Intelligent Design is not creationism

jcl · Jun 30, 2012

Quote from jem:

You implied the anthropic principle explains the tunings.
here you are using the AP as sophistry.

AP can only explains the tunings in a multiverse situation.
In and of itself AP does not explain why Our universe appears fine tuned.

No dissent here. The AP explanation requires either a multiverse or regions with different physical constants in our universe.

- Penrose is suggesting a multiverse, but consisting of different string theory solutions. He also assumes that the solutions are cyclic. Most scientists would not agree to this.

- Science is not based on faith, but on plausible models. A creator is not a plausible model, unless you can explain who fine tuned the creator.

jem · Jun 30, 2012

Quote from jcl:

No dissent here. The AP explanation requires either a multiverse or regions with different physical constants in our universe.

- Penrose is suggesting a multiverse, but consisting of different string theory solutions. He also assumes that the solutions are cyclic. Most scientists would not agree to this.

- Science is not based on faith, but on plausible models. A creator is not a plausible model, unless you can explain who fine tuned the creator.

your last quote can be applied to the first universe in the multiverse.

hawking and hartle suggest no boundry space in their top down cosmology.
you realize that is the same as saying God exists outside and "before" time so no cause is (or may be) necessary.

Nobody knows what happened before those tiny first fractions of a second after the big bang. Science does not and at least for now rule out a Creator.

And science is seeing evidence of a creation (the background radiation confirmed the big bang recently) and evidence the creation may be fine tuned.

jcl · Jul 1, 2012

Quote from jem:

your last quote can be applied to the first universe in the multiverse.

There is no first universe. You probably mean the "bulk", the 11 dimensional space where all universes are embedded in. No, the bulk is not fine tuned, as it has no physical constants at all. It is a quite simple continuum.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brane_cosmology

Nobody knows what happened before those tiny first fractions of a second after the big bang. Science does not and at least for now rule out a Creator.

Science can not rule out anything. But our scientific knowledge so far restricts the creator to an extremely unlikely entity, with many logical and observational problems. For instance: who created the creator, why is he completely invisible, and why has his process of creation left no observable traces.

The real issue is: Why do people want so bad to believe in the existence of a god although no none of them has ever seen it? This is the question that you should ask yourself, as it touches the core of your religion.

jem · Jul 2, 2012

Why do people make declarations with speculation. You cited unproven, untested conjecture.

What we do know is that by confirming the background radiation it sure looks like there was a beginning to our universe.

I prefer to stick to the science.

I think you missed my point.

Saying space knows no time or boundry is the same as saying God preexisted space and time.

What came first may be irrelevant.

Regarding the traces... didn't we just cover that?
That is the tunings.

Quote from jcl:

There is no first universe. You probably mean the "bulk", the 11 dimensional space where all universes are embedded in. No, the bulk is not fine tuned, as it has no physical constants at all. It is a quite simple continuum.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brane_cosmology

Science can not rule out anything. But our scientific knowledge so far restricts the creator to an extremely unlikely entity, with many logical and observational problems. For instance: who created the creator, why is he completely invisible, and why has his process of creation left no observable traces.

The real issue is: Why do people want so bad to believe in the existence of a god although no none of them has ever seen it? This is the question that you should ask yourself, as it touches the core of your religion.

jcl · Jul 3, 2012

Quote from jem:

Why do people make declarations with speculation. You cited unproven, untested conjecture.

It's called "science".

Saying space knows no time or boundry is the same as saying God preexisted space and time.

No, it's definitely not the same.

You're right that we know no reason why space-time exists at all. It would be easier to assume that nothing exists. But that is obviously inconsistent with observation. So we have to conclude that there is some sort of continuum, and can make some mathematical models of its dynamics and geometry. From those models follows the multiverse and the fine tuning.

Still, a model of our universe as a product of relatively simple continuum dynamics is somewhat more plausible than the theory that an invisible man created it. Won't you agree?

jem · Jul 3, 2012

Quote from jcl:

It's called "science".

No, it's definitely not the same.

You're right that we know no reason why space-time exists at all. It would be easier to assume that nothing exists. But that is obviously inconsistent with observation. So we have to conclude that there is some sort of continuum, and can make some mathematical models of its dynamics and geometry. From those models follows the multiverse and the fine tuning.

Still, a model of our universe as a product of relatively simple continuum dynamics is somewhat more plausible than the theory that an invisible man created it. Won't you agree?

you confuse fact with conjecture.

the constants are observed.
That they are tuned is observed.
The explanation of multiverse is specualtive.
Just as arguing for a Creator is speculative.

stu · Jul 4, 2012

Quote from jem:

you confuse fact with conjecture.

the constants are observed.
That they are tuned is observed.
The explanation of multiverse is specualtive.
Just as arguing for a Creator is speculative.

you confuse fact with conjecture.

the constants are observed.
That they are tuned is conjecture.
The explanation of multiverse is a science based hypotheses
Whereas arguing for a Creator is imaginary based speculation.

murray t turtle · Jul 5, 2012

Quote from murray t turtle:

=============
The trouble with many new traders [newbies] they want''predictions'' about the market Only the Bible has many accurate predictions;
many in a specific time period.

Mr. Stu-Your statement makes about as much sense as saying counterfeit $100 bills are the same as $100 bills.[7th month Update-well thank God you now admit there are differences between counterfeit $100 bills & genuine $100 bills,LOL]

I hope you learn now to recognize difference between counterfiet Christians & Christians,cool.

1] God can easly create & destroy.Watch this Bible prediction-
...Gog[Rusisa], Gomer [germany] Persia[Iran] Put[Libya], Ethopia invade Israel{Ezekiel 38, 39}

2]Why invade Israel??Ezekiel predicts''have you come to take plunder,have you gathered your army to take booty/
to carry away silver and gold, to take away live stock & goods??Ezeliel 38, 39.[ Not a prediction on the price of gold, silver simply,they are part of wealth..]

3] Those chapters [Ezek 38, 39]are full of future predictions.Surely in that day there will be a great earthquake in the land of Israel.
4] Every wall shall fall..[quite a quake]
[5]'' Every man on the earth shall shake'' in that quake
6] God says he will enter in to judgement,on Israel's enemies
with brimstone with fire ,
with flood,
with pesteance,
with great hailsones.....................
[7] It takes 7 months to bury ther dead enemies of Israel. God says a result , he will ''be known in the eyes of many nations''
Hope this helps , it helped me

jem · Jul 5, 2012

Quote from stu:

you confuse fact with conjecture.

the constants are observed.
That they are tuned is conjecture.
The explanation of multiverse is a science based hypotheses
Whereas arguing for a Creator is imaginary based speculation.

Now we are getting somewhere.
You have backed off your silly claims.
1. That they are tuned for life is observed (obviously) ... See penrose video, see the be weinberg in the video you cited.

2. Good we can agree on hypotheses. Which is essentially what I have been telling you for weeks.

3. Arguing one of the reasons for the tuning is a Tuner... is one of the 4 options Susskind gives in the video. In fact it is one of the better options.

" If there is only one universe,â British cosmologist Bernard Carr says, âyou might have to have a fine-tuner. If you donât want God, youâd better have a multiverse.â (Discover, December 2008)

stu · Jul 7, 2012

Quote from jem:

Now we are getting somewhere.
You have backed off your silly claims.
1. That they are tuned for life is observed (obviously) ... See penrose video, see the be weinberg in the video you cited.

2. Good we can agree on hypotheses. Which is essentially what I have been telling you for weeks.

3. Arguing one of the reasons for the tuning is a Tuner... is one of the 4 options Susskind gives in the video. In fact it is one of the better options.

" If there is only one universe,â British cosmologist Bernard Carr says, âyou might have to have a fine-tuner. If you donât want God, youâd better have a multiverse.â (Discover, December 2008)

Not sure where you're getting somewhere from, except by confusing things.

The constants are observed. They are not observed to be tuned for life, except by some, mostly creationists, who merely claim they are tuned.
There is no scientific bases on which it is said the constants are tuned.
A Supernatural so called tuner god is not an option in science. It is just an option in the same way Pixie Poo is an option.

Multiverse can be anything from a quantumn field to Many-Worlds interpretation. Something natural. Hawking has proposed a possible approach for confirming which.
So it's not like that's anything to do with a so called "Tuner", which would be something supernatural and unnatural.