I have now met a real life creationist.

[Learner]

They don't like math or physics, so I'm not sure how they have better models. It might be safer to bet on Douglas Adam's theories. At least the books are a good read, even if it is wrong about 42.

They don't like maths or physics.... I have never heard this before. Or do you mean they used explanations far more simpler than the over thinking complexities within physics? An Occams razor simpler explanation ?

I like the UE explanation of why the outer galaxies rotate equally as fast as the centre : Convention explains darkmatter (unproven) must be between the visible mass of stars only because its realised...they can't use gravity - being that the mass /stars is too far apart to effect each other let alone hold its place as the galaxy rotates. UE explains 'simple' electric , plasma principles that effect mass objects - the universe and matter having electrical charges.

I did read where one of the EU Thunderbolts, had wanted to reverse engineer an UFO, but has since given up the idea...and joined this impressive group of cranks.

I'd be very concerned if there were more than one.

 

[Malintent]

Also, we're right at the cusp of creating artificial life. Come back in 20 years and science will do this easy.

That would only prove that life was created.

Guys, you are arguing with an ID proponent from Alabama. Are you kidding?
That's like getting ISIS to eat bacon.

Wilson would be figuratively beheaded by his community for daring to learn.

Don't waste your time.

 

[funinspace]

They don't like maths or physics.... I have never heard this before. Or do you mean they used explanations far more simpler than the over thinking complexities within physics? An Occams razor simpler explanation ?

Electrical Engineering today absolutely needs physics, especially in the IC world of nanoscale...and it is f*in complex.

If the EU proponents have anything real, they need to go into peer-reviewed journals.
https://motherboard.vice.com/en_us/...theory-thunderbolts-project-wallace-thornhill

In physics, theories need math. That's how you predict, gather evidence, verify, disprove, and support. But EU theory isn't big on math. In fact, "Mathematics is not physics," Thornhill said. While that equation aversion makes the theory pretty much a nonstarter for "mainstream" astronomers, it is the exact thing that appeals to many adherents.
<snip>
"We know stars generate energy through nuclear fusion, not plasma discharge; we know craters are formed from asteroid and comet impacts, not huge electric arcs; we absolutely know that special and general relativity work, despite some EU proponents' claims," said Plait, who has tangled with EU commenters a time or two. "From what I've seen, most EU claims are on the cranky end of [the] scale. That's why most astronomers ignore it: No evidence for it, tons of evidence against it, and no support mathematically or physically."

EU makes few predictions. It doesn't have a unified framework, or mathematical laws underpinning it. The underlying physics doesn't go far beyond, "It's electric."

Maybe they could be roadies for Electric Avenue...

 

[Learner]

Electrical Engineering today absolutely needs physics, especially in the IC world of nanoscale...and it is f*in complex.

I don't doubt it and within the various fields of science you can have many theories. Some contradicting others.


Galaxy formation in the Plasma Universe is modeled as two adjacent interacting Birkeland filaments. The simulation produces a flat rotation curve, but no hypothetical dark matter is needed, as required by the conventional model of galaxy formation.

http://www.plasma-universe.com/Galaxy_formation
Thus far UE the better explanation in this regard.



Repeatable tests , observable evidence is what you ask for ... generally.

 

[Learner]

Sorry , EU not UE

 

[DrZoidberg]

Also, we're right at the cusp of creating artificial life. Come back in 20 years and science will do this easy.

That would only prove that life was created.

Please stay on the topic. Eyes that suck. But I agree that it will prove that that life is created. But not all life.

 

[Lion IRC]

Your posts are 'just' chemicals reacting.
#Yawn
#Undesigned

exactly. No design needed. You're catching on

You know I was specifically talking about your posts - right?
Mine are somewhat more intentional than 10,000 monkeys typing on 10,000 keyboards
and by random chance a Shakespearen Sonnet appears.

 

[Keith&Co.]

Mine are somewhat more intentional than 10,000 monkeys typing on 10,000 keyboards and by random chance a Shakespearen Sonnet appears.

chemical reactions are pretty orderly. Set fire to hydrogen, in the right conditions, and you get oxygen. That's not random chance.

But it's also not evidence that some intelligence designed the process.

Order is not necessarily divinely sourced. But we can detect the chemicals behind your intellect. If you have reason to think there's more to it than that, feel free to show any evidence for it beyond incredulity.

 

[DrZoidberg]

exactly. No design needed. You're catching on

You know I was specifically talking about your posts - right?
Mine are somewhat more intentional than 10,000 monkeys typing on 10,000 keyboards
and by random chance a Shakespearen Sonnet appears.

View attachment 9966

Do I need to explain why that comic is an argument against you, or can you figure this one out on your own?

 

[Lion IRC]

Not really.
Given enough time the monkeys might just as equally produce Gatsby or Hamlet or both.

 

[Lion IRC]

...chemical reactions are pretty orderly.

See!
You just made a statement about 'order' which relies on a datum.
What is and what is not 'orderly' rests upon the notion that such a thing as order is possible.

The biblical theist simply argues that 'order' necessarily implies intention.
And if we actually do see 'order' (which we ourselves haven't ordered,) then we are right to presume Someone else intended this.

It goes much further than the statistical probability of 'order' spontaneously arising (incoherently) from absolute chaos. We are presupposing (ontologically) that there is such a thing as order - as opposed to the illusion of order.

 

[Elixir]

...chemical reactions are pretty orderly.

The biblical theist simply argues that 'order' necessarily implies intention.

Then the biblical theist is an idiot. Order emerges spontaneously from any number of natural circumstances.
Unless it is posited that (the appearance of) order is a product of a creator's intent because that's how it/he/she created the universe, the notion of order is of no use to apologists. There is certainly no need for a meddling supernatural jokester.

 

[Lion IRC]

Order arising from chaos - no matter how gradually the change occurs - only makes sense if you can pinpoint where/when the chaos stops and the order begins. (Or starts to begin)

And you're still stuck with the enigma of unexplained change arising from an allegedly 'spontaneous' (chaotic) event.

If the trigger for change from chaos to (something we call) order is truly spontaneous, how is that event not just as much a part of the ongoing chaos itself?

 

[Keith&Co.]

...chemical reactions are pretty orderly.

See!

I see that you ignored part of the post i made...

You just made a statement about 'order' which relies on a datum.

YEs.

What is and what is not 'orderly' rests upon the notion that such a thing as order is possible.

It's not really a notion, more of an observation. We have a universe in which order is possible.

The biblical theist simply argues that 'order' necessarily implies intention.

And they just never, ever, ever support it.
I did ask if you could come up with anything besides an argument from incredulity, didn't i?

And if we actually do see 'order' (which we ourselves haven't ordered,) then we are right to presume Someone else intended this.

No, that presumption is not supported. It's a big illogical leap you're taking to the conclusion you want.

It goes much further than the statistical probability of 'order' spontaneously arising (incoherently)

But to actually determine the probability of order arising, you'd have to have data about situations where order did not arise.
You tend to insist that the entire universe is an orderly construct. So where would you go to get any information at all on what the odds are against order?

You didn't.
You can't.
You're just making shit up.

 

[Keith&Co.]

Order arising from chaos - no matter how gradually the change occurs - only makes sense if you can pinpoint where/when the chaos stops and the order begins. (Or starts to begin)

Can you support THIS assertion?
And chaos is not a binary condition. Order can be a subset of chaos. So, no, you're talking nonsense again.

And you're still stuck with the enigma of unexplained change arising from an allegedly 'spontaneous' (chaotic) event.

No, not stuck.
You keep thinking that if we don't have an answer, we have to fail to your answer.
Nothing works that way.
You still have yet to provide a reason to think that order MUST be intentional.

If the trigger for change from chaos to (something we call) order is truly spontaneous, how is that event not just as much a part of the ongoing chaos itself?

Why can it not be? That'd actualy be pretty chaotic, wouldn't it? FOr part of chaos to behave in an orderly manner? It wouldn't even violate the definition of chaos.

 

[Lion IRC]

Now you're just trying to blur the lines.
You said something was "orderly".

 

[Keith&Co.]

Now you're just trying to blur the lines.

Well, prove to me that there is a line, then. Or was that just a starting assumption of yours?
One i don't share...

You said something was "orderly".

Yes. I also said it was not evidence of intention because no one's offered a reason to think that order MUST be the product of intention.

 

[blastula]

Order arising from chaos - no matter how gradually the change occurs - only makes sense if you can pinpoint where/when the chaos stops and the order begins. (Or starts to begin)

What chaos?

 

[DrZoidberg]

Order arising from chaos - no matter how gradually the change occurs - only makes sense if you can pinpoint where/when the chaos stops and the order begins. (Or starts to begin)

And you're still stuck with the enigma of unexplained change arising from an allegedly 'spontaneous' (chaotic) event.

If the trigger for change from chaos to (something we call) order is truly spontaneous, how is that event not just as much a part of the ongoing chaos itself?

That's wrong. What emerges from chaos is always more chaos. Second law of thermodynamics. You might temporarily get increased order in a limited area. But there's always something else that "pays". When it comes to life on Earth, it's the sun. The sun is burning up it's fuel, ie increasing entropy, and it keeps pushing energy onto us which allows us to temporarily increase order.... here. This works because the sun is massive and this planet is tiny.

You keep saying that stuff is unexplained that is explained. We know this well. We can also prove it experimentally. There's no mystery here and no need to insert a god.

 

[Elixir]

You keep saying that stuff is unexplained that is explained. We know this well. We can also prove it experimentally. There's no mystery here and no need to insert a god.

Ignorance is [religious] bliss.