Irreducible complication

DDHv wrote:Which part is not correct? That people insist the universe is like it was from the beginning, or that they make that a basis for scoffing at the Bible?

The part that is not correct is you. I talk about testable predictions in the scientific sense. You quote a statement from the bible that has been repeated throughout human history.

That's not a "testable prediction". That's you playing semantic games, and you're terrible at them. Please stop.

Dr. Henry M. Morris of "The Genesis Flood" was a Phd hydrodynamics specialist, professor, and engineer who co-authored a textbook on that subject. Erosion to a depth of at least a few inches is commonly seen on ground slopes of even a few percent, and can be observed by anyone with his eyes open.

And you still haven't managed to point to an observation that mainstream science is ignoring. You really are a model creationist, aren't you?

There are two points which can be tested. 1) Do the naturalist theories provide an adequate answer?

Spoiler alert: They do. At the very least, they make predictions that can be tested. Creationists don't. Ever.

2) Is there enough information content in the universe that ID is a possibility. A search using (simulated universe atheist) shows that neither assuming the reality of the universe nor theism is needed for the second.

And if you knew anything abut the simulation argument, you would know that it's essentially meaningless: Unless there's a way to manipulate the simulation in such a way as to break its rules, whether or not we're living in a simulated universe or base reality is of no consequence.

Please give a reference proving that "time & chance"'s necessary information content is smaller than the calculated total information content of the universe over a time of 20 giga years, using the plank constant to determine the minimum time unit, and the amount of matter estimated to be in the current observed universe.

Failure to find this requires me to classify, using currently accepted science, the time and chance hypothesis as unlikely. Some think the simulated universe idea is at least reasonable - even if theism is excluded, or not:
http://hplusmagazine.com/2012/11/09/sim ... -nonsense/

And yet again, you demonstrate an utter lack of understanding of what "chance" means and how it works.

The E wrote:

DDHv wrote:Which part is not correct? That people insist the universe is like it was from the beginning, or that they make that a basis for scoffing at the Bible?

The part that is not correct is you. I talk about testable predictions in the scientific sense. You quote a statement from the bible that has been repeated throughout human history.

That's not a "testable prediction". That's you playing semantic games, and you're terrible at them. Please stop.

It is possible to test whether uniformity is accepted. It is also possible to test whether people use this as a basis for scoffing.

Dr. Henry M. Morris of "The Genesis Flood" was a Phd hydrodynamics specialist, professor, and engineer who co-authored a textbook on that subject. Erosion to a depth of at least a few inches is commonly seen on ground slopes of even a few percent, and can be observed by anyone with his eyes open.

And you still haven't managed to point to an observation that mainstream science is ignoring. You really are a model creationist, aren't you?

The observation ignored is the conformed strata without evidence of either erosion or depositing with standard dating suggesting large time differences

There are two points which can be tested. 1) Do the naturalist theories provide an adequate answer?

Spoiler alert: They do. At the very least, they make predictions that can be tested. Creationists don't. Ever.

2) Is there enough information content in the universe that ID is a possibility. A search using (simulated universe atheist) shows that neither assuming the reality of the universe nor theism is needed for the second.

And if you knew anything abut the simulation argument, you would know that it's essentially meaningless: Unless there's a way to manipulate the simulation in such a way as to break its rules, whether or not we're living in a simulated universe or base reality is of no consequence.

Please give a reference proving that "time & chance"'s necessary information content is smaller than the calculated total information content of the universe over a time of 20 giga years, using the plank constant to determine the minimum time unit, and the amount of matter estimated to be in the current observed universe.

Failure to find this requires me to classify, using currently accepted science, the time and chance hypothesis as unlikely. Some think the simulated universe idea is at least reasonable - even if theism is excluded, or not:
http://hplusmagazine.com/2012/11/09/sim ... -nonsense/

And yet again, you demonstrate an utter lack of understanding of what "chance" means and how it works.

Unless you have an infinity, probability can be calculated based on what we now understand. It should be.

Asserting anything is not the same as providing a reasonable argument or pointing to an observation. The point, "Unless there's a way to manipulate the simulation in such a way as to break its rules, whether or not we're living in a simulated universe or base reality is of no consequence." is quite correct! Either way high availability energy and highly specific information need to be provided to get the universe we have. We have one with beauty, complicated organization, and functional results, not ugly chaos

Why do you keep going on about what is 'accepted'? It does not matter what people believe, or how many believe it. If they are wrong, they are wrong.

The ONLY way to determine what is right and what is wrong is through facts, evidence and logic. ALL of the facts and evidence indicate a universe that is over 13 billion years old, in which life evolves naturally.

Scientists are not 'scoffing' at The Bible, they are simply following the available evidence to its logical conclusion. Nothing in The Bible meets any scientific standards for evidence, so it can't be considered.

Oh, and Jack Chalker's Markovian god evolved naturally.

Jack Chalker wrote:I was formed from the random primal energy of the cosmos. Over the course of countless billions of years I achieved form, and sentience.

Sure sounds like 'chance and time' to me.
----------------
Ma Lemming: If all your friends jumped off a cliff into the sea, would you...oh...um...nevermind.

Imaginos1892 wrote:Why do you keep going on about what is 'accepted'? It does not matter what people believe, or how many believe it. If they are wrong, they are wrong.

The ONLY way to determine what is right and what is wrong is through facts, evidence and logic. ALL of the facts and evidence indicate a universe that is over 13 billion years old, in which life evolves naturally.

Scientists are not 'scoffing' at The Bible, they are simply following the available evidence to its logical conclusion. Nothing in The Bible meets any scientific standards for evidence, so it can't be considered.

Oh, and Jack Chalker's Markovian god evolved naturally.

Jack Chalker wrote:I was formed from the random primal energy of the cosmos. Over the course of countless billions of years I achieved form, and sentience.

Sure sounds like 'chance and time' to me.
----------------
Ma Lemming: If all your friends jumped off a cliff into the sea, would you...oh...um...nevermind.

For two millennia, we were convinced that Euclid had proven that only one consistent geometry was possible. Then someone tried modifications to the fifth axiom

The question is whether in reality the universe and life came from time and chance. Unless you accept an infinite regression, or abandon cause and effect, the question is whether the first cause was intelligent or chaos. Information theory lets us calculate the possible odds of time and chance results, given the data. These calculations have been done: the odds of chance formation of the interacting of sub atomic particles in a way that ultimately produces H2O expanding during freezing are very low. Ditto with the special properties of oxygen vs the rest of that periodic table column, the properties of carbon that allow hydrocarbons and carbohydrates, or many other things that are needed for life as we know it. The old Babylonian god stories said chaos was the beginning. Correct or not? The axioms of science are 1) there is a universe, and 2) it is reasonable, without these science is not possible.

Over time, people move between thinking they have everything correct and finding there is more to learn. I don't think we know it all yet or have everything right. We should only insist that workers use the scientific methods or the methods of judicial / historical techniques, no matter how weird we think their conclusions! Most of the time the outsiders will be wrong. The outsiders are the ones most likely to find the totally unexpected. When they use the scientific methods or the judicial / historical ones, if they are right, it will be shown. The unexpected results can be great - Louis Pasteur's work, some of his worker's discovery of how to make artificial vaccines, Becquerel's discovery of radioactivity, etc. Most times we don't have enough evidence to do more than say, "the theory is X, logics Y and facts Z support this in our opinion." The person who can find a truly contradictory fact or logic error is the real hero of science. Someone who thinks he has done so should have his assumptions and evidence tested, but not by theories.

As I keep saying, the methods matter more than any conclusions. The assumption that we haven't missed anything critical has been made many times in history, and often proven wrong later


Asserting something is not evidence. People often say the Bible was incorrect, but I have never yet found anyone who can point to a specific passage and trace that theory to facts. Theories, and arguments based on theories, yes, which happens in other fields also: I can remember when they stated that Hezekiah never lived, then the archeologists; it has been stated that there have been many textual modifications over the centuries, then the archeologists; it was recently stated that there never was a house of David or a king Solomon, then the archeologists; it was recently stated that the nucleus is filled with useless junk DNA, then the biochemists; a few decades ago it was stated that all protoplasm was almost identical with only minor differences, then the biochemists; it has been stated for decades that all radioactive half lives are constant, then the experimental physicists; a few decades back it was asserted that our galaxy was larger than any other, then the astronomers. ETC.

I have respect for those who use facts and logic to test any theory, even when they disagree with my beliefs. How can I respect those who assert as if it were a fact something based on theory which cannot be traced back through good logic to solid facts? Doesn't that happen far too often in far too many fields

As long as you continue to insist on substituting mythology for science, you are just wasting our time.

DDHv wrote:We should only insist that workers use the scientific methods or the methods of judicial / historical techniques, no matter how weird we think their conclusions!

I cannot get over how you can write something like that and still think that creationists are worth listening to.

Most of the time the outsiders will be wrong. The outsiders are the ones most likely to find the totally unexpected.

They're actually not, but do continue.

When they use the scientific methods or the judicial / historical ones, if they are right, it will be shown. The unexpected results can be great - Louis Pasteur's work, some of his worker's discovery of how to make artificial vaccines, Becquerel's discovery of radioactivity, etc. Most times we don't have enough evidence to do more than say, "the theory is X, logics Y and facts Z support this in our opinion." The person who can find a truly contradictory fact or logic error is the real hero of science. Someone who thinks he has done so should have his assumptions and evidence tested, but not by theories.

Again, the fact that you can write these perfectly reasonable things and then turn around to agree with creationists (or at least take them seriously) is unbelievably baffling to me.

As I keep saying, the methods matter more than any conclusions. The assumption that we haven't missed anything critical has been made many times in history, and often proven wrong later

And according to creationists, we haven't missed anything. Anything there is to know about the Universe is already known; according to those morons, we already know the end point of all research.

Asserting something is not evidence. People often say the Bible was incorrect, but I have never yet found anyone who can point to a specific passage and trace that theory to facts.

Genesis. The flood. That's two things which have definitely not happened, not in the way the bible describes them.

The bible is a collection of folk tales. When it talks about history, said tales may even bear a passing resemblance to what actually happened, but anything beyond that, any passage that talks about the how and why of physical reality, is plain bullshit.

I have respect for those who use facts and logic to test any theory, even when they disagree with my beliefs. How can I respect those who assert as if it were a fact something based on theory which cannot be traced back through good logic to solid facts?

I totally agree that creationism is complete bullshit.

The E wrote:The bible is a collection of folk tales. When it talks about history, said tales may even bear a passing resemblance to what actually happened, but anything beyond that, any passage that talks about the how and why of physical reality, is plain bullshit.

Now that's where you're wrong; it's very fancy bullshit, all dressed up in impressive-sounding language and cleverly aimed at ignorant peasants' fear of the unknown.

Must have been simpler when very few could read, and the bible was written in Latin. No pesky analysis or questioning, just live in fear of hell fire.
What I do find strange is how specialist scholars can research the source material for the Talmund, Koran and Bible showing that the originals were oral folk law written down in many ways and interpretations, yet people feel so strongly they are prepared to kill others who have different opinions.

Daryl wrote:Must have been simpler when very few could read, and the bible was written in Latin. No pesky analysis or questioning, just live in fear of hell fire.
What I do find strange is how specialist scholars can research the source material for the Talmund, Koran and Bible showing that the originals were oral folk law written down in many ways and interpretations, yet people feel so strongly they are prepared to kill others who have different opinions.

Having survived 12 years of Catholic School, I'm not exactly sure what to think. We were taught both,Science and Religion, that there is no inherent conflict between them. If you wish to understand the pitiful universe you live in follow science. If you want meaning and/or consolation in your pitiful little life follow religion. (NOT a shot at anyone, just a garbled 50 yo mempry of the lecture).

The conflict/scoffing comes in when someone tries to make science or religion what it is not. Creationism is not sience. It has no equivalent to scientific method. Intelligent design is warmed over creationism.

Science is not a philosophy of living. which is basically all religion is. Even fiction may be based on fact. iction may be more fact thn fiction. It describes how people in a society, any society should ct toward each other. That is something NO science text will give you.

When religion pretends to be science, there is a conflict.

Is philosophy not considered a science? Mathematics is, and it has no physical component either.
------------
Don't open that!! It's the original can of worms!