EVOLUTION, what a lie.

[doppelganger]

No accident about it...

No, I'm pretty sure it was unintended.

 

[MysticPhD]

What makes you think there has to be such a universal field. Scientists like Stephen Hawking don't think so. So, what knowledge do you possess that they don't?

He said it may not be possible to find one. You must know a different Hawking. "A complete, consistent unified theory is only the first step: our goal is a complete understanding of the events around us, and of our own existence," Stephen Hawking "A Brief History of Time," 1988.

The first sentence is right, the second, not so much. Absent such a field, our mathematics still work and are still very meaningful.

A field is absolutely necessary for our mathematics to work . . . a universal field is an extrapolation from these individual fields to one that encompasses everything in the universe itself. It is ridiculous to assume that there are "non-field" aspects to our reality. Our mathematics may require an innovation as radical as the calculus to enable the integration of perturbatory and quantized representations.

Certain things just work differently in different situations. All they're trying to do is find one thing that works in all situations. That doesn't mean such a thing exists.

We are not clever enough with our artificial mathematics to do anything but patchwork representations . . . that is a limitation of our current mathematics . . . it doesn't mean reality IS a patchwork.

This is what I figured. You know a little bit and from that little bit you make gross mischaracterizations and think you know a lot more than you do. This is why I say you're not really any different from people who deny evolution. They know little bits about it, but nothing substantial, and yet they think they know enough to dismiss it. You think you know enough to make your own hypotheses about the subjects you bring up here, but in reality, you have a huge lack of understanding.

You are almost as judgmental as the religious fundamentalists (that is not a compliment). Where do you get the arrogance to make such pronouncements?

 

[Tristesse]

Man has played the part of DESIGNER in his own right. It would be ignorant to assume there is no design demonstrated by nature or that it hasn't been manipulated by a designer.

Thats man manipulating nature, thats not an explanation of how nature works, just how man can manipulate it. It didn't differ at all with what I said.

 

[MysticPhD]

Help me out here, Mystic. You are obviously much wiser than the rest of us on this thread, so I'm sure this will be no problem at all for you.

The hostility and inferences of negative motivations is palpable here. Do you treat all newcomers this way . . . or am I special for some reason?

Exactly where has science found "indisputable design"? Please refer me to the study where science was even looking for evidence of design, and the peer reviewed acceptance of the study.

I am certain they weren't looking for design (verb) . . . part of my beef with them . . . but they found design (noun) . . . eg :an underlying scheme that governs functioning, developing, or unfolding.

 

[Magic Man]

Thanks but I had no intention of insulting anyone. Her questioning of why a field is necessary suggested a lack of understanding of a pretty basic aspect of science. I apologize for any misunderstanding. My explanation was designed to be remedial.

Actually what it shows is your complete lack of understanding of that pretty basic aspect of science.

 

[MysticPhD]

MysticPhD,
I understand that you believe those things to be so, but as it stands from my perspective, they are nothing more than bald assertions. Things are not so simply because someone on the internet says they are.

I was answering questions about MY God.

It wasn't that long ago that all sorts of energies were not "directly accessible to our technology". Are you assuming that our technologies and abilities are at their end point? If so, why? If not, then how are you distinguishing between "cannot currently be measured" and "cannot ever be measured"?

I am hopeful that they will be measurable as our technology and understanding evolves.

As someone claiming a scientific bent, you'll understand that many of us here are not prone to accepting suites of bald assertions without supporting data. If you can provide the data to support your assertions, great. If you cannot, then you should appreciate our skepticism.

Everything in forums such as these are opinions or assertions . . . what's your point?

 

[Magic Man]

"I don't think the universe DOES operate without it" . . . would be more accurate.

No, that's not a more accurate description of what you've been saying. You've been saying the universe can't operate without it. If that's not what you mean, I suggest you go back and rethink your replies.

I am the only one it had to make sense to . . . as it is for each of us. The incoherence remains with my version added to the mix. Each individual resolves that incoherence (or not) as their intellectual needs dictate.

In other words, "I don't have an answer for you, so I'm just going to throw out some ramblings that sound good to distract you". Thanks, I guess that's the best I could have hoped for.

LOL . . . I am as far from a fundamentalist as it is possible to get intellectually.

Not from what you've displayed here. If you want that to be true, you need to stop acting the way you have here.

No . . . it isn't.

Well, you can keep telling yourself that, but it's not going to make it true. Again, why would there be so many theistic scientists (including painted wolf), if science was truly atheistic? You still haven't answered that question...not that I really expect you to.

They say that . . . but they are unable to prove that or establish it scientifically . . . yet, you are right . . . they DO say it. THAT's the problem.

What are you talking about? They do prove it, that's the point. They prove how the earth came to be without an intelligent being's intervention. They prove how life got to be where it is today without such a being. They don't say God can't exist, but they do show how things happened without design. That's not a problem. That's describing things as they are. Saying God is unnecessary and saying God doesn't exist are two very different claims. They only make the first claim.

No . . . it is incontrovertibly a design and functions as one . . . that is not in dispute. Its origins are.

Maybe not in that weird head of yours, but in reality, it is a dispute, but only because people like you want so badly for it to be design. That's like me saying "The Baltimore Ravens are the best football team in the world, and that's not in dispute". I can say that, but the fact is many people will dispute it with me. The fact that you refuse to see the dispute doesn't mean it's not there.

He said it may not be possible to find one. You must know a different Hawking. "A complete, consistent unified theory is only the first step: our goal is a complete understanding of the events around us, and of our own existence," Stephen Hawking "A Brief History of Time," 1988.

Great. And what part of that is him saying there has to be such a unified theory? Oh, that's right, none of it. You're equivocating. Sure, he's looking for that theory, as many scientists are. However, he also acknowledges that there might not be such a thing, and that we might have to continue to use several different theories.

A field is absolutely necessary for our mathematics to work . . . a universal field is an extrapolation from these individual fields to one that encompasses everything in the universe itself. It is ridiculous to assume that there are "non-field" aspects to our reality. Our mathematics may require an innovation as radical as the calculus to enable the integration of perturbatory and quantized representations.

Whatever you say. The funny part is how much you've convinced yourself you're right. You act as if you're expressing facts, when in reality you're simply expressing your opinion.

We are not clever enough with our artificial mathematics to do anything but patchwork representations . . . that is a limitation of our current mathematics . . . it doesn't mean reality IS a patchwork.

See my above response.

You are almost as judgmental as the religious fundamentalists (that is not a compliment). Where do you get the arrogance to make such pronouncements?

Call me what you want. I base my judgements on your comments solely. You take the fact that some scientists are looking for a unified theory to mean that the universe must have such a thing. That's a huge jump in logic there. That's why I say you take a little bit of knowledge and make ridiculous claims about it.

 

[Magic Man]

The hostility and inferences of negative motivations is palpable here. Do you treat all newcomers this way . . . or am I special for some reason?

You're special. This treatment is purely because of your ridiculous claims.

I am certain they weren't looking for design (verb) . . . part of my beef with them . . .

So, you're saying science should be looking for design? I thought you already agreed that it couldn't test for such things. Please make up your mind.

but they found design (noun) . . . eg :an underlying scheme that governs functioning, developing, or unfolding.

No, they found what you believe to be design (or more accurately, intelligent design).

 

[MysticPhD]

No MysticPhD, you do not fully understand. If you did you would realise the total and utter absurdity of what you just wrote. Please reread your comment here and try to understand that your own ignorance is not a basis for argument.

Mutation - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
^ Look at all the information that explains how mutations occur. It is almost as if MysticPhD doesn’t actually know what the word ‘random’ means in a scientific context.

And the judges just keep on judging . . . what an amazing group of amateur psychoanalysts and psychologists . . . so quick to know the abilities and knowledge of others. Many mutations had to appear throughout history for the evolution we see today to have been accomplished by natural selection. Where, when, and why did they appear?

 

[Magic Man]

Many mutations had to appear throughout history for the evolution we see today to have been accomplished by natural selection. Where, when, and why did they appear?

I'd say you can get that specific answer straight from painted wolf, but I don't think she should even bother at this point. You're not going to listen anyway.

 

[Tristesse]

And the judges just keep on judging . . . what an amazing group of amateur psychoanalysts and psychologists . . . so quick to know the abilities and knowledge of others. Many mutations had to appear throughout history for the evolution we see today to have been accomplished by natural selection. Where, when, and why did they appear?

Some of the mutations occurred because they were useful for survival, others evolved that were not very useful.

 

[MysticPhD]

Actually what it shows is your complete lack of understanding of that pretty basic aspect of science.

Perhaps you could enlighten me then with your understanding of fields, their relationship to mathematics and our ability to measure . . . and to understand our reality using math.

 

[themadhair]

. . . so quick to know the abilities and knowledge of others.

It is quite simple really. When someone displays a complete lack of scientific understand in their posts it is reasonable to assume they have a complete lack of scientific understanding. When someone erroneously claims that randomness is used as an explanation for genetic mutations, and then completely ignores when the actual explanation for that phenomenon is posted, it is reasonable to assume you are not only ignorant but also hell-bent on maintaining that ignorance.

Many mutations had to appear throughout history for the evolution we see today to have been accomplished by natural selection. Where, when, and why did they appear?

Where would be in the genome. When can be dated by molecular genetics and comparative genetics, at least on those mutations that remain extant. Why is due to the inherent flaws in the DNA transcription process. The fact is that had you wanted to lift yourself out of self-imposed ignorance to answer these questions you could have done so – the peer-reviewed literature is rife with this type of research and some journals, such as Genome for example, offer some of this research for free public viewing.

 

[The Voice of Reason]

Well, acceptance by a community may be simply coercion and the acceptance of secular propaganda that a group is comfortable with.

I see that when you say "simply coercion and the acceptance of secular propaganda that a group is comfortable with", you have already dismissed the fact that that phrase applies (exactly) to the organized religions of the world.

The bottom line, Nipper, is that science is what is allowing you to type on your computer, and the rest of us to see your words. It isn't some supernatural force, it isn't Jerry Falwell, and it isn't magic. It is the result of the work of people applying the scientific method to their pursuit of knowledge.

 

[The Voice of Reason]

You don't have a brain?

You butcher logic and reason, and you think that I don't have a brain?

 

[The Voice of Reason]

Man was created in the image of GOD.

Nah. I say that you are creating your version of God in our image.

... and you're not doing very well at it, either.

 

[The Voice of Reason]

I think that post accidentally contains a profound truth.

Which, in turn, is profoundly lost on the person that it applies to.

No accident about it...

Let's call this "Exhibit A".

 

[The Voice of Reason]

The hostility and inferences of negative motivations is palpable here. Do you treat all newcomers this way . . . or am I special for some reason?

Believe me when I say that you are not special. I know that you think you are, but to be honest, we've seen your kind in here before.
The only real question for us is - are you here to tell us how smart you are, or are you here to exchange ideas and learn?
At this point, I'm thinking you're in the former group - not the latter.

I am certain they weren't looking for design (verb) . . . part of my beef with them . . . but they found design (noun) . . . eg :an underlying scheme that governs functioning, developing, or unfolding.

So, basically, you are upset with "science" because they didn't look for design - which is, by definition, attributable only to a supernatural being.
As badly as you want it to be so, science does not concern itself with the supernatural - and all of your hostility is nothing more than wasted effort.
The "underlying scheme" that you refer to is nothing more than the laws of nature, which mankind pursues through the use of the scientific method.

Welcome to the Age of Enlightenment.

 

[painted wolf]

"I don't think the universe DOES operate without it" . . . would be more accurate. Our mathematics is too ubiquitously useful to be denied and it requires a field.

Perhaps, but I'll admit I'm not a physicist. I have a couple of friends who are, and they don't seem overly concerned about the issue.
Perhaps I'm spoiled by the almost messy nature of biology in comparison to physics? I certainly find the intricate workings of genes, individuals and ecosystems to be much more appealing.

You misrepresent my concern. Our understanding of the REAL NATURE of nature or reality is contingent upon our abilities to explain what is going on consistently . . .

Again, I may be spoiled by Biology, but I find nothing is ever 100% consistent. Chaos always works it's way into things on some level. We can come close to 100% but we never reach it. Science is always open to that 1% possibility. Which is why scientists very rarely state things categorically in papers.

not patchwork, piecemeal aspects of it that contradict each other. Otherwise it is just unsupported speculation.

Again, this seems to be a physics issue to me.

wa:do

 

[Magic Man]

Perhaps you could enlighten me then with your understanding of fields, their relationship to mathematics and our ability to measure . . . and to understand our reality using math.

OK, well, in regards to the topic of that comment, there doesn't have to be one single unifying field for the universe to exist as it does. There, now, that was simple and easy, wasn't it? Anything else?