Evolution VS. Creationism

[island]

Originally posted by: Tormod

Originally posted by: island

 

I should have also pointed out that real scientist/physicists do not dispute the plausibility of any of my proposition, only fanatics do, as this is proven by way of the many conversations that I've had with them concerning the subject, which are linked throughout my website for anyone that's REALLY interested in anything more than their own personal ego. A rare breed, indeed!

 

 

 

 

Tormod wrote:

I just posted in another thread that the moment a scientist stops using the scientific method, he ceases to be a scientist. Using the scientfic method implies fallacy. There is no such thing as a non-disputable theory.

 

 

 

You're right, but you're missing the point that I'm only claiming plausibility as backed by existing theory and observation, which is not the same as claiming that the theory is not falsifiable... like SR isn't falsifiable...

 

... but you would have to leap to a higher level of complexity in order to do that, so you'd better well be able to justify making your leap or you're just blowing smoke while violating the continuity of the basic premise, is all.

 

I agree that the scientific method should not be violated... especially when it relates to the overwhelming entropic constant of nature, because this necessarily means that the coin cannot be fair.

 

I'm happy to discuss whatever, but I don't tolerate willful ignorance to real scientific plausibility, any more than extremist evolutionists tolerate it from fanatical creationists.

 

THERE IS A REAL COMPARISON to the two when it comes to plausible science, and mine is more than just a little bit supported by many years of hard work doing real physics, and not just from reading "elegant" popularized accounts of M-theories that Don'tGetTheJobDone... so we'll cry uncle.

 

 

 

 

One more shot like this and you're gone. Wouldn't it be REALLY STUPID to be banned from a popular science forum because of breaking the forum rules instead of having your theories discussed?

 

It ain't the same if they can't keep up, and yet, still refuse to accept that as FT did concerning Einstein's closed, finite, static,

 

The new physics that I've introduced plausibly proves that somebody dropped the ball when they leaped from the scientific method to conclude that an expanding universe will necessarily run-away. They violated the scientific method when they failed to consider that rarefaction of Einstein's vacuum energy will accomplsh two things:

 

1) It will condense enough of Einstein's vacuum energy over an isolted region of space to achieve positive gravitaional curvature and mass-density.

 

2) This will necessarily increase the "SUCK" of the vacuum by way of rarefaction.

 

Which means that a vacuum without container walls will expand naturally as a result, and THAT is revolutionary if it plays out over the full spectrum of it's ramifications. The fact that the process is the same one that governs human evolution isn't coincidental. and only lends support to an already very strong argument.

 

All of this is clearly illustrated if you apply the physics to Einstein's Cosmolgical Constant, as depicted by Professor Wright's Website, and you would have to be very ignorant of the actual physics not to see the significance of the implications.

 

I still insist that I was insulted with a barrage of less acceptable behavior than my one crack... so... ban me if you refuse to see the difference between rational criticism and typically willfully ignorant bullshit. I do not need this place to justify scientific plausibility, which I already know is for real.

 

But note that this would be different if that simple fact were not being denied in the face of a LOT of evidence to the contrary.

 

<

[Uncle Martin]

Island,

Why are you promoting your "theory of everything" in our evolution category? This seems more appropriate for our physics and mathematics category. I have scanned your website, and will read in depth when I have the time,.... but for now I would hope that some of our members with more knowledge than I on this subject will offer their take on your assertions. TeleMad, Bo, and others, your experience is needed on this one.

 

I for one would like to give your proposals a fair chance, but I must warn you that your cocky attitude may get you banned by any one of 4 moderators before we get to that point.

[Uncle Martin]

Originally posted by: wisdumn

" if creation"or (invention) did not happen, then would someone PLEASE explain to me how we are able to be inspired in any kind of way?"  / here i am not implying there is a creator, i'm asking IF there is not a creator, then to explain how we are inspired.

I will try to help you here wiz,.... please try to follow. In order for you to understand what we do here you must first realize that you have most likely been VERY mislead in much of your previous teachings. I know that this is not easy to read, nobody wants to learn that they have been believing falsehoods, but the fact that you are asking tells me that there may be hope yet for you.

 

How are we inspired? INSPIRE; to move a person to a particular idea. You inspired me to reply to this post. I have been inspired to paint a picture of a mountain because (I) thought it was so beautiful that I wished to have it on my wall. There is nothing magical about any of this.

  ---- then i ask----

"how do we come equipped with this knowledge and these abilities WITHOUT there being a bigger and intelligent source to give them to us?" 

We come equipped with this ability, that is all we need to know. We are born with a brain that has the ability to inspire others and be inspired, your brain is the intelligent source you seek, (well, sort of,...you know,),... why is a supernatural agent necessary to make sense of this?

  / again we see that in this question that i am in no way asking anyone to assume there is a creator, i'm asking to be shown how these things happen without a creator.

You are seeing them happen without a creator everytime you see them!!!! What teachings have you so convinced that the creator is responsible for inspiration?

explain how there is NOT a creator, you do not need to assume there is one because i already believe there is and you(the opposing argument) believe there is not so i don't ask or need you to assume there is a creator, you already don't assume that.

OK, tell me why you assume there is a creator. Why should believe be any different than assume? If you think it is acceptable for us to assume there is none please tell us why you assume there is. We have explained why there is no need to take the facts that we have and from that extrapolate a creator that accomplishes nothing more than the facts by themselves without a creator. Do you understand? You are adding unnecessary agents to the equation. In my opinion you are on the very brink of being forever lost to the brainwashing you have received, but PLEASE try to see beyond what you think you know. You may be surprised at what reality has in store for you.

[island]

Originally posted by: Uncle Martin

Island,

 

Why are you promoting your "theory of everything" in our evolution category? This seems more appropriate for our physics and mathematics category. I have scanned your website, and will read in depth when I have the time,.... but for now I would hope that some of our members with more knowledge than I on this subject will offer their take on your assertions. TeleMad, Bo, and others, your experience is needed on this one.

 

 

 

I for one would like to give your proposals a fair chance, but I must warn you that your cocky attitude may get you banned by any one of 4 moderators before we get to that point.

 

 

I appeciate that, but I'm not promoting anything. I used my theory to answer the question, for which I was highly insulted by someone that knows SOME physics, which is a heck of a lot worse than someone like poor wisdumn, who you will notice, I do not have this problem with. I REALLY hope that TeleMad, Bo, and "others" are physicists, because I'll be banished in a heartbeat if they come in here and read the last two replies before concluding that they know what's going on.

 

A real scientist, (who doesn't have to be a professional scientist), would never do this and that is one of the things that REALLY irked me about FT, because he made a bunch of erroneous statements in context, which were covered in the information that he failed to seriously review, like everyone else here has failed to do.

 

I can easily answer wisdumn's latest question too, in a manner that would make a lot of sense to an unbiased crowd, but I have a feeling that I'd be wasting my time at this point.

 

You guys do a lot of talking about critical thinking but other than your one small "fair chance" concession, all I see is violations of this code when it comes to this subject and that is CLASSIC behavior of a fanatic , (even if it didn't pertain to FT). It should be noted that "fair chances" aren't needed, nor are they any part of something that stands alone for its own merrit, and that's not "cockey" is simply a fact of the game of physics.

 

 

 

 

AND BY CLASSICAL... I mean the TYPICAL argument that gets presented by Chaosionists, which has nothing to do with classical physics... LOL!

[island]

Originally posted by: wisdumn

Originally posted by: wisdumn

this is a question for anyone willing to give me some logical,reasonable, or scientific proof. if creation(or invention ) did not happen, then would someone please explain to me how we are able to be inspired in any kind of way. how can we come up with music,fashion,religion,theology,science,humor,belief,disbelief,intelligence,stupidity,or any of the many attributes that are found in humans, i mean how do we come equipped with this knowledge and these abilities without there being a bigger and intelligent source to give them to us? this is a question so feel free to give me some proofs as to how these things are possible.

 

" if creation"or (invention) did not happen, then would someone PLEASE explain to me how we are able to be inspired in any kind of way?"  / here i am not implying there is a creator, i'm asking IF there is not a creator, then to explain how we are inspired.  ---- then i ask----

"how do we come equipped with this knowledge and these abilities WITHOUT there being a bigger and intelligent source to give them to us?"   / again we see that in this question that i am in no way asking anyone to assume there is a creator, i'm asking to be shown how these things happen without a creator. c'mon guys, is this really that difficult of a question to answer? you've spent more time explaining to me that my questioning is wrong, it's so simple a 5 yr. old, no wait, a 4 yr. old could understand it.  explain how there is NOT a creator, you do not need to assume there is one because i already believe there is and you(the opposing argument) believe there is not so i don't ask or need you to assume there is a creator, you already don't assume that.

 

 

I've decided that it wouldn't be fair of me to take this out on wisdumn, so wisdumn... when you "SEEK" out religion, you do so in order to fulfill some perceived need.

 

This is an effort toward "Spiritual" harmony or equilbrium...

 

Survival, in general, is motivated by the satisfaction of these same types of perceived needs...

 

All action is about the effort to satisfy an imbalance, and this can be applied to EVERY case.... so ask yourself what predominant or grand-scale imbalance exists that would GENERALLY motivate or "inspire" people TOWARD the reconciliation of imbalances?

 

 

 

 

It requires willful ignorance in order to deny the emprical representation of this physical logic in our entropically imbalanced universe.

[wisdumn]

Originally posted by: Uncle Martin

Originally posted by: wisdumn " if creation"or (invention) did not happen, then would someone PLEASE explain to me how we are able to be inspired in any kind of way?" / here i am not implying there is a creator, i'm asking IF there is not a creator, then to explain how we are inspired.

I will try to help you here wiz,.... please try to follow. In order for you to understand what we do here you must first realize that you have most likely been VERY mislead in much of your previous teachings. I know that this is not easy to read, nobody wants to learn that they have been believing falsehoods, but the fact that you are asking tells me that there may be hope yet for you. How are we inspired? INSPIRE; to move a person to a particular idea. You inspired me to reply to this post. I have been inspired to paint a picture of a mountain because (I) thought it was so beautiful that I wished to have it on my wall. There is nothing magical about any of this.

---- then i ask---- "how do we come equipped with this knowledge and these abilities WITHOUT there being a bigger and intelligent source to give them to us?"

?

/ again we see that in this question that i am in no way asking anyone to assume there is a creator, i'm asking to be shown how these things happen without a creator.

You are seeing them happen without a creator everytime you see them!!!! What teachings have you so convinced that the creator is responsible for inspiration?

explain how there is NOT a creator, you do not need to assume there isone because i already believe there is and you(the opposing argument) believe there is not so i don't ask or need you to assume there is a creator, you already don't assume that.

OK, tell me why you assume there is a creator. Why should believe be any different than assume? If you think it is acceptable for us to assume there is none please tell us why you assume there is. . In my opinion you are on the very brink of being forever lost to the brainwashing you have received, but PLEASE try to see beyond what you think you know. You may be surprised at what reality has in store for you.

 

 

unc.M, you're explaining creation here and don't even realize it, everything you talk about requires an outside agent such as: "INSPIRE- to move a person (outside agent-what moves the person)) ------ "you inspired me to reply to this post"((this statement makes me the outside agent that inspired you to reply to this post))-------" i have been inspired to paint a picture of a mountain because i thought it was so beautiful that i wished to have it on my wall"((here the mountain is the outside agent that inspires you to paint a picture of it, and to touch on evolution, the picture doesn't just appear by evolvingby itself from oils and a canvas, you unc. are the outside agent and(creator) of the painting))

 

We come equipped with this ability, that is all we need to know. We are born with a brain that has the ability to inspire others and be inspired, your brain is the intelligent source you seek, (well, sort of,...you know,),... why is a supernatural agent necessary to make sense of this

 

we come equipped that is all we need to know?((sorry but that sounds very close minded, that statement says "i don't know how i got here, i don't care how i got here, and i must have just made myself exist" ...why is a supernatural agent necessary to make sense of this?(( because the computers we have today as amazing as they are and as much information they can process and store/ did not get here by themselves, we the outside agent CREATED them))

 

We have explained why there is no need to take the facts that we have and from that extrapolate a creator that accomplishes nothing

[Freethinker]

Originally posted by: wisdumn

We come equipped with this ability, that is all we need to know. We are born with a brain that has the ability to inspire others and be inspired, your brain is the intelligent source you seek, (well, sort of,...you know,),... why is a supernatural agent necessary to make sense of this

Very good Wiz! You've come a long way. You have recognized that it requires a PHYSICAL EXISTENCE to have intellect. That it is a function of BEING BORN with specific parameters. And we know you would never suggest that a god is BORN and lives a PHYSICAL existence.

 

I also ask that same question of anyone that would claim that some "supernatural agent" is "necessary to make sense of" anything. We KNOW they can answer it factually!

 

Good job!

(( because the computers we have today as amazing as they are and as much information they can process and store/ did not get here by themselves, we the outside agent CREATED them))

 

And further that you recognize that we can identify the simplicity reflected in human "creation". That we do NOT "Create" anything. We merely organize the available natural complex elements into a simplified finished product. That "intellect" reflect SIMPLICITY, NOT complexity.

 

And thus that the COMPLEXITY of the universe can NOT be explained by intentional intellectual interference. This is specifcally why QM rejects the possibility of a god.

(( without a creator or outside agent, all you have is the facts by themselves. if you find a painting in an old basement, do you assume it just painted itself and placed itself there?,

No of course not, we recognize the simplified result of the more complicated natural materials forced into an organized simplicity by human intellect.

do you assume the basement you found it in just built itself? no, you know that someone or something else acted as an outside agent and made it happen.

Yep to reach the organized simplicity requires the contrictions of human intellect. Our intellectual need to simplify and organize. We recognize the HUMAN elements.

to me it's very simple logic to notice that if everything that is made by man required outside agents(man) to invent or (create) them, then everything man lives in and himself required an outside agent

Ah wait a minute. At what point did "man himself" become an "outside agent" to "man himself". That is an oxymoron.

something does not come from nothing

Thus no god could come from nothing. To pretend that we can just arbitrarily move "something does not come from nothing" back one hop and claim "therefore god", as you assert does not make sense! Very good!

[Freethinker]

Thought this might be relevant to this thread.

 

On 8/20/2004 at 11:40 AM Glenn Branch <[email protected]> wrote:

 

>Dear Friends of NCSE,

>

>More reading to occupy those hot summer days and beguile those warm summer

>nights:

>

>THE MORPHOLOGY OF STEVE

>

>Project Steve -- NCSE's exercise in poking fun at the lists of "scientists

>who doubt evolution" promulgated by antievolutionist groups -- is not a

>mere publicity stunt any longer. With the publication of "The Morphology

>of Steve" in the prestigious journal Annals of Improbable Research, it is

>now a genuine contribution to scientific knowledge. Revealed for the first

>time in this paper is the existence of such phenomena as:

>

>* the mid-continental Steve deficit

>* the Steve counterexample to Bergman's Rule

>* island dwarfism in Steves

>

>For details, see the paper (PDF) on-line at AIR's web site:

>http://www.improbable.com/airchives/paperair/volume10/v10i4/morph-steve-10-4.pdf

>

>If you're not familiar with Project Steve already, or if you want to relive

>the memories, visit the Project Steve section of NCSE's web site:

>http://www.ncseweb.org/article.asp?category=18

>

>And to celebrate the publication of "The Morphology of Steve," we are

>making available version 3.0 of our pioneering experimental Steveometry

>apparatus -- T-shirts, to you non-Steveometricians -- in the on-line NCSE

>store:

>http://www.ncseweb.org/store.asp?sectiontype=ncsestore&storecategorynumber=12&categoryname=T%2Dshirts

>

>MOONEY ON IDING ID

>

>In "IDing ID," his latest "Doubt and About" column for the Committee for

>the Scientific Investigation of Claims of the Paranormal, Chris Mooney

>argues that "even though ID may not be young earth creationism, and may not

>be 'creation science,' it nevertheless seems doomed to recapitulate that

>prior movement's errors and failures. That doesn't necessarily prove that

>ID is like traditional creationism in any detailed way. Rather, it simply

>just goes to show that both are forms of religiously inspired

>anti-evolutionism, and will automatically have a near-impossible row to hoe

>thanks to the firm place of evolutionary theory in modern biology."

>

>Read the whole article at:

>http://www.csicop.org/doubtandabout/id/

>

>CATCHING UP WITH RNCSE

>

>Thanks to the hard work of our summer worker Carrie Sager, we have recently

>caught up with posting selected articles from past issues of our critically

>acclaimed bimonthly journal, Reports of the National Center for Science

>Education, on our web site.

>

>To read such great articles as "Flood Geology in the Grand Canyon,"

>"Evolution: Still Deep in the Heart of Textbooks," and "The

>Astrobiological Perspective on Life's Origin," visit:

>http://www.ncseweb.org/newsletter.asp

>

>And if you like what you see, consider subscribing to Reports! For just

>$30, you'll get six issues of Reports mailed to your door. Upcoming

>articles include "'Intelligent Design' in the Bitterroot Valley," "The

>Antiquity of Man: Reviewing Hindu Creationism," and "The Coso Artifact:

>Mystery from the Depths of Time?" Subscribe on-line at:

><a target=_blank class=ftalternatingbarlinklarge href="http://www.ncseweb.org/membership.asp

">http://www.ncseweb.org/membership

[Tormod]

Originally posted by: Freethinker

>Eugenie C. Scott's Evolution vs. Creationism is now available:

>http://tinyurl.com/25tcf

 

This one should be required reading for this thread. A bit expensive though...

[island]

... making it necessary for me to point out that natural design is not the same thing as "intelligent" design, since natural design arises *within* nature from some higher physical need for it...

 

It should therefore also be noted that:

 

A) A teleological theory is not the same thing as the fanatical creationist's usage of teleological arguments.

 

B) The Anthropic Principle a hard data point in physics, (tautologous as it may be, in its incomplete, "circular" form), not to be confused with your most fanatical creationists "version" of the anthropic principle.

 

 

I reccomend that people get the hard physics for this from the horse's mouth:

 

"An Inerview with Paul Adrian Maurice Dirac"... One of the most respected physicists in history.

http://www.fdavidpeat.com/interviews/dirac.htm

 

"DP", David Peat, and "PB" and Paul Buckley are the interviewers and anyone that can understand the physics should see if they can tell how the physics that I've given which resolves the "precarious balance" in Einstein's Cosmological model also resolves the inconsistencies in Dirac's Cosmological Model, which also resolves Dirac's Large Numbers Hypothesis, (on my site), while defining the physics that defines actual physical mechanism for the *Entropic* Anthropic Principle, which removes any tautologous aspects as it becomes inversely supported by Evolutionary theory.

 

 

 

DP Could you summarize your thinking on the large numbers hypothesis?

 

The large numbers hypothesis concerns certain dimensionless numbers. An example of a dimensionless number provided by nature is the ratio of the mass of the proton to the mass of the electron. There is another dimensionless number which connects Planck's constant and the electronic charge. This number is about 137, quite independent of the units. When a dimensionless number like that turns up, a physicist thinks there must be some reason for it. Why should it be, well, 137, and not 256 or something quite different. At present one cannot set up a satisfactory reason for it, but still people believe that with future developments a reason will be found.

 

Now, there is another dimensionless number which is of importance. If you have an electron and a proton, the electric force between them is inversely proportional to the square of the distance; the gravitational force is also inversely proportional to the square of the distance; the ratio of those two forces does not depend on the distance. The ratio gives you a dimensionless number. That number is extremely large, about ten to the power thirty-nine. Of course it doesn't depend on what units you're using. It's a number provided by nature and we should expect that a theory will some day provide a reason for it.

 

How could you possibly expect to get an explanation for such a large number? Well, you might connect it with another large number - the age of the universe. The universe has an age, because one observes that the spiral nebulae, the most distant objects in the sky, are all receding from us with a velocity proportional to their distance, and that means that at a certain time in the past, they were all extremely close to one another. The universe started quite small or perhaps even as a mathematical point, and there was a big explosion, and these objects were shot out. The ones that were shot out fastest are the ones that have gone the farthest from us. That explains the relationship (Hubble's relationship) that the velocity of recession is proportional to the distance, and from the connection between the velocity of recession and the distance we get the age when the universe started off.

 

It's called the big bang hypothesis. There is a definite age when the big bang occurred. The most recent observations give it to be about eighteen billion years ago.

 

Now, you might use some atomic unit of time instead of years, years is quite a

[wisdumn]

FT, i didn't write that first part, unc.M did. i just couldn't make the quote function work right but i'm learning. i would never say aomething like "we come equipped with this ability, that is all we need to know" this is not all i need to know because that would make me close minded. read really close that particular post again(real close because of my mis-use of the quote function) and you will see the parts where i'm replying to unc.M

[wisdumn]

Originally posted by: island

Originally posted by: wisdumn

Originally posted by: wisdumn this is a question for anyone willing to give me some logical,reasonable, or scientific proof. if creation(or invention ) did not happen, then would someone please explain to me how we are able to be inspired in any kind of way. how can we come up with music,fashion,religion,theology,science,humor,belief,disbelief,intelligence,stupidity,or any of the many attributes that are found in humans, i mean how do we come equipped with this knowledge and these abilities without there being a bigger and intelligent source to give them to us? this is a question so feel free to give me some proofs as to how these things are possible.

" if creation"or (invention) did not happen, then would someone PLEASE explain to me how we are able to be inspired in any kind of way?" / here i am not implying there is a creator, i'm asking IF there is not a creator, then to explain how we are inspired. ---- then i ask---- "how do we come equipped with this knowledge and these abilities WITHOUT there being a bigger and intelligent source to give them to us?" / again we see that in this question that i am in no way asking anyone to assume there is a creator, i'm asking to be shown how these things happen without a creator. c'mon guys, is this really that difficult of a question to answer? you've spent more time explaining to me that my questioning is wrong, it's so simple a 5 yr. old, no wait, a 4 yr. old could understand it. explain how there is NOT a creator, you do not need to assume there isone because i already believe there is and you(the opposing argument) believe there is not so i don't ask or need you to assume there is a creator, you already don't assume that.

I've decided that it wouldn't be fair of me to take this out on wisdumn, so wisdumn... when you "SEEK" out religion, you do so in order to fulfill some perceived need. This is an effort toward "Spiritual" harmony or equilbrium... Survival, in general, is motivated by the satisfaction of these same types of perceived needs... All action is about the effort to satisfy an imbalance, and this can be applied to EVERY case.... so ask yourself what predominant or grand-scale imbalance exists that would GENERALLY motivate or "inspire" people TOWARD the reconciliation of imbalances? It requires willful ignorance in order to deny the emprical representation of this physical logic in our entropically imbalanced universe.

 

sorry island but you missed the point. i never mentioned religion or even God for that matter. i was talking JUST about there being an inventor(or creator) for the universe. i personally do believe in God but i am of no particular religion. make sure you read what is written and not what is assumed. you're more than welcome to rant(or go off) on me if you like, just don't be rude about it because discussions do not need a rude element, only arguments require that. -wisdumn

[Freethinker]

Originally posted by: island

... making it necessary for me to point out that natural design is not the same thing as "intelligent" design, since natural design arises *within* nature from some higher physical need for it...

Prove " higher physical need"

It should therefore also be noted that:

Ya, I didn't think you COULD!

A) A teleological theory is not the same thing as the fanatical creationist's usage of teleological arguments.

Yes it IS!

 

Teleological arguments are fallacies no matter who uses them.

[Freethinker]

Originally posted by: wisdumn

FT, i didn't write that first part, unc.M did. i just couldn't make the quote function work right but i'm learning.

My Bad, sorry

[Freethinker]

Originally posted by: wisdumn this is a question for anyone willing to give me some logical,reasonable, or scientific proof. if creation...here i am not implying there is a creator, i'm asking IF there is not a creator

Originally posted by: island

wisdumn... when you "SEEK" out religion, you do so in order to fulfill some perceived need.

Originally posted by: wisdumn

sorry island but you missed the point. i never mentioned religion or even God for that matter. i was talking JUST about there being an inventor(or creator)

I know you dont' WANT to see it that way, but your question has god and religion all over it.

 

How would you structure it in a way that would NOT direclty imply god/ religion?

this is a question for anyone willing to give me some logical,reasonable, or scientific proof. would someone please explain to me how we are able to be inspired in any kind of way. how can we come up with music,fashion,religion,theology,science,humor,belief,disbelief,intelligence,stupidity,or any of the many attributes that are found in humans, i mean how do we come equipped with this knowledge and these abilities. this is a question so feel free to give me some proofs as to how these things are possible.

Just drop the religious platitudes.

[island]

Originally posted by: wisdumn

 

 

sorry island but you missed the point. i never mentioned religion or even God for that matter.

 

 

wisdum had a brain fart:

please explain to me how we are able to be inspired in any kind of way. how can we come up with music,fashion,religion...

 

quote me:

"When you "SEEK" out religion, you do so in order to fulfill some perceived need. This is an effort toward "Spiritual" harmony or equilbrium... Survival, in general, is motivated by the satisfaction of these same types of perceived needs... All action is about the effort to satisfy an imbalance, and this can be applied to EVERY case [that you mentioned].... so ask yourself what predominant or grand-scale imbalance exists that would GENERALLY motivate or "inspire" people TOWARD the reconciliation of imbalances? It requires willful ignorance in order to deny the emprical representation of this physical logic in our entropically imbalanced universe."

 

Try again, except read EVERYTHING you wrote first, and then try to maintain a little more continuity in your thinking... ;-)

[island]

Originally posted by: Freethinker

Originally posted by: island

 

... making it necessary for me to point out that natural design is not the same thing as "intelligent" design, since natural design arises *within* nature from some higher physical need for it...

 

Prove " higher physical need"

 

It should therefore also be noted that:

 

Ya, I didn't think you COULD!

 

[note: I'm cutting this poster off at the first false statement now, for the sake of my own sanity]

 

I won't bother to repeat the exact physics again, but...

 

The Second Law of Thermodynamics on a universal scale defines the mechanism for the need which is proven by the magnitude of its satisfaction in identical fashion to the manner in which Darwin used the same type of macroscopic evidence to prove evolution, which also represents the same type of logically deduced proof that is used to support the accepted scientific theory of abiogenesis. You're using the same kind of argument that creationists typically use to, uh, "disprove" evolutionary theory, so you must agree that creationists have a point.

 

The fact that every object in the universe, living, or otherwise obeys the second law proves that it is both, fundamental and is NECECESSARILY over-riding in an expanding univese. It also mean that there is no free-will, nor choice, concerning this matter, and so philosophy that is based on this will necessarily be as empirically defined as whatever analogous interpretation is accurate.

 

The self-proven fact that the human system represents a COMPARITIVELY highly efficient means for entropic efficiency proves that humans represent a preferred means for satisfying the Second Law of Thermodynamic on a grand scale.

 

The fact that humans, like SuperNovae and Black Holes, can isolate the release of enough energy to create real particles from the energy of the vacuum, proves that the human system ranks right up there with those afore mentioned systems in terms of high energy entropic efficiency, and this process directly effects the symmetry of the universe, as proven by a real, hard, mainstream physics that I've given.

 

I've PROVEN all of this via about 16 different forms of scientifically acceptable, theoretical and observational support now, and yet you continue to fail to even recognize plausibility that real scientists do not have the same trouble with, (which I've produced real-time example for).

 

Your prejudice makes you fully unqualified to make any statements about the subject, due to what can only be explained by way of willful ignorance.

 

 

 

 

*somebody get this guy a dictionary so that he can look up teleology*... ;-)