On "Non-Supernatural Intelligent Design": Viable Epistemology/Probative Science Tool?

Discussion in 'Science & Society' started by Mr. G, Aug 18, 2002.

  1. James R Just this guy, you know? Staff Member


    Discussion 101:

    Calling me stupid doesn't actually help support your argument. To do that you need to try to refute what I've said.

    Have a nice day.
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  3. le coq Registered Senior Member

    I don't. I don't see anything much more than an armchair politician weighing in with his ideas on science, who can pick and choose his references (such as Von Daniken) to attack scientific theories, without offering anything plausible to explain in its stead. Calling evolution a faith-based theory is moronic enough. He won't acknowledge reasonable argumentation. As James R. demonstrated, Mr. MacNeil is more persuaded by lay writing (and I would add a good dose of that spooky In Search Of music ) rather than a lifetime of research that correlates with many lifetimes of scientific research. I wouldn't say he's continuing to stand up for himself in that he's just ignoring what's being refuted about his statements and just driving the conversation tangentially with more science from other fields that he doesn't understand (which he construes as its inherent falsity).
    When his argumentation is ridiculed with admittedly dismissive language, he mistakes it for a personal judgement and responds with blunt insults. Nothing here is to be commended. In fairness, I would take issue with your characterization of Warren as "panty-bunched," but you've a mountain of level-headed dissertation preceding your final judgement, which, if not entirely socratic in its humility, is socratic in its form. The others merely have a pile of diarrhea they are sitting on, poorly digested from whatever limited "research" they've taken on.

    Mr. G, the sheer horsepower you've expended on this thread is incredible. I am going to reread it several times before I weigh in more on various specifics. The onslaught of fallacious assumption is almost too much to digest in one sitting. Perhaps you'll have finished him off by then. But don't wait. Quit kissing his ass and finish him.

    Finish him!

    Finish him!

    Le Coq
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  5. John MacNeil Registered Senior Member


    "The intuitive mind is a sacred gift and the rational mind is a faithful servant. We have created a society that honors the servant and has forgotten the gift."--Einstein

    You don't make a very good spin doctor. I am the one who believes in science and has stated throughout that empirical description must be applied to all state of matter. You think that talking about the requiremnts of scientific observation is the same as making some. I have given you several examples from scientists to illustrate the falseness of your creationist theories, and you totally ignore all of them in favor of your diatribe.

    You think you "creationists" and "evolutionists", proponents of "God" and the "Big Bang", can hide your association, but there are plenty of people who are on to your kind. The church in the Vatican has been around as a single party, tax-free religious government since before the fifth century. They have seen hundreds of armed governments of other nations come and go over the centuries and in all that time they have been amassing their power and influence and keeping mostly secret while remaining visually in the forefront of society. They could teach the modern secret services a thing or two about "secrecy". The "big bang" is as creationist as the god creating the earth and the heavens and if you don't knowingly perceive that then perhaps you have been duped as well and are just following along like any wooly member of a herd of sheep.

    Herman Oberth was assistant to Werner Von Braun, the U.S.'s most famous rocket scientist, who is also on record with similar views to Oberth's. Einstein, of course, was perhaps the greatest scientist who ever lived on this planet. Halton Arp, astronomer. I've used these people's work and opinions to illustrate the falsity of your creationist orientation and to reinforce my position that matter and systems constructed of matter can best be described with empirical methodology, and you steadfastly refuse to address any of the reality of the evidence I've proffered and continue to avoid all subjects of reality in favor of obfuscation.

    If you are unable to discuss the subject in a logical manner, I'll understand that, since neither your "creationist theory" nor your "ultimate creationist theory" are defensible. While joining up with the fringe element may give you persuasive power, by sheer volume of your chatter, in some circles, it advances your creationist position not one single step towards reality.
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  7. Mr. G reality.sys Valued Senior Member


    A block of stone is just a rock until the disciplined mind of the sculptor frees the statue from its imprisonment. What good for all can come of a statue you might imagine in rock if you haven't the proper tools and operational skill sets to release it?

    It's good to have ideas. But for ideas to have universal, utilitarian purpose, they first have to be converted into something of substance. Air guitars are a one-person experience. If you want people to hear your music, you have to build a working guitar.
    Surely the TOE, the SCM (Big Bang) and the TOPT (plate tectonics) are each, and together, the result of many others who also believe in science -- people who also hold qualifying opinions quite contrary to your own. You don't know personally most, or any, of them, so you cannot say with any certainty that any one of them is less intuitive than you.
    Alien design is your claim. As there isn't a single alien in evidence for any of us to see, it is up to you to show us how to come by alternative observational evidence. But, it can't be subjective evidence obvious only to yourself. It has to be objective (requiring real tools and real skill sets) evidence, obvious to everyone regardless of one's personal world-view.
    Anecdotes are evidence only of one's ability to quote the words of others. None of your quotes, nor all of them, is evidence for alien design. It's just more talk.
    Our kind? As opposed to "Your kind"? And where do "their kind" fit into your equation? Or, the "Other kind"?
    Do you suspect the Vatican is where the aliens are hiding? Now, there's a testable hypothesis!!
    The Standard Cosmologic Model is just a conceptual framework for organizing information and drawing tentative conclusions. It has no power to do things like initiating the Rapture, or cause you to feel obligated to put money in the collection plate so that the priests can afford some leisure time with the alter boys.
    So? Oberth's & Von Braun's expertise was rocketry/engineering, not genetics or cosmology. Einstein's expertise was not genetics or engineering. Each of them had opinions, yes. But, science's knowledge base is not built from opinion. It's built from reproducible data. Halton Arp has very little independently reproducible data.
    Quotes are just more talk. Talk is not motion. Motion is not always action.
    Empirical connotes experience. For you to suggest that you have empirical evidence of alien design further implies you have experience with alien engineering. Have you probative experience to back up your claim?
    Might that actually be my estimation of appropriate addressing?
    You do know what is said about beauty?
    John, no more beer for you. Have some more pizza. And let me have your car keys.
    John. Why don't I just call you a cab.


    This thread isn't about personalities, it's about ideas. It's about a request for objective substantiation of the claim of Intelligent Design -- any non-supernatural form. I'm can't deny alien design as a possibility. I can deny the salience of proffered evidence in support of alien design. If alien design is such an obvious conclusion, why have you so far been totally unsuccessful at the task of convincing the rest of us? Your evidence, so far, is not convincing. Use some new tools and skill sets to show us the statue that only you see and haven't, so far, been able to show us.
  8. John MacNeil Registered Senior Member

    Mr. G.,

    Your last post in response to my previous post is an entire example of obfuscation. It illustrates exactly what I've been describing as your refusal to engage in discussion. I suppose you must have gotten complacent with your posting skills, but a mental bully is the same as any other kind of bully, as soon as you stand up to them and require them to back up their bravado, they fade.

    Maybe I'm being too harsh, perhaps you really are just a "babe in the woods". Maybe you really are clueless about how the real world works, so if that is the true nature of it , then I'll take a few moments to clue you in.

    The Vatican has been the seat of religious government of catholicism for over fifteen hundred year. In all that time they have been a single party organization, a single party that has been in power for almost seven time as long as the United States has been a country. Their power is immense, when compared to that of nations. Other governments have armies that they consider to be the fulcrum of power, but the Vatican has seen thousands of such power groups and they all have faded after being dominant for some period.

    The problem with most such power groups that rely on the force of arms is that they do not have long term planning and as such they make stupid decisions that detrimentally affect their organization. A case in point, since you referred to the subject, is the recent spate of denunciations of priests for sexually molesting children. That is a crime that the American government was aware of for a long time but they kept away from prosecuting any of the priests before the recent proceedings because they were using the knowledge of those crime as leaverage in dealing with the Vatican. They began their recent campaign of burning churches and arresting priests because they thought the time was right that they could destroy the religious base in the country when they coupled those actions with their propaganda. Of course that operation had no chance of achieving their hoped for outcome. And that is because the government had deluded themselves into believing that the religious base in the country was weak, and all they accomplished was to make the religionists stronger by weeding out the leeches. The money factor is not a consideration, as the Catholic organization is one of the wealthiest organizations in the world.

    The religious government of the Vatican endorses creationism and they have been censoring information for almost two thousand year in order to keep any information that contradicts their premise from coming to the attention of the public. They are much better at censorship than the U.S. government and they have successfully kept most references of alien visitation in history secret. They play the other creationist theory, the ultimate one, off against the regular one and they don't care that it doesn't get settled because that suits their purpose. If the bible view was to succumb to the Ultimate Creation view, they would fit that within the framework of their religion because it would still be a creationist view. Their main object now in regards to the subject of creation is just to keep both sides arguing creation, but from different podiums. As long as no rational discussion intercedes between those two creationist view, then they are maintaining their agenda. And people like you are doing their proselytizing for them.

    And you don't seem to understand what a theory is or what it is for, as is evident by your continued description of it. A theory is a formulation of apparent relationships or underlying principles of certain observed phenomena which has been verified to some degree. You consider Hubble's description of redshift as recession velocity as veracity for the Ultimate Creation Theory and ignore Arp's photographic proof that proves otherwise. Obviously, you have not bothered to read Arp's book. You keep droning on with your diatribe about me not providing proofs when you are refusing to examine anything and refusing to engage in the discussion. Perhaps you are not capable of engaging in an intelligent discussion in which flaming and ambushing are not favored?
  9. Mr. G reality.sys Valued Senior Member

    John MacNeil:

    You are free to believe whatever you like, as you are free to say whatever you like. We all are free to do so. But, it is not from ones ability to believe anything, nor from one's ability to say anything, that the obligation arises in others to believe and say the same things. Such influential modifications of the behaviors of others arises from believing in something of mutually recognized substance arrived at by some mutually compelling rationale. In that regard, you are failing to make a convincing case for the hypothesis of alien design.

    You believe, and you ask others to believe, that aliens made us, that aliens have been amongst us throughout history, that the vatican has secret proof of aliens, that Science's theories of biologic and cosmologic evolution are baseless and without merit, that subsribers to Science's theories of biologic and cosmic evolution are stupid and clueless, and that they are in cahoots with fundimentalist religionists in a massive conspricacy by a monolithic fringe horde to keep the truth about aliens and human origins secret from us all.

    And at the same time, you refuse to address with precise specificity repeated requests for any testable hypotheses and falsifiable predictions able to be made by your Alien Design hypothesis. Instead, you choose to offer as your only proof quotations and paraphrased anecdotes of certain notable, deceased individuals who had nothing at all to say about alien design, and discountable references to an astronomer whose ideas are based on singular interpretation of ambiguous data with nary a concern for his being as capable of error as was Einstein.

    You are free to characterize my contributions to this thread any way you like, as you are free to call into question my state of mind in any terms you desire. My suspicion is that your equally ample pyschoanalytic abilities were acquired under the expert tutorage of Dr. Velikovsky.
  10. Mr. G reality.sys Valued Senior Member

    John MacNeil:

    Say what you will by way of rebuttal in your next post, but in the interest of preventing this thread from devolving into little more than off-topic verbal combat, let us thereafter return to phrasing our posts according to more scholarly mannerisms.

    This is a thread about the validation of certain ideas and not about proof by ad hominem.
  11. (Q) Encephaloid Martini Valued Senior Member

    You consider Hubble's description of redshift as recession velocity as veracity for the Ultimate Creation Theory and ignore Arp's photographic proof that proves otherwise.

    Halton Arp: Armchair Pseudoskeptic.

    Arp has teamed up with Tom Van Flandern; ``The case against the big bang'', Phys.-Lett. A 164 (1992) 263 -- 73. Stereophonic loonies.

    "In the beginning there was an unspoken covenant that observations were so important that they should be published and archived with only a minimum of interpretation at the end of the paper. Gradually this practice eroded as authors began making and reporting only observations which agreed with their starting premises. The next step was that these same authors, as referees, tried to force the conclusions to support their own and then finally, rejected the papers when they did not. As a result more and more important observational results are simply not being published at the journals in which one would habitually look for such results. The referees themselves, with the aid of compliant editors, have turned what was originally a helpful system into a chaotic and mostly unprincipled form of censorship."
    (Halton Arp, Seeing Red, 1998)

    The rantings of a classical crackpot.
  12. John MacNeil Registered Senior Member

    Mr. G.,

    You misstate my case. I never said that Aliens made us, but that they may have been instrumental in bringing different species of us humans to this planet. I pose that hypothesis on the fact that there is no phylogenic record that proves our type of human were here before 30,000 year ago. The fact that we can't prove such a record is corraborated by the Smithsonian Institution. If we can't prove our genetic evolution past a mere 30,000 year ago, how can we be so certain that our interpretation of evidence from several billion year ago is conclusive evidence that the Theory of Evolution holds true for all life on this planet? I have no doubt that natural selection works for individual species to evolve, but that operation of natural selection is a process that works within what is claimed to be the theory of everything. What I've been saying is that the current evidence does not support the theory that everything evolved on this planet according to the description of Darwinian Theory. Therefore that leaves open other possibilities that must be examined or we are not being faithful to science.

    I don't think this is the proper thread to be examining the political reach and machinations of the Vatican's fifteen hundred year, uninterupted rule from Rome. I merely used that in the post because you brought up the topic of the lecherous priests.

    The proof of Aliens having been among us or having visited us for thousands of year is abundant. It is in the ancient texts and in the ancient carvings and it continues into the present day with the cattle mutilations and the crop circles. There are scientific institutions that examine such evidence and one of them is The National Institute for Discovery Science. From what I've been able to read on their website, I don't have access to all of it, there is plenty that is happening that our scientists have no explanation for, nor can they duplicate the procedures. That means that whatever is going on is worth exploring and that is what the whole jist of my argument is about.

    I assure you I am not affiliated with any group or organization. I don't know who this Dr. Velikovsky is, nor have I heard of him before a couple of day ago when he was mentioned somwhere in one of the connections to this thread. I don't subscribe to any religion. I believe that the Universe is a Complimentary Universe, as described by Albert Einstein. I believe that all matter and all systems that are contructed of matter, including human thought, can be and will eventually be described by empirical method. I believe in Einstein's theory of relativity. If there is anyone that I would consider to be my mentor, it would be Albert Einstein the scientist and Albert Einstein the man of peace.

    When I question the veracity of the Creation theory and the Ultimate Creation theory it is because neither is verifiable and both impede the advancement of real science. There is no doubt that the multitudes subscribe to either of those two theory, but there are plenty of people who regard science more objectively and without the passion that those two afore mentioned theories seem to invoke in even the most reasonable of people.
    Last edited: Sep 1, 2002
  13. John MacNeil Registered Senior Member

    Mr. G.,

    A "return to phrasing our posts according to more scholarly mannerisms" is exactly what I have been suggesting from the beginning and I am glad that we can now get on with the discussion. But I can't begin the discussion with the conclusion to it. If the Ultimate Creation Theory is factual then that rules out the necessary evolutionary development time needed for a natural selection process to formulate a species that is far more advanced than us.

    "The Big Bang Model is a broadly accepted theory for the origin and evolution of our universe. It postulates that 12 to 14 billion years ago, the portion of the universe we can see today was only a few millimeters across. It has since expanded from this hot dense state into the vast and much cooler cosmos we currently inhabit."--Charles L. Bennett, NASA

    What this description describes is that all the known matter in the universe, the trillions upon trillions of star in all their observed galaxies, was once confined to a space of 1 inch. All matter in a space 1/3rd the size of one of your fingers. Are you able to refute that that idea isn't creationism?

    When they say that the thimbleful of matter, that in the beginning was everything, finally exploded in what is called the "Big Bang", that it was blasted out into space in every conceivable direction. If that is so then the center of the universe must be completely empty. And the volume of empty space there must be proportional to the energy of the explosion times the time passed before the matter slowed down. Therefore, if there truely was a big bang, we should be able to observe the vacant center of the universe because it would be visible from whichever position we ended up in. But the astronomical observations do not support that. Whenever we look into deep space in a spot that we previously thought was empty, we find an even greater magnitude of galaxies.

    Another refutation of the big bang is the Cosmological Principle which states that matter in the universe is homogenous and isotropic. If matter is evenly spread throughout space, which has been tested and proved satisfactorily, then there couldn't have been an explosion that started everythng or there would be evidence of a concussion boundary where matter would be much more densely packed in some areas.

    It is therefore my contention that the universe evolved rather than was created by an explosion. This is more in line with Einstein's complementary universe and would allow for a more logical description of the universe as opposed to the theologic seeming "big bang".
  14. Mr. G reality.sys Valued Senior Member

    John MacNeil:
    From the Smithsonian Institution's own website: ....the oldest fossil evidence for anatomically modern humans is about 130,000 years old in Africa, and there is evidence for modern humans in the Near East sometime before 90,000 years ago.
    "....a large neo-cortex is the exclusive phylogeny of humans.
    If we can't prove aliens exist, or have existed -- there are no alien fossils or DNA from specimens in amber or peat bogs -- than "how can we be so certain that our interpretation of evidence"...."is conclusive evidence that the...." Alien Ark hypothesis "....holds true for" modern humans "...on this planet?"
    Current scientific evidence allows even less support for the Alien Ark hypothesis.
    Testable hypotheses and their falsifiable predictions is how science examines 'possibilities'. Of course, such testables and predictions must first exist in order to be examined.
    But scientific proof of aliens is non-existant. Crop circles, lacerated bovines, hearsay and anecdotal story-telling is not scientific evidence that aliens exist or brought us here in their space ark.
    The The National Institute for Discovery Science is one more 'fringe' group tring hard to be scientific-like.
    Then it is good that the National Institute for Discovery Science is looking into such things. That frees all other scientists for the study of everthing else.

    The Standard Cosmologic Model in no way is preventing the National Institute for Discovery Science from doing 'real science'.
    I can't respond to this without resorting to unscholarly mannerisms.
  15. Mr. G reality.sys Valued Senior Member

    John MacNeil:
    Since no credible evidence for "a species that is far more advanced than us" currently exists, you're building assumptions atop one another--turtles, all the way down.
    No. Because it isn't: "refute...idea...isn't" means, "prove idea is". And it isn't. No refute necessary.

    Despite Mr. Bennett's 'description', the Standard Cosmologic Model is a conceptual framework for describing the evolution of the universe only during Time (T) > 0 . The SCM is incapable of saying anthing about the universe at T = 0 or T < 0. People are free to express their descriptive opinions about the universe at T = 0 or T < 0 but the SCM can provide no details of the universe at those values for T. Therefore, SCM is not an origin theory, thus is not a creation theory. Though you might look into the Ekpyrotic Universe Theory if you're looking for an origin theory to assail.
    Just as James R. pointed out to you earlier, you quite misunderstand the very basics of a theory you would like people to believe ou understand well enough to know that it cannot possibly be true.

    The so called "Big Bang" was NOT an explosion outward of all matter and energy, incredibly compressed, into pre-existing space and time waiting to receive it. The Standard Cosmologic Model describes processes of evolution of all known energy and space-time dimensions undergoing expansion and cooling.
    All points in space-time were the center of the universe. Some points in space-time currently appear vacant. Some points in space-time currently host human brain cells. The National Institute of Discovery has scientists looking for a correlation.
    The next important assumption, the ...that it's a reasonable approximation to make.
    You are correct that the universe evolves. You are correct that the universe didn't first explode. But what you have used to come to those conclusion is inaccurate characterizations of the very theory you say you know and that it must be wrong.

    And, still there remains no scientific basis for your Alien Ark hypothesis.
    Last edited: Sep 1, 2002
  16. Mr. G reality.sys Valued Senior Member

    John MacNeil:

    You might notice I no longer refer to your hypothesis as Alien Design. That is because you stated:
    Therefore, I've taken to refering to your hypothesis as the "Alien Ark" hypothesis. And because it doesn't really deal with 'design' issues, AAH is largely off-topic.

    Since their are no 'design' advocates complaining, I'll let it slide for now.
  17. Mr. G reality.sys Valued Senior Member

    Le Coq:

    Please do. I would like several of us to tackle the formulation of testable hypotheses and falsifiable predictions for non-supernatural design (mainly for the mental exercise) because its proponents seem quite unable to do it themselves.

    Arp has made some useful contributions, and rebels aren't to be automatically dismissed because sometimes they are right. But I do tend toward general agreement with your assessment. He's not in Velikovsky's league, however.
  18. James R Just this guy, you know? Staff Member

    Mr MacNeil,

    Discussion 101 continued:

    Rule 2 is "Know thy enemy". In order to be able to effectively refute any theory, you must first understand it.

    You have provided further evidence that your <i>Time</i> magazine assisted understanding of the big bang theory is insufficient to help you make a case against that theory. You say:

    <i>When they say that the thimbleful of matter, that in the beginning was everything, finally exploded in what is called the "Big Bang", that it was blasted out into space in every conceivable direction. If that is so then the center of the universe must be completely empty.</i>

    Your reference to the "center of the universe" is a dead give away regarding your lack of knowledge. I suggest you do some reading so you can bluff more effectively.
  19. John MacNeil Registered Senior Member

    Mr. G.,

    Your continued obfuscation and immature point by point refutations aren't impressing anyone. You keep harping on about how everything I postulate is not worth examination when it is I who is using the work of the most renowned scientists as the cornerstone of my position in this discussion.

    You, of course, are using the speculations of science laborers and a fanatic adherrance to dogma to avoid the very discussion that you continuously call for, exactly the type of religious zeal that creationists are famous for.

    The idea that the universe was created from an explosion of mass that was contained in a space of 1 inch is the description of the "big bang" as given by the scientific journals, published in school text books, reiterated in innumuerable science books, the stated position of NASA, the stated position of Stephen Hawking, but not you? Are you saying that all the sources that state that the "big bang" was the result of an outward explosion at criticality are wrong and that you are right? Why on earth do you think they would call it a "big bang" if there was no "big bang"?

    So far your entire argument has been specious and while some grade 10, 11, or 12 students may be taken in by your vacuous and misleading references, such as your using a statement from the Smithsonian Institution, the subject of which they had already stated was an "extreme scenario" and "The origin of modern Homo Sapians is not yet resolved.", you are not fooling anyone of mature intelligence.

    You Ultimate Creationists think that because you have a bunch of people on your bandwagon who are willing to spout your dogma whenever you whistle that you don't have to defend your creationist theory. Nothing could be further from the truth. As worldwide integration of knowledge increases in scope, more people are going to learn information and they they will learn it faster. That means that your kind, with your phony theories based on faith and the conjecture of the least intelligent people in science, will come under increasingly close scrutiny and you will be called on more often to defend your vacuous declarations with factual science.

    To divert the discussion away from the direction it is going, which happens to reveal that you have a very limited and perihperal understanding of science, you wish once again to "tackle the formulation of testable hypotheses and falsifiable predictions for non-supernatural design", a premise you feel safe discussing because it has nothing to do with reality. You seem quite eager to give other people "all the rhetorical, non-scientific rope needed to quite effectively hang themselves before the spectating masses in this public square.", but you are decidedly evasive about, and actually completely unable to defend, your "Ultimate Creation Theory." Your bully tactics may have stood you in good stead as long as no one seriously questioned your rhetoric, but when you engage me in discussion and try to make me out to be a fool, you had best be prepared to engage in a real discussion and defend your position with the utmost clarity.
  20. James R Just this guy, you know? Staff Member

    <i>You Ultimate Creationists think that because you have a bunch of people on your bandwagon who are willing to spout your dogma whenever you whistle that you don't have to defend your creationist theory.</i>

    It would have to come under attack in order for us to need to defend it.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

  21. Mr. G reality.sys Valued Senior Member

    John MacNeil:
    Yes, as you state it and understand it.
    Um, for much the same reason you call it the "Ultimate Creation Theory. You see, before the SCM there was the "Steady State Theory: This theory, which dominated prior to Big Bang cosmology, asserts that the Universe has no beginning or is temporally infinite. Although the Universe is expanding, its large-scale features have remained relatively the same. New matter is continuously created out of nothing to fill the space in between galaxies as that space stretches with expansion. Fred Hoyle was the well-known advocate of this theory at the time that Laimatre, Hubble, and others were proposing Big Bang cosmology. Hoyle actually coined the term "Big Bang", a term he used in derision of the theory."

    After that, who outside professional astronomy cared enough to say something faceless and dull, like 'Standard Cosmological Model', when they could say something imaginatively droll, like 'Big Bang'? The name just shouts "Fireworks!" And who doesn't like fireworks? KABLOOIE!! Yeah! That's the ticket. The KABLOOIE Theory. Has a nice ring to it, doen't it? And that's how SCM came to be called Big Bang....er, "Ultimate Creation Theory".

    Hm. For me, in the "You" column:
    31 qualifying characterizations.

    And for you, in the "Me" column:
    Only 5. You aren't giving yourself enough credit.

    Now you can't anymore say "You keep harping on about how everything I postulate is not worth examination" because I just made an examination I thought worthwile of your most recent postulation.
  22. John MacNeil Registered Senior Member

    Mr. G.,

    You seem to be making a slow transition to the real discussion. When you say that you have a different perception of the Standard Cosmological Model than do Stephen Hawking, NASA and all the others, could you explain that view more fully? I'm always interested in hearing new ideas that transcend conventional theories.

    I can imagine how revelatory it must be to realize that the Standard Cosmological Model you'd been taught in school was nothing but a fraud perpetrated by the catholic church. In 1927 Georges Lemaitre, a Belgian catholic priest, was appointed a Proffessor of Astrophysics, at the University of Louvain, a catholic university. His very first proclamation was that the universe began as an explosion from a sub-atomic atom. Two year later, in 1929, Edwin Hubble, a devout cristian, "discovered" evidence to justify Lemaitre's claim. They further claimed that Einstein's theories corraborated their findings. Einstein, the creator of his own theories, did not believe in the "big bang" theory and he surely would have known what his theories meant much better than would a priest or an affected socialite. Einstein believed in a complimentary universe and stated on many occasion that "God does not play with dice", meaning that the construction of the universe is dependant on systems and is not the result of chaotic disruption.

    When Hubble first presented his "big bang" theory he wrote it up as a "creation event". When he was questioned about that phrasing he remained silent on the subject for the rest of his life. He never did explain it and actually became quite aloof, whereas before he presented the theory, he was an extroverted social climber. The religionists were afraid that Einstein's recent theories could undermine their creation theory and so they invented the "Ultimate Creation Theory" as a backup. The fact that it was accepted is testament to their influence.
  23. Mr. G reality.sys Valued Senior Member

    John MacNeil:
    Um, I started the thread, defining the 'real dicussion' as being about hypotheses for non-supernatural design. In fact, your 'real discussion' is an entirely different, off-topic topic.
    Sure. If I must translate "Yes, as you state it and understand it" from the English: I said, I have a different, more accurate & more authoritative understanding of the Standard Cosmological Model than do you.
    I imagine you can. Do you also realize that mother's milk is a gateway drug?
    It before hasn't gone unnoticed, just uncommented, that quite obviously your are better orientated toward, and better read up on, conspiracy theories than scientific theories.
    So? Hawking believes "God not only plays with dice, he sometimes throws them where they can't be seen."
    I am disturbed to observe that worthy credence due many individuals' science-applied intelligence can be so easily, and so universally, discounted by you due to irrational, conspiracy-driven paranoia. An atheist, I'm certainly no friend of organized religion, nor of metaphysics, but I am quite able to appreciate that a person's religious beliefs don't necessarily conflict with the person's ability to accomplish outstanding science. That you are motivated to search under conceptual rocks for hidden conspiracies is insufficient reason for anyone else to presume that under anyone's rock you are finding one, other than your own.

Share This Page