I think the PEAR research into Remote Viewing has pretty much established that “Non-particle based information gathering” is not only possible, but a demonstrated fact.

Of course it poses a problem for me. I'm not claiming to have "proof". I fully understand the limitations involved.

Sky has been harping on this point all the way through this thread, and I'm in complete agreement with him.

This is precisely why it's futile to even attempt to assess the status of the outside of the box from within it.

This is also why these particular questions aren't even within the reach of the scientific method.

So to even suggest that science can make any statements at all about "outside of the box" is silly.

I hope you see that too.

Compared to itself by content.

But things are moving in straight lines away from us. If we check out the speed and turn the clock back we find that 14 billion years ago everything would have been right on top of us.

And quasars are supermassive black holes at the centers of galaxies. Most or all galaxies have them but in a quasar there's a lot of gas being sucked in and that gas rubs against itself until friction gets it so hot that it's that bright. You can see the same kind of thing happen in the formation of any star but at lower temperatures and thus lower brightness.

Oh that stuff is falsifiable. They're making predictions left and right, it's just going to take some time before we can look at anything big or small enough to really check.

You know big bang? With everything being dense gas that got less dense that means there should be background noise everywhere at a small value. The guy who did the math didn't get a chance to check but eventually two radio workers did and for finding it they got one of those Nobel prizes.

After we've got stuff like the Higgs Boson out of the way we can maybe make some giant contraption to work on something very string specific.


The folk against abra and the rest around here are willing to accept proof but we're got certain standard criteria (mostly dating back to ancient Greek philosophy,) so some things are a no go.

"I don't understand how there could possibly not be a designer" isn't proof. I've explained a few fallacies to no avail before but if anyone doesn't understand why that's bad just look up argument from ignorance.



There are things where if you disagree you're just wrong. If you disagree that the number four comes after the number three (only integers) the system of mathematics doesn't care. If you refuse to count higher than 12 and there are thirteen eggs on the table disagreeing with anyone about how many eggs there are does not change how many eggs there are and your view of twelve is inferior to their view of thirteen.

...If you say there is the magically whole number of 100 atoms but anyone who knows better points out that there are 92 stable atoms and infinite isomers...


Evolution is defined (within the actual field) as the change in the frequency of alleles in a population over time. You can flat out watch that happen.

I suspect that by evolution you mean "everything from big bang to the origin of man" as if it's some kind of rival religion of Christianity.
Shame on you. That's a nasty nasty scarecrow argument~

Oh boy...
Well,
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/kansas/kangaroo.html
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/genetic-drift.html
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/thermo/probability.html
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/wells/haeckel.html
http://www.don-lindsay-archive.org/creation/eye.html

And with some of the basics out of the way:
http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/221/4609/459
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v336/n6198/abs/336435a0.html
http://www.pnas.org/content/100/13/7527.full?sid=7ac1fa86-58b5-49ea-ab32-74195cec1442
http://www.pnas.org/content/101/9/3077.full?sid=63d56eb2-1b42-4e2c-85df-bdbf76df6e23
http://www.gate.net/~rwms/EvoMutations.html
http://www.uni-muenster.de/Evolution.ebb/Teaching/courses/tut/ws0607/papers/roossinck-symbiosis-competition-plant-virus-evolution-NRM-05.pdf
http://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/S0960982204004464

I have hundreds more available but I didn't want it to look like I was just bombarding you with more information that you could possbily be expected to go through in a month.

It's like the Dover trial, and Peter Pan Behe refuses to acknowledge the mountains of evidence we have regarding the formation of the bacterial flagellum!

The folks who are against Abra don't even seem to realize what they are against.

If they think that Abra is claiming to have "proof" of anything they have completely misunderstood Abra's position.

Abra is well aware that we can never prove anything about the "outside of the box" from within it. Abra is in complete agreement with Sky on that point.

However, this must apply to everyone. (and that is my position) In other words, if I'm not permitted to look at the behavior "inside the box" and extrapolate that to "outside the box", then why should anyone else be permitted to do so?

I point out features and behaviors that we observed "within the box", then I point out that if we had seen these features and behaviors going on anywhere elese "within the box" we would see that as a sign of order. But as Creativesoul quite rightfully points out, attempting to extrapolate those results "outside of the box" fails. Why does it fail? Because we have no clue what exists "outside of the box" and therefore we can't say whether observations made "within the box" should be considered to be orderly or chaotic with respect to "outside of the box".

But that same line of thinking applies to any arguments of "Natural Processes". What's a natural process? A process that we'd expect to see "inside the box". But we can't even say what a "natural process" even means "outside of the box". Because we have no clue what's "outside of the box".

Although, even that is not really true.

I personally hold that we can say certain things about what's going on "outside of the box", and those observations come from Quantum Mechanics. Quantum Mechanics clearly tells us that what's going on "outside of the box" doesn't even obey our sense of logic from "inside the box".

Therefore, to extrapolate anything from "inside the box" to "outside the box" whilst attempting to retain a standard sense of logic is futile and bound to fail (just as it has been proven to fail in Quantum Mechanics).

To the bottom line is that any logical or scientific arguments aimed at implying what any conclusions should be "outside of the box" are futile.

Thus, it's wrong to suggest that science supports no-design over design based on an ideal of "natural processes" that have been observed "inside of the box".

All of Creativesoul's objections against evidence for design, apply equally well to any claim that 'natural processes' (or even logic) should be extrapolated "outside of the box"

I've also shown why Occam's Razor can't be applied to this question. Because we have no workable explantion in the first place.

Also, any arguments that the "simplest" answer should be considered the more likely answer are equally absurd. Where have we seen that?

The simplest "explanation" for this universe was indeed the picture of Classical Physics, absolute space, absolute time, and billiard ball clockwork machinery.

That was indeed a very simple explantion. But it didn't hold water. We finally had to move on to General Relativity, and Quantum Mechanics. Two extremely complex theories that even many scientists don't truly comprehend.

And even they don't suffice!

Now we're looking at String Theory that is so complex a person basically needs to have a Ph.D. in mathematics just to work on the theory.

So where does this idea that explanations should be simple come from? If it comes from Occam's Razor it's a gross misunderstanding of Occam's Razor because Occam's Razor only states that once you have an explanation you shouldn't make it unnecessarily complicated. Occam's Razor doesn't say that every explanation should be simple.

That's a gross misunderstanding of Occam's Razor.

Finally, let me make one last point:

Even if String theory is successful (which I personally have doubts that it will be), all it truly promises to do (which it hasn't delivered on yet), is offer a way to meld together the mathematical theories of General Relativity and Quantum Mechanics.

It hasn't even done that yet. Thus far that has been nothing but empty promises and whispers of sweet nothings.

But far more to the point, String Theory doesn't offer to explain the mysteries of Quantum Mechanics at all. Potentially if it actually succeeds in melding GR with QM something might come of that. But it hasn't fullfilled that empty promise yet. It's nothing but silent whispers of sweet nothings.

Is science truly making progress? Or has it become totally lost in an empty obscession with trying to meld together GR with QM via a theory that may very well not even succeed in this feat?

I'm personally convinced of the latter. But I wouldn't even begin to attempt to share my reasons for that on this dating site forum.

In any case, getting back to my point. I'm not attempting to claim that there is proof of intelligent design. All I'm pointing out is that if we attempt to assess what's "outside of the box" from "within the box" it's not going to work in any case.

Therefore we just can't say, and it's utterly wrong to teach people that science supports no-design over design.

The real truth is that science simply can't say.

Period.

Truly.

I have never liked the "Occam's Razor" idea. It's a cop out.

Sure we are simple minded creatures and we would like there to be a simple explanation. BUT the explanation is not always SIMPLE.... except to those who can understand every aspect of what is going on. And we just don't.

This is an infinite complex system. Occam's Razor ... just how accurate do you think that is? 100%? 90%? 80%? 70%? I don't even think you can give it that much. I would give it 60% ... maybe.

I just don't buy into Occam's Razor for picking an explanation. It's not scientific or logical. Perhaps I just don't quite understand it.

But in any case I think a lot of people misunderstand it and misuse it in debates.

Look at the evidence. Don't cop out with the "Occums" Razor" argument.

This universe is structured like a hologram. See the hologram thread.

We no wonder you don't buy into it. It's being grossly misrepresented.

Occam's Razor says nothing about "picking" explanations.

That's is a gross misrepresentation of what Occam's Razor is all about.

Occam's Razor simply say that once you have an explanation that works don't add unecessary stuff to it!

Occam's Razor dose not suggest that the simplest guess should turn out to be an "explanation".

Yet, that's what everyone is trying to use it to mean.

But that's a totally false representation of what Occam's Razor even means.

If this gross misreprentation of Occam's Razor held any truth, then classical physics should have been a correct explanation because it was exceedingly simple!

But it's not an explanation because it fails to explain.

The bottom line for the question of this thread is that we currently have no logical explanation for how the universe came to be.

The idea that a bunch of "stupid stuff" just happened to pop out of nowhere for no reason and form intelligent conscious lifeforms, is not an 'explanation'. It's an absurdity. It can't even truly be called "simple". There's nothing simple about that idea.

The idea that this universe was designed by some kind of eternal conscious mind is just as absurd. To say that it's a more 'complex' idea and therefore should be dismissed based on Occam's Razor is nonsense. It's nonsense because the first idea of "stupid stuff" just popping into existence from nowhere isn't any better.

Occam's Razor can't even be applied to these two totally arbitrary guesses. Neither of them is an "explanation".

Although, some people, could argue that the idea of an intelligent mind would "explain" why the unvierse contains intelligent conscious beings. So at least that does qualify as an 'explanation'.

But then the scientists object that it doesn't "explain" anything until those intelligent designers have been explained! But doesn't that fly in the very face of what science is all about!

Science explains everything in terms of the fundamental forces. But they can't explain why the fundamental forces exist! So based on their same line of reasonsing, we can say that science has never explain anything becasue it can't explain it's fundamental foundation.

And, indeed, that is true!

Science only explains things in terms of the unexplained!

So science is entirely built upon the very ideology that it is objecting to!

It's turtles all the way down for everyone including scientists. There is no absolute knowledge of anything.

Main Entry: Oc·cam's razor

Variant(s): also Ock·ham's razor \ˈä-kəmz-\

Function: noun

Etymology: William of Occam

Date: circa 1837

: a scientific and philosophic rule that entities should not be multiplied unnecessarily which is interpreted as requiring that the simplest of competing theories be preferred to the more complex or that explanations of unknown phenomena be sought first in terms of known quantities

So?

The keywords there are "competing theories" not competing guesses.

Classical physics was a theory that attempted to explain something.

We finally found evidence of things that Classical physics could not explain. Thus we had to abandon that "theory" and move on to other things like GR and QM.

If you're calling a guess of happenstance to be a 'theory', then we have evidence in this universe that happenstance does not explain. Therefore, the "guess" of happenstance fails to explain the order and structure we see.

So it can't even be considered to be a 'competing theory' because it fails to explain anything.

One could argue, that "Intelligent Design" at least offers an explanation of how order came to be. Therefore it qualifies as a valid "theory".

So the scientists object and say, "So who designed the designers?"

But that objection is futile, because science already explains everything in terms of unexplained fundamental forces and particles. So they aren't any further ahead.

Who designed those things?

It's a two-way street!

Science is standing on quicksand and offering to toss other people a rope?



Get real.

They said that "mother nature" designed those things Abra.

("Naturalism")

Abracadabra wrote:



Not everyone.



As long as it explained what we knew, it was held as the most correct explanation because it was the simplest one which covered everything.



It is a good thing that science does not say that.



Science explains what it can - logically - and it makes no attempt to go beyond that.



Would the idea of an intelligent mind explain why there is 'stupid stuff'?



It does not need to. All that is needed is the recognition and application of that to what is being observed.



The first statement is false. The second is as well. The third is wrongfully applying a teleological principle - infinite regress - to science. Science does not attempt to explain the purpose of a hypothetically designed universe. Therefore, that(turtles all the way down) does not apply to scientists.

The last statement is an absolute claim against absolute claims.

So the long story short is that we don't know if there is a designer. We come up with alot of conclusions but nothing is solid yet. Is this about right?

Have you ever felt like the world is a fancy tuxedo and you are nothing more then a pair of old and worn out brown shoes?

Maybe I should swallow a power pill or something to get my mood in gear.

Well what it is worth, I would rather enjoy the life of a flower blossoming on a spring day then to worry if there is a designer. In my opinion let us just enjoy what is given to us or what is available.

Now if we absolutely need to know, I believe we need to have more advance technology that allows us to travel to other galaxies to find more information in understanding our universe. This might give us ideas or perhaps more answers that scientists or philosophers have been asking about for as long as we have existed.

What say you friends?

So what about the bolded, italicized, and underlined key words?





A perfect example of growing knowledge changing current theory.



Failing to explain everything is not failing to explain anything.



Is that why so many scientists are on that bandwagon?



Asking "Who designed those things?" first assumes that they are/were designed. Science does not ask that question because it cannot be answered. It is not a two-way street. Science knows it's limitations.

Hey smiless!

Flowers erupting into asthetic beauty...

There is our designer! Now imagine that! Of course I am just joking.

Have a great time debating

"Science" does not ask those things, but a lot of people in this thread who are arguing against intelligent design have sure asked those things. (Not you.)

I personally don't believe that any genuinely respectable scientists are on a religious bandwagon.

And atheism, and non-spirituality, are indeed 'religious bandwagons'.

You've been arguing relentless for months trying to push the idea that logic and science support no-design over a design.

Evidently the best you can come up with is a distortion of Occam's Razor to support your fanatical view?

You call that science? I got news for you, Occam's Razor has nothing at all to do with the "Scientific Method".

Occam's Razor itself isn't even a 'scientific theory', it's just a opinionated guideline. If that's the best you can come up with on your atheistic crusades I personally don't feel that you have much to stand on.

From my point of view, all you ever do is crusade for atheism and non-spiritualty whilst flying the flag of science pretending like the whole scientific community stands behind you.

Well, that's baloney. There are a lot of spiritually-minded scientists. There is nothing innate about science that implies non-spirituality.

Apparently the only straw you have to grasp at is Occam's Razor, but I personally don't buy it. Partly because happenstance is no explanation for how order came to be. So there's nothing there to even apply Occam's Razor to!

Do I resent your constant and relentless attempts to abuse science to support your own atheistic crusades?

You're damn right I do!

Because, for one thing, you don't speak for science!

And for another thing I happen to LOVE science!

So to watch you attempt to disgrace science with your own personal athestic agenda quite frankly sickens me.

I support science!

I do not support your attempt to highjack science for your own personal atheistic crusades.

Some scientists are atheists and non-spiritualists.

Some scientists are pantheists, Wiccans, or have other spiritual beliefs.

Some scientists are Christians for Christ's sake! (although they're probably really doing it do save their own sake rather than for Christ's sake, but still, the point is that all scientists do not support atheism and/or non-spirituality)

So your relentless attempts at trying to highjack science for your own personal atheistic, or non-spiritual, crusades is not supported by all scientists, and I for one most certainly don't support it.

All you have is Occam's Razor and an "empty guess" that doesn't even explain anything.

If that's the foundation of your "scientific-based atheistic crusades", don't expect me to enlist in your army.

I respect and uphold your right to believe as you do, because by doing so I protect my own.

As for the rest of that particular post...

Um...


Well...


Err...


Ok!

Abracadabra wrote about creativesoul... :



Without faith-based belief they are equal in religious content?



I have?







Never said there was.



I have no need to grasp at anything, I have no idea what you're talking about here.



Self-induced illness, I assure you.



First define 'hijack', and then show anything which I have written which can be shown to support your claim that I 'highjack science'. Next, define 'atheist' and then show how you arrive at the claim that I am one. Then, define 'crusade' and show how you arrive at the claim that I have or am on one.

At that point in time your opinion will be discussed further, until then it smells like pre-suppositional and quite personal bullsh*t to me.





Was there a valid argument anywhere in this?



I love that face!