Toward an Intelligent Design Science

[James Putnam]

Share with me some physical evidence you think exists, i'm extremely curious.

 

Hello orbsycli,

 

I have an order that I wish to follow. First, I want to hear from anyone who will defend mechanical physics theory or mechanical materialism in general. If someone wants to argue that life and intelligence evolved from mechanical properties, I would like to dispose of those arguments first. Also, there is the problem that I need a placement for this thread that will put an end to messages that ask why isn't this subject somewhere else?

 

James

[Queso]

I'm just going to be blunt and say that this guy is just trying too hard to prove everything wrong, maybe so that he can be the one remember for finding all the flaws and defining a new generation of existance.

I would still like to see some of this evidence he's talkin about here.

[Queso]

wait wait wait, you just want to hear our points, so you can base yours off of ours.

This is like, "No you go first, I'm not ready." Just in a linguistic manner.

hello james.

[Buffy]

I need to know whether or not the operation of the universe can be discussed here from a unified point of view. If the operation of the universe must be diced up into different forums here, that is what I need to know. I do not wish to cut into pieces that which operates as a unit. Unity is the goal. Separation is an obstacle to this goal.

For someone who spends so much time denigrating Einstein, it would sure sound like you back up the pursuit of his Grand Unification Theory, even though its theoretical physics, can't be proved and is therefore irrelevant.

 

It sounds like your goal is "Unity" as defined as everything being "caused" by one "unified" "entity" (careful here not to us the "G" or "C" word). But by saying "I do not wish to cut into pieces that which operates as a unit" you are saying that "the universe operates as a unit" is a *GiVEN* not a hypothesis which could be subject to a requirement of proof. That's a great way to set up the argument that people who don't agree that its a given are "dogmatic" and "assume they have the high ground." If you are unwilling to accept that large numbers of people--not just scientists, physisicts or those horrible evil mecanical materialists--do not view "unity" as a given,it really doesn't matter how many forums you post on, you're not doing science, and you're really refusing to "discuss" anything in the conventional sense. You're just repeating one of my friend's favorite lines: "Everyone is free to have my opinion."

 

Cheers,

Buffy

[Tormod]

Thormod,

 

I am greatly hampered in making replies when the edit button is missing. I will stop posting again for a while and return the the test forum. I need to know why the edit button is sometimes missing or what I can do in the absence of it.

 

James

 

You don't use the edit button to quote. You use the "Quote" button.

[Tormod]

I need to know whether or not the operation of the universe can be discussed here from a unified point of view.

 

Choose any point of view you want. Just don't expect others to accept it.

[Tormod]

I have an order that I wish to follow. First, I want to hear from anyone who will defend mechanical physics theory or mechanical materialism in general. If someone wants to argue that life and intelligence evolved from mechanical properties, I would like to dispose of those arguments first.

 

Lol. You've been trying to make us defend it, yes, even though none of us cares to do so because none of us care about the mechanical materialism you are so hell-bent at destroying. You're kicking a lump of rock and we are all standing around wondering "why bother".

 

Also, there is the problem that I need a placement for this thread that will put an end to messages that ask why isn't this subject somewhere else?

 

End to which messages? I just asked you once why you posted it here - which is not an uncommon question. Sanctus - the moderator of this particular forum - thanked you for posting it here.

 

So get to your point.

[Queso]

So get to your point.

 

Amen! :)

[sanctus]

I guess you want to describe with "mechanical materialism" the philosophy which states that there is no active god (at least after the Big Bang) and everything derived through mecanical interaction between matter.

If I should defend that or not, as you asked for so long I'll do it, but when you will answer promise me before saying why you don't like my arguments proof all the things you have been saying!

 

Mecanical materialism as I understand it, is not the truth (nothing not even you intelligent design can ever be the truth, it can only come close to it), but it's an approximation of it. If it helped to describe why the universe has evolved as it has since the Big Bang, why should I take another theory (intelligent design) which at the most comes to the same conclusion AND MAKING THE SAME HYPOTHESIS:

you say theoretical physics is wrong, because already newton's law (the first) consist of two unkown variables out of three and therefore we just guessed the mass is what opposes itself to force to solve the problem (I'll come back to it further on); what do you do in your intelligent design theory? Exactly the same you put there an intelligent being (god?) that designed the universe, you guessed it and then you find that it works with your observations, exactly the same as theoretical physics.

 

Your example about no knowing what causes mass is wrong as well, you know the most famous formule of the world E=mc^2, it means that mass is (IS not equals) energy. The cause of existing energy is known, when the Big Bang happend there was matter and anti-mater that collided which created the energy (the surplus of matter, due to symetry fracture, is our material universe). Now you may say I don't know the cause of the Big Bang, well you are right,BUT it is still an unkown cause LESS than in your theory, you don't know why the Big Bang was there and you don't know who/what the intelligent designer is and why he/she/it is.

[James Putnam]

You don't use the edit button to quote. You use the "Quote" button.

 

Using the quote button causes the earlier quotes to disappear.

 

James

[Tormod]

Using the quote button causes the earlier quotes to disappear.

 

James

 

Yes. Nested quotes are not included. This is simply because the database would fill up too fast. We can assume that people can read back to previous posts if the need to catch up.

[James Putnam]

I'm just going to be blunt and say that this guy is just trying too hard to prove everything wrong, maybe so that he can be the one remember for finding all the flaws and defining a new generation of existance.

I would still like to see some of this evidence he's talkin about here.

 

Hi Guy,

 

Take a stand and defend it.

 

James

[James Putnam]

wait wait wait, you just want to hear our points, so you can base yours off of ours.

This is like, "No you go first, I'm not ready." Just in a linguistic manner.

hello james.

 

Nonsense. That is methdology prevalent here. You don't get to participate with me for free. Pay the price. State what you believe and defend it.

 

I have looked back at the posts and think that this one is the one that is offensive. Orbsycli I apologize. I should not have said nonsense. That showed frustration on my part. I intended to first disprove the materialist arguments upon which physics theory and evolution appear to be based. I thought that a challenge to intelligent design implied that the challengers believed in mechanical materialism. When I was challenged I expected to hear arguments in strong support of both theoretical physics and Darwinian evolution. Instead I was repeatedly asked to prove my own views first.

 

It is my opinion that this cannot be done, with the exception of my physics theory, without first demonstrating the unscientific fallacy of mechanical materialism. The physics theory stands alone. It is only an incidental part of this thread. I believed that if I said mechanical physics theory does not describe the real properties of this universe because of its lack of relevance to life and intelligence, I would be ignored. Physics theory is highly respected as the foundational science. My saying it is wrong would and should mean nothing to others.

 

However, the problem is greater than this. It is not just that physics is inadequate to explain life and intelligence. Orthodox physics theory is wrong right from the start. I decided that in order for me to have the standing to say that orthodox physics theory does not describe the real properties of the universe, I should begin by correcting physics theory. That is what I think I have done. I cannot prove that to others here in this forum. It took a sizable website to present the work involved in this task. If I must prove my theory before being able to discuss the demise of mechanical materialism, then I do not think that is possible here.

 

I want to discuss the fallacy of mechanical materialism and the validity of intelligent design. However, I face another problem analogous to the physics example given above. If I must prove that intelligent design is correct, without first disproving mechanical materialism, it would be a very large challenge. Intelligent design cannot be viewed through the facade of mechanical materialism. I feel the facade has to be removed first.

 

I cannot argue in defense of intelligent design if others believe in the reality of the facade. I could say that in my opinion the universe is not mechanical in nature and was not right from its beginning. However, if others believe firmly that it is mechanical, I do not think it would matter what I say. So, if there is no interest here in arguing in defense of mechanical materialism, then maybe this thread has no real purpose.

 

James

[C1ay]

I do not know what you believe about the operation of the universe. However, if you are defending mechanical materialism, than you are using leaps of faith in arriving at your conclusion. Explain something.

 

People quit using mechnical materialism to explain things as soon as Einstein's Theory of Relativity was born.

 

IMO, it is a close-minded view to just declare that which is supported by empirical evidence and scientific method as all wrong unless you have some divine insight and you can PROVE it is all wrong. It is an open-minded view that accepts the possibility that there are many theories we do not yet have the knowlege to understand. The first view says there is nothing left to learn and the other says we will never know everything, we will learn forever. I prefer the later. Is that the explanantion you were looking for?

[Tormod]

Nonsense. That is methdology prevalent here. You don't get to participate with me for free. Pay the price. State what you believe and defend it.

 

Hm. I am starting to wonder who you think you are, James. Why do different rules apply to you than to everyone else here?

[James Putnam]

welcome James and thanks for reviving the philosophy of science forum! :)

 

Just to "destroy your argument" about science claiming to be truth. We agree that Einstein was one of the greatest scientists. Do you know aht he said when he presented his special realativity? He said "here is a better approximation of reality than with Newton's laws". No scientists claim that science is truth, it's only an approximation of reality.

 

There is always the escape route that nothing can be known absolutely. if you believe the universe evolved by mechanical means that is fine. However, for anyone who wants to argue that time dilation has been proven, that is their claim to owning the truth. It is not a truth.

 

James

 

About time: time is defined by a mecanical process (1sec = 9 192 631 770 periods of the radiation between the hyperfine levels of the fondamental state of 133Cs), so any mechanical clock that mesures time can detrmine time, as something mecanical can mesure something mecanical.

 

It appears to me that you are taking a stand. Maybe you even believe your statement is true. I can't be sure. there is always that escape route. However, your definition is that of a clock and not of time. You are describing a means for measuring relative periods of time. Your measurement is made within time, but not on time. In other words, you hold the clock, you do not hold time.

 

James

 

 

Tell me, why would science need the first cause of all? If the hypothesis are enough to approximate very well reality, where is the need of cause? I agree, you can't claim the hypothesis are truth, but that's why it's hypothesis! Reading your first post I thought I see your problem, but now I don't anymore.

 

The universe is orderly and has always been so. It communicates with us and we comprehend its meaning whether the information was generated a moment ago or billions of years ago. This property of the universe requires unity. My argument for intelligence as the first cause results in part from the fact that insofar as human logic is concerned intelligence is uncaused. There are those who would argue that it is caused by other properties of the universe. I would appreciate hearing how that occurs. They do not get to claim proof by association. Some would define the nature of the universe as being mechanical. We all observe that life evolved and began to exhibit intelligence. Does this prove that mechanical properties gave rise to life and intelligence. Of course not. there is no explanation of direct causation. If it proves anything, it proves that the mechanical interpretation, represented by theoretical physics, must be false. Mechanical theory leads to no probability functions for either life or intelligence. It does not explain nor predict the properties of life and intelligence. According to the mechanics, the probability of life and intelligence occuring is zero. We know it is not zero. It may even be a certainty. if we wish to analyze the true nature of this universe that gave birth to life and intelligence, we must look look for fundamental properties for life and intelligence that have been a part of the universe since its beginning.

 

i do not presume that you agree with this. However, I do wish to thank you for taking positions that help us get to the point.

 

James,

[IrishEyes]

Since Tormod is WAY too polite, and you don't take obvious hints, I'm going to tell you, James, that you are treading on VERY thin ice.

 

You have opinions. You have views on things. That's great, and we are all here to learn from each other, and are always glad to hear new ideas. However, you have been disrespectful to not only the Moderator of this forum, but also the Editor/Owner. I'm not nearly as nice as he is, and if you continue to disrespect him, I will ban you.

 

Discussion is fine, and even encouraged. However, if someone (especially a Mod or Editor) asks you to explain things, or tells you that your ideas are not proven, you need to accept that. Your arrogance will only earn you a bad reputation around here, not the respect for which you seem to crave.