Lee
Post by Lucifer Morningstar
Post by Christopher A. Lee
Post by Lucifer Morningstar
Post by Melzzzzz
Also flat standing still Earth
from Bible is based on observation. What you see is what you think it
is. But be prepared for radical changes as instruments of observation
get more advanced ;)
BB theory makes assumptions that are not valid.
Such as?
That nothing changed as we go back in time.
Bollocks.
Troll much?
Have you ever been wrong?
--
I call shenanigans on all theistic religions
Christopher A. Lee
2016-11-16 21:50:21 UTC
Permalink
On Thu, 17 Nov 2016 08:40:48 +1100, Lucifer Morningstar
Post by Lucifer Morningstar
On Wed, 16 Nov 2016 15:18:18 -0600, Christopher A. Lee
Post by Christopher A. Lee
On Thu, 17 Nov 2016 08:07:16 +1100, Lucifer Morningstar
Post by Lucifer Morningstar
On Wed, 16 Nov 2016 05:57:00 -0600, Christopher A. Lee
Post by Christopher A. Lee
On Wed, 16 Nov 2016 20:05:11 +1100, Lucifer Morningstar
Post by Lucifer Morningstar
Post by Melzzzzz
On Wed, 16 Nov 2016 16:52:11 +1100
Post by Lucifer Morningstar
Post by R. Dean
Post by Lucifer Morningstar
On Tue, 15 Nov 2016 18:02:19 -0600, Christopher A. Lee
Post by Christopher A. Lee
On Wed, 16 Nov 2016 09:34:36 +1100, Lucifer Morningstar
On Tue, 15 Nov 2016 13:18:04 -0500, "R. Dean" <"R.
Post by R. Dean
There is some theatrical basis for the multiverse found
in the expansion of the universe.
Also in the interpretation of quantium mechanics. But
there is no direct empirical evidence for other universes.
That's true. The multiverse idea was made up by someone
who wants an explanation and who has no concept of science.
Bollocks.
That's what the multiverse is. Pure made up nonsense.
Okay, but who or what group made up the multiverse nonsense?
I don't know but it should be recorded somewhere.
The multiverse idea was made up by someone desperate for
an answer. It has no scientific basis.
From https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multiverse .
Some physicists say the multiverse is not a legitimate topic of
scientific inquiry. Concerns have been raised about whether attempts
to exempt the multiverse from experimental verification could erode
public confidence in science and ultimately damage the study of
fundamental physics. Some have argued that the multiverse is a
philosophical rather than a scientific hypothesis because it cannot be
falsified.
Arguments against multiverse theories
In his 2003 New York Times opinion piece, A Brief History of the
Multiverse, the author and cosmologist Paul Davies offered a variety
For a start, how is the existence of the other universes to be
tested? To be sure, all cosmologists accept that there are some
regions of the universe that lie beyond the reach of our telescopes,
but somewhere on the slippery slope between that and the idea that
there are an infinite number of universes, credibility reaches a
limit. As one slips down that slope, more and more must be accepted on
faith, and less and less is open to scientific verification. Extreme
multiverse explanations are therefore reminiscent of theological
discussions. Indeed, invoking an infinity of unseen universes to
explain the unusual features of the one we do see is just as ad hoc as
invoking an unseen Creator. The multiverse theory may be dressed up in
scientific language, but in essence it requires the same leap of
faith.
What part of "nobody insists it is anything more than theoretical" are
you pretending not to understand?
It is just one of many scenarios suggested, for watever or wherever
the big bang occured "in".
I don't understand how it does that. Please explain.
Post by Christopher A. Lee
That's all.
Nobody insists that any one of them is the correct one.
Given that spacetime itself expanded from the big bang, and that we
are inside the big bang's event horizon, it is reasonable to suggest
that it happened "in" a somewhere with a different frame of reference.
However, we have no idea what this "somewhere" is and can only
speculate.
And the multiverse is one of these speculations.
I hope you will explain your theory.
Not mine, imbecile.

And it's only one of the scenarios suggested by physicists.
Post by Lucifer Morningstar
Post by Christopher A. Lee
Post by Lucifer Morningstar
Post by Christopher A. Lee
Post by Lucifer Morningstar
Post by Melzzzzz
Post by Lucifer Morningstar
Black holes went from being a crazy idea to being 'fact'
without any being discovered.
What about supposed pictures of black holes? Science is sure they are
there...
That's my point. Some scientists believe black holes exist even
though none have been detected.
Of course they have, imbecile.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multiverse
Nothing in there supporting the existence of black holes.
That link should have been pasted a paragraph or so earlier.
A link to the Wikipedia bage on black holes should have been pasted
here.
Post by Lucifer Morningstar
Post by Christopher A. Lee
Post by Lucifer Morningstar
Post by Melzzzzz
Post by Lucifer Morningstar
The Big Bang theory seems
to have been accepted as fact without being proven.
Big Bang theory is based on observation.
BB is based on interpretation. Nobody observed BB.
Sigh.
But the predicted effects have been observed. First by Penzias and
Wilson who won a Nobel Prize, and subsequently the Berkeley/NASA COBE
project and even the Hubble space telescope, which has observed the
early state of the universe going back to less than half a billion
years after it - and confirmed the predictions of our model as far
back as them
The assumption is that nothing changes as we go back in time.
Whose assumption? Yours?
The BB theorists.
Bollocks.

The universe changed over time.
Post by Lucifer Morningstar
Post by Christopher A. Lee
Post by Lucifer Morningstar
Post by Christopher A. Lee
Post by Lucifer Morningstar
Post by Melzzzzz
Also flat standing still Earth
from Bible is based on observation. What you see is what you think it
is. But be prepared for radical changes as instruments of observation
get more advanced ;)
BB theory makes assumptions that are not valid.
Such as?
That nothing changed as we go back in time.
Bollocks.
Troll much?
Have you ever been wrong?
Get an education.
Lucifer Morningstar
2016-11-16 22:44:55 UTC
Permalink
On Wed, 16 Nov 2016 15:50:21 -0600, Christopher A. Lee
Post by Christopher A. Lee
On Thu, 17 Nov 2016 08:40:48 +1100, Lucifer Morningstar
Post by Lucifer Morningstar
On Wed, 16 Nov 2016 15:18:18 -0600, Christopher A. Lee
Post by Christopher A. Lee
It is just one of many scenarios suggested, for watever or wherever
the big bang occured "in".
I don't understand how it does that. Please explain.
Post by Christopher A. Lee
That's all.
Nobody insists that any one of them is the correct one.
Given that spacetime itself expanded from the big bang, and that we
are inside the big bang's event horizon, it is reasonable to suggest
that it happened "in" a somewhere with a different frame of reference.
However, we have no idea what this "somewhere" is and can only
speculate.
And the multiverse is one of these speculations.
I hope you will explain your theory.
Not mine, imbecile.
And it's only one of the scenarios suggested by physicists.
Is there a link to an explanation?
--
I call shenanigans on all theistic religions
Christopher A. Lee
2016-11-16 11:48:16 UTC
Permalink
Post by Melzzzzz
On Wed, 16 Nov 2016 16:52:11 +1100
Post by Lucifer Morningstar
Post by R. Dean
Post by Lucifer Morningstar
On Tue, 15 Nov 2016 18:02:19 -0600, Christopher A. Lee
Post by Christopher A. Lee
On Wed, 16 Nov 2016 09:34:36 +1100, Lucifer Morningstar
On Tue, 15 Nov 2016 13:18:04 -0500, "R. Dean" <"R.
Post by R. Dean
There is some theatrical basis for the multiverse found
in the expansion of the universe.
Also in the interpretation of quantium mechanics. But
there is no direct empirical evidence for other universes.
That's true. The multiverse idea was made up by someone
who wants an explanation and who has no concept of science.
Tell that to the ghost of Erwin Schrodinger. Best known for his cat
thought experiment but a Nobel Prize winning quantum physicist.
Post by Melzzzzz
Post by Lucifer Morningstar
Post by R. Dean
Post by Lucifer Morningstar
Post by Christopher A. Lee
Bollocks.
That's what the multiverse is. Pure made up nonsense.
Okay, but who or what group made up the multiverse nonsense?
I don't know but it should be recorded somewhere.
The multiverse idea was made up by someone desperate for
an answer. It has no scientific basis.
It was proposed by Schrodinger and subsequently taken up by other
astrophysicists and cosmologists, It is hypothetical, and a possible
answer to whatever the big bang occurred "in" - remember that it was
the origin of space and time as well as matter and energy (from our
frame of reference).

So in what frame of reference did it happen? This is just one of the
many hypothesis.

But unlike some imaginary designer for which there is no evidence
because there is no way to determine design , nobody insists it
actually happened that way.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multiverse
Post by Melzzzzz
Post by Lucifer Morningstar
Black holes went from being a crazy idea to being 'fact'
without any being discovered.
More bollocks.
Post by Melzzzzz
What about supposed pictures of black holes? Science is sure they are
there...
Predicted as a consequence of general relativity. Detected by
gravitational lensing, by objects going out of sight as they orbit
them and also by gravity waves (2015).

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_hole#Observational_evidence
Post by Melzzzzz
The Big Bang theory seems
Post by Lucifer Morningstar
to have been accepted as fact without being proven.
Big Bang theory is based on observation. Also flat standing still Earth
from Bible is based on observation. What you see is what you think it
is. But be prepared for radical changes as instruments of observation
get more advanced ;)
The big bang was proposed as a consequence of both Einstein's math
without his fudge factor, and Hubble's observation that the universe
is expanding, What was it expanding from? Confirmation came with the
discovery of the cosmic background radiation which had a value pretty
close to that calculated if it happened, which earned Penzias and
Wilson a Nobel Prize. It has since had further confirmation that we
are on the right track, from things like the Berkeley/NASA COBE
(Cosmic Background Explorer) project, and even observations through
the Hubble space telescope which didn't go back quite as far but
fitted the theory as far back as they were able to go..

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Bang
Lucifer Morningstar
2016-11-16 21:20:50 UTC
Permalink
On Wed, 16 Nov 2016 05:48:16 -0600, Christopher A. Lee
Post by Christopher A. Lee
Post by Melzzzzz
On Wed, 16 Nov 2016 16:52:11 +1100
Post by Lucifer Morningstar
Post by R. Dean
Post by Lucifer Morningstar
On Tue, 15 Nov 2016 18:02:19 -0600, Christopher A. Lee
Post by Christopher A. Lee
On Wed, 16 Nov 2016 09:34:36 +1100, Lucifer Morningstar
On Tue, 15 Nov 2016 13:18:04 -0500, "R. Dean" <"R.
Post by R. Dean
There is some theatrical basis for the multiverse found
in the expansion of the universe.
Also in the interpretation of quantium mechanics. But
there is no direct empirical evidence for other universes.
That's true. The multiverse idea was made up by someone
who wants an explanation and who has no concept of science.
Tell that to the ghost of Erwin Schrodinger. Best known for his cat
thought experiment but a Nobel Prize winning quantum physicist.
Post by Melzzzzz
Post by Lucifer Morningstar
Post by R. Dean
Post by Lucifer Morningstar
Post by Christopher A. Lee
Bollocks.
That's what the multiverse is. Pure made up nonsense.
Okay, but who or what group made up the multiverse nonsense?
I don't know but it should be recorded somewhere.
The multiverse idea was made up by someone desperate for
an answer. It has no scientific basis.
It was proposed by Schrodinger and subsequently taken up by other
astrophysicists and cosmologists, It is hypothetical, and a possible
answer to whatever the big bang occurred "in" - remember that it was
the origin of space and time as well as matter and energy (from our
frame of reference).
So in what frame of reference did it happen? This is just one of the
many hypothesis.
But unlike some imaginary designer for which there is no evidence
because there is no way to determine design , nobody insists it
actually happened that way.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multiverse
Some physicists say the multiverse is not a legitimate topic of
scientific inquiry. Concerns have been raised about whether attempts
to exempt the multiverse from experimental verification could erode
public confidence in science and ultimately damage the study of
fundamental physics. Some have argued that the multiverse is a
philosophical rather than a scientific hypothesis because it cannot be
falsified.

Arguments against multiverse theories

In his 2003 New York Times opinion piece, A Brief History of the
Multiverse, the author and cosmologist Paul Davies offered a variety
of arguments that multiverse theories are non-scientific :

For a start, how is the existence of the other universes to be
tested? To be sure, all cosmologists accept that there are some
regions of the universe that lie beyond the reach of our telescopes,
but somewhere on the slippery slope between that and the idea that
there are an infinite number of universes, credibility reaches a
limit. As one slips down that slope, more and more must be accepted on
faith, and less and less is open to scientific verification. Extreme
multiverse explanations are therefore reminiscent of theological
discussions. Indeed, invoking an infinity of unseen universes to
explain the unusual features of the one we do see is just as ad hoc as
invoking an unseen Creator. The multiverse theory may be dressed up in
scientific language, but in essence it requires the same leap of
faith.
Post by Christopher A. Lee
Post by Melzzzzz
Post by Lucifer Morningstar
Black holes went from being a crazy idea to being 'fact'
without any being discovered.
More bollocks.
Post by Melzzzzz
What about supposed pictures of black holes? Science is sure they are
there...
Predicted as a consequence of general relativity. Detected by
gravitational lensing, by objects going out of sight as they orbit
them and also by gravity waves (2015).
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_hole#Observational_evidence
Lots of predictions but no direct observations yet.
Post by Christopher A. Lee
Post by Melzzzzz
The Big Bang theory seems
Post by Lucifer Morningstar
to have been accepted as fact without being proven.
Big Bang theory is based on observation. Also flat standing still Earth
from Bible is based on observation. What you see is what you think it
is. But be prepared for radical changes as instruments of observation
get more advanced ;)
The big bang was proposed as a consequence of both Einstein's math
without his fudge factor, and Hubble's observation that the universe
is expanding, What was it expanding from? Confirmation came with the
discovery of the cosmic background radiation which had a value pretty
close to that calculated if it happened, which earned Penzias and
Wilson a Nobel Prize. It has since had further confirmation that we
are on the right track, from things like the Berkeley/NASA COBE
(Cosmic Background Explorer) project, and even observations through
the Hubble space telescope which didn't go back quite as far but
fitted the theory as far back as they were able to go..
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Bang
I don't know enough to say the big bang did not happen but I
don't believe it is possible to infer it did from what we now observe.
--
I call shenanigans on all theistic religions
R. Dean
2016-11-17 03:46:28 UTC
Permalink
Post by Christopher A. Lee
Post by Melzzzzz
On Wed, 16 Nov 2016 16:52:11 +1100
Post by Lucifer Morningstar
Post by R. Dean
Post by Lucifer Morningstar
On Tue, 15 Nov 2016 18:02:19 -0600, Christopher A. Lee
Post by Christopher A. Lee
On Wed, 16 Nov 2016 09:34:36 +1100, Lucifer Morningstar
On Tue, 15 Nov 2016 13:18:04 -0500, "R. Dean" <"R.
Post by R. Dean
There is some theatrical basis for the multiverse found
in the expansion of the universe.
Also in the interpretation of quantium mechanics. But
there is no direct empirical evidence for other universes.
That's true. The multiverse idea was made up by someone
who wants an explanation and who has no concept of science.
Tell that to the ghost of Erwin Schrodinger. Best known for his cat
thought experiment but a Nobel Prize winning quantum physicist.
Post by Melzzzzz
Post by Lucifer Morningstar
Post by R. Dean
Post by Lucifer Morningstar
Post by Christopher A. Lee
Bollocks.
That's what the multiverse is. Pure made up nonsense.
Okay, but who or what group made up the multiverse nonsense?
I don't know but it should be recorded somewhere.
The multiverse idea was made up by someone desperate for
an answer. It has no scientific basis.
It was proposed by Schrodinger and subsequently taken up by other
astrophysicists and cosmologists, It is hypothetical, and a possible
answer to whatever the big bang occurred "in" - remember that it was
the origin of space and time as well as matter and energy (from our
frame of reference).
So in what frame of reference did it happen? This is just one of the
many hypothesis.
But unlike some imaginary designer for which there is no evidence
because there is no way to determine design , nobody insists it
actually happened that way.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multiverse
Post by Melzzzzz
Post by Lucifer Morningstar
Black holes went from being a crazy idea to being 'fact'
without any being discovered.
More bollocks.
Post by Melzzzzz
What about supposed pictures of black holes? Science is sure they are
there...
Predicted as a consequence of general relativity. Detected by
gravitational lensing, by objects going out of sight as they orbit
them and also by gravity waves (2015).
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_hole#Observational_evidence
Post by Melzzzzz
The Big Bang theory seems
Post by Lucifer Morningstar
to have been accepted as fact without being proven.
Big Bang theory is based on observation. Also flat standing still Earth
from Bible is based on observation. What you see is what you think it
is. But be prepared for radical changes as instruments of observation
get more advanced ;)
The big bang was proposed as a consequence of both Einstein's math
without his fudge factor, and Hubble's observation that the universe
is expanding, What was it expanding from? Confirmation came with the
discovery of the cosmic background radiation which had a value pretty
close to that calculated if it happened, which earned Penzias and
Wilson a Nobel Prize. It has since had further confirmation that we
are on the right track, from things like the Berkeley/NASA COBE
(Cosmic Background Explorer) project, and even observations through
the Hubble space telescope which didn't go back quite as far but
fitted the theory as far back as they were able to go..
I'm amazed Chris, but you are exactly right!
Post by Christopher A. Lee
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Bang
Christopher A. Lee
2016-11-17 04:49:34 UTC
Permalink
Post by R. Dean
Post by Christopher A. Lee
Post by Melzzzzz
On Wed, 16 Nov 2016 16:52:11 +1100
Post by Lucifer Morningstar
Post by R. Dean
Post by Lucifer Morningstar
On Tue, 15 Nov 2016 18:02:19 -0600, Christopher A. Lee
Post by Christopher A. Lee
On Wed, 16 Nov 2016 09:34:36 +1100, Lucifer Morningstar
On Tue, 15 Nov 2016 13:18:04 -0500, "R. Dean" <"R.
Post by R. Dean
There is some theatrical basis for the multiverse found
in the expansion of the universe.
Also in the interpretation of quantium mechanics. But
there is no direct empirical evidence for other universes.
That's true. The multiverse idea was made up by someone
who wants an explanation and who has no concept of science.
Tell that to the ghost of Erwin Schrodinger. Best known for his cat
thought experiment but a Nobel Prize winning quantum physicist.
Post by Melzzzzz
Post by Lucifer Morningstar
Post by R. Dean
Post by Lucifer Morningstar
Post by Christopher A. Lee
Bollocks.
That's what the multiverse is. Pure made up nonsense.
Okay, but who or what group made up the multiverse nonsense?
I don't know but it should be recorded somewhere.
The multiverse idea was made up by someone desperate for
an answer. It has no scientific basis.
It was proposed by Schrodinger and subsequently taken up by other
astrophysicists and cosmologists, It is hypothetical, and a possible
answer to whatever the big bang occurred "in" - remember that it was
the origin of space and time as well as matter and energy (from our
frame of reference).
So in what frame of reference did it happen? This is just one of the
many hypothesis.
But unlike some imaginary designer for which there is no evidence
because there is no way to determine design , nobody insists it
actually happened that way.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multiverse
Post by Melzzzzz
Post by Lucifer Morningstar
Black holes went from being a crazy idea to being 'fact'
without any being discovered.
More bollocks.
Post by Melzzzzz
What about supposed pictures of black holes? Science is sure they are
there...
Predicted as a consequence of general relativity. Detected by
gravitational lensing, by objects going out of sight as they orbit
them and also by gravity waves (2015).
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_hole#Observational_evidence
Post by Melzzzzz
The Big Bang theory seems
Post by Lucifer Morningstar
to have been accepted as fact without being proven.
Big Bang theory is based on observation. Also flat standing still Earth
from Bible is based on observation. What you see is what you think it
is. But be prepared for radical changes as instruments of observation
get more advanced ;)
The big bang was proposed as a consequence of both Einstein's math
without his fudge factor, and Hubble's observation that the universe
is expanding, What was it expanding from? Confirmation came with the
discovery of the cosmic background radiation which had a value pretty
close to that calculated if it happened, which earned Penzias and
Wilson a Nobel Prize. It has since had further confirmation that we
are on the right track, from things like the Berkeley/NASA COBE
(Cosmic Background Explorer) project, and even observations through
the Hubble space telescope which didn't go back quite as far but
fitted the theory as far back as they were able to go..
I'm amazed Chris, but you are exactly right!
Why are you amazed, imbecile?

It's common knowledge.
Post by R. Dean
Post by Christopher A. Lee
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Bang
R. Dean
2016-11-17 13:15:55 UTC
Permalink
Post by Christopher A. Lee
Post by R. Dean
Post by Christopher A. Lee
Post by Melzzzzz
On Wed, 16 Nov 2016 16:52:11 +1100
Post by Lucifer Morningstar
Post by R. Dean
Post by Lucifer Morningstar
On Tue, 15 Nov 2016 18:02:19 -0600, Christopher A. Lee
Post by Christopher A. Lee
On Wed, 16 Nov 2016 09:34:36 +1100, Lucifer Morningstar
On Tue, 15 Nov 2016 13:18:04 -0500, "R. Dean" <"R.
Post by R. Dean
There is some theatrical basis for the multiverse found
in the expansion of the universe.
Also in the interpretation of quantium mechanics. But
there is no direct empirical evidence for other universes.
That's true. The multiverse idea was made up by someone
who wants an explanation and who has no concept of science.
Tell that to the ghost of Erwin Schrodinger. Best known for his cat
thought experiment but a Nobel Prize winning quantum physicist.
Post by Melzzzzz
Post by Lucifer Morningstar
Post by R. Dean
Post by Lucifer Morningstar
Post by Christopher A. Lee
Bollocks.
That's what the multiverse is. Pure made up nonsense.
Okay, but who or what group made up the multiverse nonsense?
I don't know but it should be recorded somewhere.
The multiverse idea was made up by someone desperate for
an answer. It has no scientific basis.
It was proposed by Schrodinger and subsequently taken up by other
astrophysicists and cosmologists, It is hypothetical, and a possible
answer to whatever the big bang occurred "in" - remember that it was
the origin of space and time as well as matter and energy (from our
frame of reference).
So in what frame of reference did it happen? This is just one of the
many hypothesis.
But unlike some imaginary designer for which there is no evidence
because there is no way to determine design , nobody insists it
actually happened that way.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multiverse
Post by Melzzzzz
Post by Lucifer Morningstar
Black holes went from being a crazy idea to being 'fact'
without any being discovered.
More bollocks.
Post by Melzzzzz
What about supposed pictures of black holes? Science is sure they are
there...
Predicted as a consequence of general relativity. Detected by
gravitational lensing, by objects going out of sight as they orbit
them and also by gravity waves (2015).
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_hole#Observational_evidence
Post by Melzzzzz
The Big Bang theory seems
Post by Lucifer Morningstar
to have been accepted as fact without being proven.
Big Bang theory is based on observation. Also flat standing still Earth
from Bible is based on observation. What you see is what you think it
is. But be prepared for radical changes as instruments of observation
get more advanced ;)
The big bang was proposed as a consequence of both Einstein's math
without his fudge factor, and Hubble's observation that the universe
is expanding, What was it expanding from? Confirmation came with the
discovery of the cosmic background radiation which had a value pretty
close to that calculated if it happened, which earned Penzias and
Wilson a Nobel Prize. It has since had further confirmation that we
are on the right track, from things like the Berkeley/NASA COBE
(Cosmic Background Explorer) project, and even observations through
the Hubble space telescope which didn't go back quite as far but
fitted the theory as far back as they were able to go..
I'm amazed Chris, but you are exactly right!
Why are you amazed, imbecile?
Same reason you are an illegitimate bastard.
Post by Christopher A. Lee
It's common knowledge.
Post by R. Dean
Post by Christopher A. Lee
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Bang
Christopher A. Lee
2016-11-17 14:08:03 UTC
Permalink
Post by R. Dean
Post by Christopher A. Lee
Post by R. Dean
Post by Christopher A. Lee
Post by Melzzzzz
On Wed, 16 Nov 2016 16:52:11 +1100
Post by Lucifer Morningstar
Post by R. Dean
Post by Lucifer Morningstar
On Tue, 15 Nov 2016 18:02:19 -0600, Christopher A. Lee
Post by Christopher A. Lee
On Wed, 16 Nov 2016 09:34:36 +1100, Lucifer Morningstar
On Tue, 15 Nov 2016 13:18:04 -0500, "R. Dean" <"R.
Post by R. Dean
There is some theatrical basis for the multiverse found
in the expansion of the universe.
Also in the interpretation of quantium mechanics. But
there is no direct empirical evidence for other universes.
That's true. The multiverse idea was made up by someone
who wants an explanation and who has no concept of science.
Tell that to the ghost of Erwin Schrodinger. Best known for his cat
thought experiment but a Nobel Prize winning quantum physicist.
Post by Melzzzzz
Post by Lucifer Morningstar
Post by R. Dean
Post by Lucifer Morningstar
Post by Christopher A. Lee
Bollocks.
That's what the multiverse is. Pure made up nonsense.
Okay, but who or what group made up the multiverse nonsense?
I don't know but it should be recorded somewhere.
The multiverse idea was made up by someone desperate for
an answer. It has no scientific basis.
It was proposed by Schrodinger and subsequently taken up by other
astrophysicists and cosmologists, It is hypothetical, and a possible
answer to whatever the big bang occurred "in" - remember that it was
the origin of space and time as well as matter and energy (from our
frame of reference).
So in what frame of reference did it happen? This is just one of the
many hypothesis.
But unlike some imaginary designer for which there is no evidence
because there is no way to determine design , nobody insists it
actually happened that way.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multiverse
Post by Melzzzzz
Post by Lucifer Morningstar
Black holes went from being a crazy idea to being 'fact'
without any being discovered.
More bollocks.
Post by Melzzzzz
What about supposed pictures of black holes? Science is sure they are
there...
Predicted as a consequence of general relativity. Detected by
gravitational lensing, by objects going out of sight as they orbit
them and also by gravity waves (2015).
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_hole#Observational_evidence
Post by Melzzzzz
The Big Bang theory seems
Post by Lucifer Morningstar
to have been accepted as fact without being proven.
Big Bang theory is based on observation. Also flat standing still Earth
from Bible is based on observation. What you see is what you think it
is. But be prepared for radical changes as instruments of observation
get more advanced ;)
The big bang was proposed as a consequence of both Einstein's math
without his fudge factor, and Hubble's observation that the universe
is expanding, What was it expanding from? Confirmation came with the
discovery of the cosmic background radiation which had a value pretty
close to that calculated if it happened, which earned Penzias and
Wilson a Nobel Prize. It has since had further confirmation that we
are on the right track, from things like the Berkeley/NASA COBE
(Cosmic Background Explorer) project, and even observations through
the Hubble space telescope which didn't go back quite as far but
fitted the theory as far back as they were able to go..
I'm amazed Chris, but you are exactly right!
Why are you amazed, imbecile?
Same reason you are an illegitimate bastard.
I'm not the hypocrite who routinely lies about atheists (including
scientists who are) because they don't see what isn't even there to be
seen, and then turns nasty when he reaps what he sows.

I'm not the one who hides behind misrepresentations of scientists
writing in popular books and using this as a bogus argument from
authority instead of explaining how they reach their "conclusions".

I'm not the one whose grasp of logic is so bad that he uses
non-sequiturs to reach his "conclusions".

I'm not the one who treats "appears to be designed" as if it actually
were, while ignoring the science writers' explanation why this cannot
be determined.

I'm not the one who ignores the explanations here why there is no way
to determine design, and keeps repeating what has already been
rebutted and refuted.

Etc.
Post by R. Dean
Post by Christopher A. Lee
It's common knowledge.
Post by R. Dean
Post by Christopher A. Lee
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Bang
Christopher A. Lee
2016-11-16 07:07:10 UTC
Permalink
On Wed, 16 Nov 2016 16:52:11 +1100, Lucifer Morningstar
Post by Lucifer Morningstar
Post by R. Dean
Post by Lucifer Morningstar
On Tue, 15 Nov 2016 18:02:19 -0600, Christopher A. Lee
Post by Christopher A. Lee
On Wed, 16 Nov 2016 09:34:36 +1100, Lucifer Morningstar
Post by Lucifer Morningstar
Post by R. Dean
There is some theatrical basis for the multiverse found
in the expansion of the universe.
Also in the interpretation of quantium mechanics. But
there is no direct empirical evidence for other universes.
That's true. The multiverse idea was made up by someone
who wants an explanation and who has no concept of science.
Bollocks.
That's what the multiverse is. Pure made up nonsense.
Okay, but who or what group made up the multiverse nonsense?
I don't know but it should be recorded somewhere.
The multiverse idea was made up by someone desperate for
an answer. It has no scientific basis.
Bollocks.
Post by Lucifer Morningstar
Black holes went from being a crazy idea to being 'fact'
without any being discovered.
More bollocks.
Post by Lucifer Morningstar
The Big Bang theory seems
to have been accepted as fact without being proven.
Even more bollocks.

Get an education.
Lucifer Morningstar
2016-11-16 08:53:55 UTC
Permalink
On Wed, 16 Nov 2016 01:07:10 -0600, Christopher A. Lee
Post by Christopher A. Lee
On Wed, 16 Nov 2016 16:52:11 +1100, Lucifer Morningstar
Post by Lucifer Morningstar
Post by R. Dean
Post by Lucifer Morningstar
On Tue, 15 Nov 2016 18:02:19 -0600, Christopher A. Lee
Post by Christopher A. Lee
On Wed, 16 Nov 2016 09:34:36 +1100, Lucifer Morningstar
Post by Lucifer Morningstar
Post by R. Dean
There is some theatrical basis for the multiverse found
in the expansion of the universe.
Also in the interpretation of quantium mechanics. But
there is no direct empirical evidence for other universes.
That's true. The multiverse idea was made up by someone
who wants an explanation and who has no concept of science.
Bollocks.
That's what the multiverse is. Pure made up nonsense.
Okay, but who or what group made up the multiverse nonsense?
I don't know but it should be recorded somewhere.
The multiverse idea was made up by someone desperate for
an answer. It has no scientific basis.
Bollocks.
You make a strong case.
Post by Christopher A. Lee
Post by Lucifer Morningstar
Black holes went from being a crazy idea to being 'fact'
without any being discovered.
More bollocks.
Is that a scientific term?
Post by Christopher A. Lee
Post by Lucifer Morningstar
The Big Bang theory seems
to have been accepted as fact without being proven.
Even more bollocks.
You seem to have all the answers.
Post by Christopher A. Lee
Get an education.
You are talking like creationist.
Come back to reality.
--
I call shenanigans on all theistic religions
Christopher A. Lee
2016-11-16 11:59:27 UTC
Permalink
On Wed, 16 Nov 2016 19:53:55 +1100, Lucifer Morningstar
Post by Lucifer Morningstar
On Wed, 16 Nov 2016 01:07:10 -0600, Christopher A. Lee
Post by Christopher A. Lee
On Wed, 16 Nov 2016 16:52:11 +1100, Lucifer Morningstar
Post by Lucifer Morningstar
Post by R. Dean
Post by Lucifer Morningstar
On Tue, 15 Nov 2016 18:02:19 -0600, Christopher A. Lee
Post by Christopher A. Lee
On Wed, 16 Nov 2016 09:34:36 +1100, Lucifer Morningstar
Post by Lucifer Morningstar
Post by R. Dean
There is some theatrical basis for the multiverse found
in the expansion of the universe.
Also in the interpretation of quantium mechanics. But
there is no direct empirical evidence for other universes.
That's true. The multiverse idea was made up by someone
who wants an explanation and who has no concept of science.
Bollocks.
That's what the multiverse is. Pure made up nonsense.
Okay, but who or what group made up the multiverse nonsense?
I don't know but it should be recorded somewhere.
The multiverse idea was made up by someone desperate for
an answer. It has no scientific basis.
Bollocks.
You make a strong case.
Troll much?

Or are you really this ignorant?
Post by Lucifer Morningstar
Post by Christopher A. Lee
Post by Lucifer Morningstar
Black holes went from being a crazy idea to being 'fact'
without any being discovered.
More bollocks.
Is that a scientific term?
It describes your stupidity.
Post by Lucifer Morningstar
Post by Christopher A. Lee
Post by Lucifer Morningstar
The Big Bang theory seems
to have been accepted as fact without being proven.
Even more bollocks.
You seem to have all the answers.
They're out there, imbecile. Never heard of Wikipedia?

I've given you outlines elsewhere in the thread, with links.
Post by Lucifer Morningstar
Post by Christopher A. Lee
Get an education.
You are talking like creationist.
Troll much?
Post by Lucifer Morningstar
Come back to reality.
Take your own advice, but that would require getting an education in
reality.
R. Dean
2016-11-18 22:12:28 UTC
Permalink
Post by Christopher A. Lee
On Wed, 16 Nov 2016 09:34:36 +1100, Lucifer Morningstar
Post by Lucifer Morningstar
Post by R. Dean
There is some theatrical basis for the multiverse found
in the expansion of the universe.
Also in the interpretation of quantium mechanics. But
there is no direct empirical evidence for other universes.
That's true. The multiverse idea was made up by someone
who wants an explanation and who has no concept of science.
Bollocks.
Andrei Linde was the man who, had no concept of science, but he made
up the multiverse idea.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andrei_Linde
Christopher A. Lee
2016-11-18 22:15:30 UTC
Permalink
Post by R. Dean
Post by Christopher A. Lee
On Wed, 16 Nov 2016 09:34:36 +1100, Lucifer Morningstar
Post by Lucifer Morningstar
Post by R. Dean
There is some theatrical basis for the multiverse found
in the expansion of the universe.
Also in the interpretation of quantium mechanics. But
there is no direct empirical evidence for other universes.
That's true. The multiverse idea was made up by someone
who wants an explanation and who has no concept of science.
Bollocks.
Andrei Linde was the man who, had no concept of science, but he made
up the multiverse idea.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andrei_Linde
More bollocks. That page doesn't say he made it up.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multiverse#Origin_of_the_concept

"In Dublin in 1952, Erwin Schrödinger gave a lecture in which he
jocularly warned his audience that what he was about to say might
"seem lunatic." He said that, when his Nobel equations seemed to
describe several different histories, these were "not alternatives,
but all really happen simultaneously." This is the earliest known
reference to the multiverse.[1]"
Lucifer Morningstar
2016-11-18 22:30:05 UTC
Permalink
On Fri, 18 Nov 2016 16:15:30 -0600, Christopher A. Lee
Post by Christopher A. Lee
Post by R. Dean
Post by Christopher A. Lee
On Wed, 16 Nov 2016 09:34:36 +1100, Lucifer Morningstar
Post by Lucifer Morningstar
Post by R. Dean
There is some theatrical basis for the multiverse found
in the expansion of the universe.
Also in the interpretation of quantium mechanics. But
there is no direct empirical evidence for other universes.
That's true. The multiverse idea was made up by someone
who wants an explanation and who has no concept of science.
Bollocks.
Andrei Linde was the man who, had no concept of science, but he made
up the multiverse idea.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andrei_Linde
More bollocks. That page doesn't say he made it up.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multiverse#Origin_of_the_concept
"In Dublin in 1952, Erwin Schrödinger gave a lecture in which he
jocularly warned his audience that what he was about to say might
"seem lunatic." He said that, when his Nobel equations seemed to
describe several different histories, these were "not alternatives,
but all really happen simultaneously." This is the earliest known
reference to the multiverse.[1]"
Erwin Schrödinger is well known for having made up the idea
of multiple states existing at the same time with his cat thought
experiment. His idea was wrong then as it is now.
--
I call shenanigans on all theistic religions
Lucifer Morningstar
2016-11-18 22:26:16 UTC
Permalink
Post by R. Dean
Post by Christopher A. Lee
On Wed, 16 Nov 2016 09:34:36 +1100, Lucifer Morningstar
Post by Lucifer Morningstar
Post by R. Dean
There is some theatrical basis for the multiverse found
in the expansion of the universe.
Also in the interpretation of quantium mechanics. But
there is no direct empirical evidence for other universes.
That's true. The multiverse idea was made up by someone
who wants an explanation and who has no concept of science.
Bollocks.
Andrei Linde was the man who, had no concept of science, but he made
up the multiverse idea.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andrei_Linde
From https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multiverse

Some physicists say the multiverse is not a legitimate topic of
scientific inquiry. Concerns have been raised about whether attempts
to exempt the multiverse from experimental verification could erode
public confidence in science and ultimately damage the study of
fundamental physics. Some have argued that the multiverse is a
philosophical rather than a scientific hypothesis because it cannot be
falsified.

Arguments against multiverse theories

In his 2003 New York Times opinion piece, A Brief History of the
Multiverse, the author and cosmologist Paul Davies offered a variety
of arguments that multiverse theories are non-scientific :

For a start, how is the existence of the other universes to be
tested? To be sure, all cosmologists accept that there are some
regions of the universe that lie beyond the reach of our telescopes,
but somewhere on the slippery slope between that and the idea that
there are an infinite number of universes, credibility reaches a
limit. As one slips down that slope, more and more must be accepted on
faith, and less and less is open to scientific verification. Extreme
multiverse explanations are therefore reminiscent of theological
discussions. Indeed, invoking an infinity of unseen universes to
explain the unusual features of the one we do see is just as ad hoc as
invoking an unseen Creator. The multiverse theory may be dressed up in
scientific language, but in essence it requires the same leap of
faith.
--
I call shenanigans on all theistic religions
R. Dean
2016-11-18 22:02:54 UTC
Permalink
Post by Lucifer Morningstar
Post by R. Dean
There is some theatrical basis for the multiverse found
in the expansion of the universe.
Also in the interpretation of quantium mechanics. But
there is no direct empirical evidence for other universes.
That's true. The multiverse idea was made up by someone
who wants an explanation and who has no concept of science.
Then I suppose these people have no concept of science because
they are proponents of the multiverse concept:

Stephen Hawking, Brian Greene, Max Tegmark, Alan Guth, Andrei Linde,
Michio Kaku, David Deutsch, Leonard Susskind, Alexander Vilenkin
Yasunori Nomura, Raj Pathria, Laura Mersini-Houghton, Neil deGrasse
Tyson, and Sean Carroll.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multiverse
Christopher A. Lee
2016-11-18 22:04:03 UTC
Permalink
Post by R. Dean
Post by Lucifer Morningstar
Post by R. Dean
There is some theatrical basis for the multiverse found
in the expansion of the universe.
Also in the interpretation of quantium mechanics. But
there is no direct empirical evidence for other universes.
That's true. The multiverse idea was made up by someone
who wants an explanation and who has no concept of science.
Then I suppose these people have no concept of science because
Grow up.
Post by R. Dean
Stephen Hawking, Brian Greene, Max Tegmark, Alan Guth, Andrei Linde,
Michio Kaku, David Deutsch, Leonard Susskind, Alexander Vilenkin
Yasunori Nomura, Raj Pathria, Laura Mersini-Houghton, Neil deGrasse
Tyson, and Sean Carroll.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multiverse
THEY ALL ADMIT IT IS SPECULATIVE, imbecile.
R. Dean
2016-11-19 18:19:24 UTC
Permalink
Post by Christopher A. Lee
Post by R. Dean
Post by Lucifer Morningstar
Post by R. Dean
There is some theatrical basis for the multiverse found
in the expansion of the universe.
Also in the interpretation of quantium mechanics. But
there is no direct empirical evidence for other universes.
That's true. The multiverse idea was made up by someone
who wants an explanation and who has no concept of science.
Then I suppose these people have no concept of science because
Grow up.
Post by R. Dean
Stephen Hawking, Brian Greene, Max Tegmark, Alan Guth, Andrei Linde,
Michio Kaku, David Deutsch, Leonard Susskind, Alexander Vilenkin
Yasunori Nomura, Raj Pathria, Laura Mersini-Houghton, Neil deGrasse
Tyson, and Sean Carroll.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multiverse
THEY ALL ADMIT IT IS SPECULATIVE, imbecile.
Prove it. - you cannot!
Christopher A. Lee
2016-11-19 18:32:51 UTC
Permalink
Post by R. Dean
Post by Christopher A. Lee
Post by R. Dean
Post by Lucifer Morningstar
Post by R. Dean
There is some theatrical basis for the multiverse found
in the expansion of the universe.
Also in the interpretation of quantium mechanics. But
there is no direct empirical evidence for other universes.
That's true. The multiverse idea was made up by someone
who wants an explanation and who has no concept of science.
Then I suppose these people have no concept of science because
Grow up.
Post by R. Dean
Stephen Hawking, Brian Greene, Max Tegmark, Alan Guth, Andrei Linde,
Michio Kaku, David Deutsch, Leonard Susskind, Alexander Vilenkin
Yasunori Nomura, Raj Pathria, Laura Mersini-Houghton, Neil deGrasse
Tyson, and Sean Carroll.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multiverse
THEY ALL ADMIT IT IS SPECULATIVE, imbecile.
Prove it. - you cannot!
READ WHAT THEY WROTE, IN THE FULL CONTEXT INSTEAD OF CHERRY-PICKING
THE PART WHERE THEY DESCRIBE A COMMONLY HELD BELIEF AND THEN GO ON TO
SHOW WHY IT IS WRONG.

Pick one of them that you can cut'n'paste, giving not just the bit you
cherry pick but also the following paragraphs.

Try reading them for comprehension.
R. Dean
2016-11-19 23:17:24 UTC
Permalink
Post by Christopher A. Lee
Post by R. Dean
Post by Christopher A. Lee
Post by R. Dean
Post by Lucifer Morningstar
Post by R. Dean
There is some theatrical basis for the multiverse found
in the expansion of the universe.
Also in the interpretation of quantium mechanics. But
there is no direct empirical evidence for other universes.
That's true. The multiverse idea was made up by someone
who wants an explanation and who has no concept of science.
Then I suppose these people have no concept of science because
Grow up.
Post by R. Dean
Stephen Hawking, Brian Greene, Max Tegmark, Alan Guth, Andrei Linde,
Michio Kaku, David Deutsch, Leonard Susskind, Alexander Vilenkin
Yasunori Nomura, Raj Pathria, Laura Mersini-Houghton, Neil deGrasse
Tyson, and Sean Carroll.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multiverse
THEY ALL ADMIT IT IS SPECULATIVE, imbecile.
Prove it. - you cannot!
READ WHAT THEY WROTE, IN THE FULL CONTEXT INSTEAD OF CHERRY-PICKING
THE PART WHERE THEY DESCRIBE A COMMONLY HELD BELIEF AND THEN GO ON TO
SHOW WHY IT IS WRONG.
Pick one of them that you can cut'n'paste, giving not just the bit you
cherry pick but also the following paragraphs.
Try reading them for comprehension.
You are deliberately lying! You haven't read any of it, so you are
just blowing smoke. Not a single one of them called it "speculation".
Why do they even become caught up in such a hairbrained notion.
They admit there is no direct empirical evidence, but not even
one of them call it Speculation. But I personally think the multiverse
idea is pure BS! There can be only one reason for it.
Christopher A. Lee
2016-11-20 04:09:26 UTC
Permalink
Post by R. Dean
Post by Christopher A. Lee
Post by R. Dean
Post by Christopher A. Lee
Post by R. Dean
Post by Lucifer Morningstar
Post by R. Dean
There is some theatrical basis for the multiverse found
in the expansion of the universe.
Also in the interpretation of quantium mechanics. But
there is no direct empirical evidence for other universes.
That's true. The multiverse idea was made up by someone
who wants an explanation and who has no concept of science.
Then I suppose these people have no concept of science because
Grow up.
Post by R. Dean
Stephen Hawking, Brian Greene, Max Tegmark, Alan Guth, Andrei Linde,
Michio Kaku, David Deutsch, Leonard Susskind, Alexander Vilenkin
Yasunori Nomura, Raj Pathria, Laura Mersini-Houghton, Neil deGrasse
Tyson, and Sean Carroll.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multiverse
THEY ALL ADMIT IT IS SPECULATIVE, imbecile.
Prove it. - you cannot!
READ WHAT THEY WROTE, IN THE FULL CONTEXT INSTEAD OF CHERRY-PICKING
THE PART WHERE THEY DESCRIBE A COMMONLY HELD BELIEF AND THEN GO ON TO
SHOW WHY IT IS WRONG.
Pick one of them that you can cut'n'paste, giving not just the bit you
cherry pick but also the following paragraphs.
Try reading them for comprehension.
You are deliberately lying!
Project, much?
Post by R. Dean
You haven't read any of it, so you are
just blowing smoke. Not a single one of them called it "speculation".
Why don't you try to learn something about what you are attacking?

The rest of us aren't as ignorant as you are, and don't need to look
up what is already well known, apart from for confirmation.
Post by R. Dean
Why do they even become caught up in such a hairbrained notion.
They admit there is no direct empirical evidence, but not even
one of them call it Speculation. But I personally think the multiverse
idea is pure BS! There can be only one reason for it.
It was one of the speculations as to what or where the big bang
happened "in" - because it didn't happen in what is commonly
understood as the universe. If it did, there would already have been
space and time.

Please try to keep up.

It is only brought up to point out that of the two ways to determine
tuning, one of them would require other universes for comparison. But
even with the multiverse, we don't know anything about these
hypothetical other universes so we can't compare ours with any of
them.

Nobody appeals to them in order to explain the appearance of design -
that's your spin.

You're way out of your depth, both in alt.atheism and talk.origins.
R. Dean
2016-11-22 07:51:21 UTC
Permalink
Post by Christopher A. Lee
Post by R. Dean
Post by Christopher A. Lee
Post by R. Dean
Post by Lucifer Morningstar
Post by R. Dean
There is some theatrical basis for the multiverse found
in the expansion of the universe.
Also in the interpretation of quantium mechanics. But
there is no direct empirical evidence for other universes.
That's true. The multiverse idea was made up by someone
who wants an explanation and who has no concept of science.
Then I suppose these people have no concept of science because
Grow up.
Post by R. Dean
Stephen Hawking, Brian Greene, Max Tegmark, Alan Guth, Andrei Linde,
Michio Kaku, David Deutsch, Leonard Susskind, Alexander Vilenkin
Yasunori Nomura, Raj Pathria, Laura Mersini-Houghton, Neil deGrasse
Tyson, and Sean Carroll.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multiverse
THEY ALL ADMIT IT IS SPECULATIVE, imbecile.
Prove it. - you cannot!
READ WHAT THEY WROTE, IN THE FULL CONTEXT INSTEAD OF CHERRY-PICKING
THE PART WHERE THEY DESCRIBE A COMMONLY HELD BELIEF AND THEN GO ON TO
SHOW WHY IT IS WRONG.
Had you read the article, you would have noted that Wikipedia headed
the list as Proponents and skeptics. And it listed the scientist I
listed above as _PROPONENTS_ including Hawking, Tyson, Linde etc.
Then it discussed the scientist and their arguments against the
multiverse notion. George Ellis and Paul Davies
<snip>
Christopher A. Lee
2016-11-22 18:09:48 UTC
Permalink
Post by R. Dean
Post by Christopher A. Lee
Post by R. Dean
Post by Christopher A. Lee
Post by R. Dean
Post by Lucifer Morningstar
Post by R. Dean
There is some theatrical basis for the multiverse found
in the expansion of the universe.
Also in the interpretation of quantium mechanics. But
there is no direct empirical evidence for other universes.
That's true. The multiverse idea was made up by someone
who wants an explanation and who has no concept of science.
Then I suppose these people have no concept of science because
Grow up.
Post by R. Dean
Stephen Hawking, Brian Greene, Max Tegmark, Alan Guth, Andrei Linde,
Michio Kaku, David Deutsch, Leonard Susskind, Alexander Vilenkin
Yasunori Nomura, Raj Pathria, Laura Mersini-Houghton, Neil deGrasse
Tyson, and Sean Carroll.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multiverse
THEY ALL ADMIT IT IS SPECULATIVE, imbecile.
Prove it. - you cannot!
READ WHAT THEY WROTE, IN THE FULL CONTEXT INSTEAD OF CHERRY-PICKING
THE PART WHERE THEY DESCRIBE A COMMONLY HELD BELIEF AND THEN GO ON TO
SHOW WHY IT IS WRONG.
Had you read the article, you would have noted that Wikipedia headed
the list as Proponents and skeptics. And it listed the scientist I
listed above as _PROPONENTS_ including Hawking, Tyson, Linde etc.
Then it discussed the scientist and their arguments against the
multiverse notion. George Ellis and Paul Davies
<snip>
Learn to read for comprehension.

And in spite of what you pretend, none of them say it is anything more
than hypothetical - and none of them use it to "explain away" the
APPREAENCE of design.
R. Dean
2016-11-23 00:47:45 UTC
Permalink
Post by Christopher A. Lee
Post by R. Dean
Post by Christopher A. Lee
Post by R. Dean
Post by Christopher A. Lee
Post by R. Dean
Post by Lucifer Morningstar
Post by R. Dean
There is some theatrical basis for the multiverse found
in the expansion of the universe.
Also in the interpretation of quantium mechanics. But
there is no direct empirical evidence for other universes.
That's true. The multiverse idea was made up by someone
who wants an explanation and who has no concept of science.
Then I suppose these people have no concept of science because
Grow up.
Post by R. Dean
Stephen Hawking, Brian Greene, Max Tegmark, Alan Guth, Andrei Linde,
Michio Kaku, David Deutsch, Leonard Susskind, Alexander Vilenkin
Yasunori Nomura, Raj Pathria, Laura Mersini-Houghton, Neil deGrasse
Tyson, and Sean Carroll.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multiverse
THEY ALL ADMIT IT IS SPECULATIVE, imbecile.
Prove it. - you cannot!
READ WHAT THEY WROTE, IN THE FULL CONTEXT INSTEAD OF CHERRY-PICKING
THE PART WHERE THEY DESCRIBE A COMMONLY HELD BELIEF AND THEN GO ON TO
SHOW WHY IT IS WRONG.
Had you read the article, you would have noted that Wikipedia headed
the list as Proponents and skeptics. And it listed the scientist I
listed above as _PROPONENTS_ including Hawking, Tyson, Linde etc.
Then it discussed the scientist and their arguments against the
multiverse notion. George Ellis and Paul Davies
<snip>
Learn to read for comprehension.
You should take your own advice that you so freely give to others
with whom you're so intolerant of.
Post by Christopher A. Lee
And in spite of what you pretend, none of them say it is anything more
than hypothetical - and none of them use it to "explain away" the
APPREAENCE of design.
It's less than hypothetical: it's a fairy-tale, no different than
Alice in Wonderland. Just as unreal.
The multiverse is just an effort to explain away the "appearance"
of design that's implicated in the fine tuned cosmological
constants. It serves no other purpose.
Christopher A. Lee
2016-11-23 11:43:23 UTC
Permalink
Post by R. Dean
Post by Christopher A. Lee
Post by R. Dean
Post by Christopher A. Lee
Post by R. Dean
Post by Christopher A. Lee
Post by R. Dean
Post by Lucifer Morningstar
Post by R. Dean
There is some theatrical basis for the multiverse found
in the expansion of the universe.
Also in the interpretation of quantium mechanics. But
there is no direct empirical evidence for other universes.
That's true. The multiverse idea was made up by someone
who wants an explanation and who has no concept of science.
Then I suppose these people have no concept of science because
Grow up.
Post by R. Dean
Stephen Hawking, Brian Greene, Max Tegmark, Alan Guth, Andrei Linde,
Michio Kaku, David Deutsch, Leonard Susskind, Alexander Vilenkin
Yasunori Nomura, Raj Pathria, Laura Mersini-Houghton, Neil deGrasse
Tyson, and Sean Carroll.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multiverse
THEY ALL ADMIT IT IS SPECULATIVE, imbecile.
Prove it. - you cannot!
READ WHAT THEY WROTE, IN THE FULL CONTEXT INSTEAD OF CHERRY-PICKING
THE PART WHERE THEY DESCRIBE A COMMONLY HELD BELIEF AND THEN GO ON TO
SHOW WHY IT IS WRONG.
Had you read the article, you would have noted that Wikipedia headed
the list as Proponents and skeptics. And it listed the scientist I
listed above as _PROPONENTS_ including Hawking, Tyson, Linde etc.
Then it discussed the scientist and their arguments against the
multiverse notion. George Ellis and Paul Davies
<snip>
Learn to read for comprehension.
You should take your own advice that you so freely give to others
with whom you're so intolerant of.
Your usual personal lie rather than address objections to the
unsolicited nonsense you keep posting in the atheist group.
Post by R. Dean
Post by Christopher A. Lee
And in spite of what you pretend, none of them say it is anything more
than hypothetical - and none of them use it to "explain away" the
APPREAENCE of design.
It's less than hypothetical: it's a fairy-tale, no different than
Alice in Wonderland. Just as unreal.
The multiverse is just an effort to explain away the "appearance"
of design that's implicated in the fine tuned cosmological
constants. It serves no other purpose.
Why do you keep repeating these stupid, deliberate lies, proven serial
liar?

Why do you keep pretending there is any way to determine design?

Why don't you ever address the reasons you have been given, why there
is no way to determine it?

Why do you impute motives that aren't even there, for why atheists,
science and scientists don't recognise what you want them to?

Why don't you understand what a non-sequitur is?

Why do you pretend that science is about subjective opinions?

Why do you dismiss objective objections as being mere opinion?

Why do you escalate the animosity when you reap what you sow, with
more personal lies?

Why do you keep accusing others of your own behaviour when you reap
what you sow?

Grow up.
Lucifer Morningstar
2016-11-18 22:25:59 UTC
Permalink
Post by R. Dean
Post by Lucifer Morningstar
Post by R. Dean
There is some theatrical basis for the multiverse found
in the expansion of the universe.
Also in the interpretation of quantium mechanics. But
there is no direct empirical evidence for other universes.
That's true. The multiverse idea was made up by someone
who wants an explanation and who has no concept of science.
Then I suppose these people have no concept of science because
Stephen Hawking, Brian Greene, Max Tegmark, Alan Guth, Andrei Linde,
Michio Kaku, David Deutsch, Leonard Susskind, Alexander Vilenkin
Yasunori Nomura, Raj Pathria, Laura Mersini-Houghton, Neil deGrasse
Tyson, and Sean Carroll.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multiverse
From https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multiverse

Some physicists say the multiverse is not a legitimate topic of
scientific inquiry. Concerns have been raised about whether attempts
to exempt the multiverse from experimental verification could erode
public confidence in science and ultimately damage the study of
fundamental physics. Some have argued that the multiverse is a
philosophical rather than a scientific hypothesis because it cannot be
falsified.

Arguments against multiverse theories

In his 2003 New York Times opinion piece, A Brief History of the
Multiverse, the author and cosmologist Paul Davies offered a variety
of arguments that multiverse theories are non-scientific :

For a start, how is the existence of the other universes to be
tested? To be sure, all cosmologists accept that there are some
regions of the universe that lie beyond the reach of our telescopes,
but somewhere on the slippery slope between that and the idea that
there are an infinite number of universes, credibility reaches a
limit. As one slips down that slope, more and more must be accepted on
faith, and less and less is open to scientific verification. Extreme
multiverse explanations are therefore reminiscent of theological
discussions. Indeed, invoking an infinity of unseen universes to
explain the unusual features of the one we do see is just as ad hoc as
invoking an unseen Creator. The multiverse theory may be dressed up in
scientific language, but in essence it requires the same leap of
faith.
--
I call shenanigans on all theistic religions
Loading...