Problems & confusion with the Multiverse

[Audie]

Muse

Bling? Sounds like a young people's thing.

I guess. I dunno what sort of faith that is.

 

[nPeace]

Muse

I guess. I dunno what sort of faith that is.

Sounds like expensive faith, or faith of high value.

 

[Audie]

Sounds like expensive faith, or faith of high value.

I'd say high expense.
But in poor taste.

 

[nPeace]

I'd say high expense.
But in poor taste.

Not that that's worth a penny.

 

[Audie]

Not that that's worth a penny.

So you might refer to faith in some cult
as bling- faith.

 

[nPeace]

So you might refer to faith in some cult
as bling- faith.

Not that it fits, but I doubt one could call it faith. It would be more like, 'Pass the bling.' 'Okay'.

 

[YoursTrue]

You really haven’t been paying attention, YoursTrue.

Scientific theories are former falsifiable hypotheses that have been VERIFIED through TESTS & OBSERVATIONS, YoursTrue.

TESTS & OBSERVATIONS means “evidence”, “experiments” & “data”.

It is evidence that will either refute the hypothesis or verify the hypothesis. That’s how you would “scientifically” test any hypothesis.

Evidence can also lead to updating existing theories, which can be any of the following:

• corrections to any errors of the theory
• amendments or modifications to theory, especially when there are better or improved explanations
• adding new portions to the theories when there are new information from the evidence; this can lead to expanding the theory.
• or removing portions from the theory that have been refuted

Astronomy and astrophysics are some of the sciences that are constantly updated, because new discoveries provide new information or data about for instances, planets, stars, supernovas, blackholes, galaxies, etc. These discoveries and data often come to us because of our technology have advanced, that provide better observations or more accurate measurements.

For examples, before space observatories, all observations are made from terrestrial telescopes, which are hampered by the Earth’s atmosphere, pollution and climate. Then in 1990, the Hubble Space Telescope (HST) was launch that provide clearer images than ever before, about the Solar System, then other stars, star clusters, nebulae within the Milky Way, other galaxies, and the universe. Then even more recently, the James Webb Space Telescope (JWST) provide even more higher resolution in the visible light spectrum and near infrared than the Hubble. There are many more other telescopes (past & present) that used other parts of EM spectrum for observations, such as ultraviolet, x-ray, gamma ray, etc.

The points in all these advancements in these technologies and new discoveries plus new data, is to improve our understanding about the universe. These new evidence & data can update the existing knowledge, and if necessary, debunk existing theories.

Medicine is another area where science are continually advancing, including in the areas of treatments, diagnosis, testing, etc.

Theories can be changed, corrected, updated, and when necessary, remove because when there are either better alternative (hence replacement) or when refuted.

Tests? Observations? Data does not mean that unless the data is connected by the scientist to the observation but it is, of course, not proof. Take care.

 

[nPeace]

Hey @YoursTrue, I had trouble understanding what you were saying, until I inserted a comma.
Data does not mean that, [comma inserted] unless the data is connected by the scientist to the observation, [comma inserted] but it is, of course, not proof
Hope others are not as slow as I am.
Mind you, they are going to jump on you, and tell you science does not deal with proof.

 

[nPeace]

Wow. What you are telling the world here is that you have no idea whatsoever about the theory of evolution but you're going to try to argue against it anyway, from a position of total ignorance of it.

Evolution is not a random process like dropping buckets of paint.

This is so basic it really is difficult to fathom how anybody who has ever been exposed, even in the most casual way, to the theory could possibly misunderstand to this extent, let alone somebody who has been posting on forums for ages with people who do understand it.

They also said Fred Hoyle didn't understand the science.

The chance that higher life forms might have emerged in this way is comparable to the chance that a tornado sweeping through a junkyard might assemble a Boeing 747 from the materials therein - Fred Hoyle

So, I guess that will continue to be said of anyone who does not swallow the mainstream scientism worldview, you guys hold to.

 

[ratiocinator]

They also said Fred Hoyle didn't understand the science.

Junkyard tornado - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Hoyle's fallacy contradicts many well-established and widely tested principles in the field of evolutionary biology. As the fallacy argues, the odds of the sudden construction of higher lifeforms are indeed improbable. However, what the junkyard tornado postulation fails to take into account is the vast amount of support that evolution proceeds in many smaller stages, each driven by natural selection[6] rather than by random chance, over a long period of time. The Boeing 747 was not designed in a single unlikely burst of creativity, just as modern lifeforms were not constructed in one single unlikely event, as the junkyard tornado scenario suggests.​

It's easy for you to check this for yourself, all you have to do is consult a reputable source that explains the theory of evolution to see if the comparison is remotely relevant.

Why don't you do just that?

 

[nPeace]

Junkyard tornado - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Hoyle's fallacy contradicts many well-established and widely tested principles in the field of evolutionary biology. As the fallacy argues, the odds of the sudden construction of higher lifeforms are indeed improbable. However, what the junkyard tornado postulation fails to take into account is the vast amount of support that evolution proceeds in many smaller stages, each driven by natural selection[6] rather than by random chance, over a long period of time. The Boeing 747 was not designed in a single unlikely burst of creativity, just as modern lifeforms were not constructed in one single unlikely event, as the junkyard tornado scenario suggests.​

It's easy for you to check this for yourself, all you have to do is consult a reputable source that explains the theory of evolution to see if the comparison is remotely relevant.

Why don't you do just that?

You think people who disagree with you, haven't checked anything? I think that is an insult to the intelligence of thousands of scientists, who don't swallow the scientism worldview.

 

[nPeace]

Junkyard tornado - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Hoyle's fallacy contradicts many well-established and widely tested principles in the field of evolutionary biology. As the fallacy argues, the odds of the sudden construction of higher lifeforms are indeed improbable. However, what the junkyard tornado postulation fails to take into account is the vast amount of support that evolution proceeds in many smaller stages, each driven by natural selection[6] rather than by random chance, over a long period of time. The Boeing 747 was not designed in a single unlikely burst of creativity, just as modern lifeforms were not constructed in one single unlikely event, as the junkyard tornado scenario suggests.​

It's easy for you to check this for yourself, all you have to do is consult a reputable source that explains the theory of evolution to see if the comparison is remotely relevant.

Why don't you do just that?

The thinking alone tells us that your worldview is flawed, because you create strawman, to deny what people are actually saying.
Hoyle wasn't suggesting that the assembling happened in one day, yet people will suggest this, in order to distract from the application. Strawman away the useful argument to avoid addressing it.

 

[ratiocinator]

The thinking alone tells us that your worldview is flawed, because you create strawman, to deny what people are actually saying.
Hoyle wasn't suggesting that the assembling happened in one day, yet people will suggest this, in order to distract from the application. Strawman away the useful argument to avoid addressing it.

It's not about the duration it's about it all happening in a single improbable step. Evolution precedes in small steps, that each build on what has gone before, and are filtered by natural selection, which means that they aren't random.

As I said, all you have to do is look at a reputable introduction to the subject to see why the analogy is staggeringly inappropriate. It's almost as if you are afraid to do so....

 

[Audie]

You think people who disagree with you, haven't checked anything? I think that is an insult to the intelligence of thousands of scientists, who don't swallow the scientism worldview.

You sure haent.
It's true of course that some scientists mostly working in unrelated fields, who choose for religious reasons to
reject evolution,

No e ( zero ) have contrary data.

There is Dr. K Wise PhD paleontology, who is representative of those few skilled in the art but
unable to accept it.

"....even if all the evidence in the universe turned against st
Yec, I would still be yec, as that is what the Bible seems to
indicate."
IOW, tye very definition of intellectual dishonesty.

It is the same fir all the deniers. No data,,no evidence but
they insist its false .

It is impossible to be informed and intellectually honest
while claiming ToE is false.
True for you, me, and the man behund the tree.

 

[nPeace]

It's not about the duration it's about it all happening in a single improbable step. Evolution precedes in small steps, that each build on what has gone before, and are filtered by natural selection, which means that they aren't random.

Show me the word RANDOM in anything Hoyle or I said.

As I said, all you have to do is look at a reputable introduction to the subject to see why the analogy is staggeringly inappropriate. It's almost as if you are afraid to do so....

All I said, it's a strawman to distract from the argument, with the claim that PEOPLE DON'T KNOW WHAT THEY ARE TALKING ABOUT, because you try to TWIST THE ANALOGY TO DETACH IT from your beliefs.

Show me where Hoyle's analogy does not fit.

 

[nPeace]

You sure haent.

Did someone ever tell you, you are sitting on eggs?
If they did, I hope you asked them what experiment they could produce that demonstrates that.

What experiment did you produce that demonstrates your bold assertion... besides reaching down in your brain and pulling out the first thought? That's not an experiment. It's as easy saying "Boo".

It's true of course that some scientists mostly working in unrelated fields, who choose for religious reasons to
reject evolution,

It's true these scientists are accused of such because they go against mainstream philosophical claims in science.

No e ( zero ) have contrary data.

There is Dr. K Wise PhD paleontology, who is representative of those few skilled in the art but
unable to accept it.

"....even if all the evidence in the universe turned against st
Yec, I would still be yec, as that is what the Bible seems to
indicate."
IOW, tye very definition of intellectual dishonesty.

It is the same fir all the deniers. No data,,no evidence but
they insist its false .

It is impossible to be informed and intellectually honest
while claiming ToE is false.
True for you, me, and the man behund the tree.

You don't want me to pull out names and reasons.
You'd call it Gish Gallop.

 

[gnostic]

They also said Fred Hoyle didn't understand the science.


The chance that higher life forms might have emerged in this way is comparable to the chance that a tornado sweeping through a junkyard might assemble a Boeing 747 from the materials therein - Fred Hoyle

So, I guess that will continue to be said of anyone who does not swallow the mainstream scientism worldview, you guys hold to.

Hoyle was first and foremost - an astronomer and though he has dabbled in theoretical cosmology, like in the Steady State models, they were bust - refuted twice. His only serious contribution to astrophysics was his works on Stellar Nucleosynthesis.

But in biology, he was utter idiot. He wasn’t qualified, nor was he ever experienced biologist, so anything has to say, I would not put much credence to his claims.

That quote you had posted up, is just one of his many blunders with regards to ignorant claims about Evolution.

Your problem is that has taken Hoyle’s analogy seriously, just show that you, are you are not so well-cognitive.

An analogy, are statements that compare two different things or events that are only completely unrelated, but shared only VERY SHALLOWEST OF SIMILARITY.

Analogy were never meant to be taken literally, since the comparisons are often unrelated to each other.

Evolution is biology of biodiversity!!!

AND biology is science of living organisms.​

A Boeing 747 isn’t a biological entity or living organism, and it cannot reproduce baby Boeing.

That should be the lightning or clue to you, that what Hoyle saying about saying a tornado creating Boeing 747 from parts found in junkyar, is just nonsensical comparison.

seriously, just how naive are you that you can jump on us with accusations of scientism while you use the dumbest ever analogy as if it were factual?

you are either naive or you are just intell dishonest.

 

[ratiocinator]

Show me the word RANDOM in anything Hoyle or I said.

Both Hoyle's analogy and yours describe essentially random processes. The implication being that complex life is some hugely improbable outcome from something that just randomly rearranges a junk, in Hoyle's, or drops of paint dumped out of a plane in yours.

Show me where Hoyle's analogy does not fit.

Still too frightened to go and learn something for yourself? It doesn't fit because natural selection picks out variations that are useful and throws away those that are not. There is no such process in either analogy.

 

[gnostic]

Tests? Observations? Data does not mean that unless the data is connected by the scientist to the observation but it is, of course, not proof.

again with the “proof”.



you are hopeless and utterly clueless.

you obviously don’t understand that proof matters little in science.

sciences require observations of evidence or observations of experiments.

and data come from the evidence and from experiments, YoursTrue.

what do you think of the physical properties of evidence are, YoursTrue?

the properties are often measurements taken from the evidence

observation means data or “information obtained from the evidence”.

if you don’t understand that, we know that you were never good in science.

you are hopeless, because you refuses to see that you’re wrong, and when you are stubbornly refused to recognise you’re in errors, you cannot from them.

 

[nPeace]

Hoyle was first and foremost - an astronomer and though he has dabbled in theoretical cosmology, like in the Steady State models, they were bust - refuted twice. His only serious contribution to astrophysics was his works on Stellar Nucleosynthesis.

But in biology, he was utter idiot. He wasn’t qualified, nor was he ever experienced biologist, so anything has to say, I would not put much credence to his claims.

That quote you had posted up, is just one of his many blunders with regards to ignorant claims about Evolution.

Your problem is that has taken Hoyle’s analogy seriously, just show that you, are you are not so well-cognitive.

An analogy, are statements that compare two different things or events that are only completely unrelated, but shared only VERY SHALLOWEST OF SIMILARITY.

Analogy were never meant to be taken literally, since the comparisons are often unrelated to each other.

Evolution is biology of biodiversity!!!

AND biology is science of living organisms.​

A Boeing 747 isn’t a biological entity or living organism, and it cannot reproduce baby Boeing.

That should be the lightning or clue to you, that what Hoyle saying about saying a tornado creating Boeing 747 from parts found in junkyar, is just nonsensical comparison.

seriously, just how naive are you that you can jump on us with accusations of scientism while you use the dumbest ever analogy as if it were factual?

you are either naive or you are just intell dishonest.

I'm not going to say it, although my human nature wants to tell you that you are either too gullible or just plain ignorant that you cannot see the point.
Perhaps go read what Hoyle said overall, and maybe... just maybe, you will understand why his analogy fits.
As for @ratiocinator...

Both Hoyle's analogy and yours describe essentially random processes. The implication being that complex life is some hugely improbable outcome from something that just randomly rearranges a junk, in Hoyle's, or drops of paint dumped out of a plane in yours.


Still too frightened to go and learn something for yourself? It doesn't fit because natural selection picks out variations that are useful and throws away those that are not. There is no such process in either analogy.

You still cannot show how both analogies don't fit, because the strawman is in your vision.

Natural selection is... the simple result of variation, differential reproduction, and heredity — it is mindless and mechanistic. It has no goals; it’s not striving to produce “progress” or a balanced ecosystem.
In other words. It does nothing. It's a process.

The conditions which are random, by the way, are what make natural selection.
Hence both analogies are fitting.

What you did, is put natural selection somewhere in the analogies, to create a strawman for the atheists favorite line - 'natural selection is not random'. As if that changes anything.
The conditions are random.

The places in the analogies where natural selection is present, is where the paint drops, and where the airplane parts fall.
That all depends os the RANDOM conditions.
It seems you are the one needing to go learn something.