User Controls
What do you think is beyond the universe?
-
2019-07-16 at 12:09 PM UTC
Originally posted by Japan-Is-Eternal See, this is why you are all normies and need to catch up to my God-like status.
You are still stuck on tiny little human ideals and notions, you need to go BEYOND that.
It's easy to know what is "beyond" your sense of the universe, more universe, but that's not what I was getting at ….
What I'm describing is, what forms of existence are there outside of a universe, outside of what we understand as reality.
The whole China doll thing, where there are layers and layers and layers and layers, does it ever end?
If there is a finite assortment of "things" that exist in any shape and form, then how can they exist inside their own bubble, how could they come to be from nothingness, surely there HAS to be something beyond that …
It's an extreme and total mind fuck
Find out what is beyond your bedroom first. Join the party. -
2019-07-16 at 6:24 PM UTC
Originally posted by iam_asiam68 Let's revisit this statement one last time from You:
I mean, for all we know, there are thousands of planets just as intelligently populated as Earth.
Obviously, with all of the general Theories failing and having to be rethought, You surely are not claiming there are life forms on our planet that are intelligent. You clearly must be discussing Intelligent Design, since it's the only Theory not ever to be proven wrong!!
Okay, hold up a minute here, you've given me a lot to unpack here.
If I'm parsing everything here correctly (and let me know if I'm not), you're delineating a sort of history of paradigm shifts in all the physical and biological sciences, where we originally saw things in terms of a singularity of all physical phenomena, and then everything was based on the concept of randomness, and so on.
But in the end you conclude that Intelligent Design automatically logically follows as the most correct theory to explain everything.
The thing is, without even getting into the potential flaws in any foundations for an Intelligent Design type theory (such as proving that an intelligent designer actually exists, where they came from, etc), I still don't see any reasonable justification for preferring I.D. over any other proposed theory like The Big Bang and so forth. The stuff you mention regarding genetic randomization and so on has yet to be effectively disproven. Even if we have not seen any empirical examples of single-celled organisms transmuting into multicellular organisms in a petry dish does not automatically result in the underlying theory being wrong. It's been a while since I've done any reading into abiogenesis theory, but if I recall correctly, they were making some solid progress with one experiment (originally developed by Miller and Urey) where they successfully recreated a physical environment mimicking that in which life would have evolved millions of years ago, and they actually observed amino acids forming spontaneously. It might not be multicellular life yet, but it's a start.
And to be honest, I'm not sure I'm up for getting into each and every one of the finer points of either evolution by natural selection or abiogenesis theory.
Suffice it to say that I don't really think you can actually claim that Intelligent Design is any more correct a theory than The Big Bang, or whatever other theory is held to be the most valid in the scientific community at the current moment. -
2019-07-16 at 6:38 PM UTCThe following users say it would be alright if the author of this post didn't die in a fire!
-
2019-07-16 at 7:15 PM UTC
Originally posted by iam_asiam68 Science has proven that it would literally be impossible for "Randomness" to program the cells within the DNA Code like they are.
Do you happen to have a source on that?
Originally posted by iam_asiam68 DNA is very much like your computer. It requires a programmer to input Data, Search Engines, etc…
The thing is, this doesn't seem self-evident.
As long as the information "evolves" in its complexity over time, then you can trace a path from extraordinarily simple information in nature (such as oscillations of micro and macro phenomena giving off waves - manifesting, for example, as the patterns of the tides we see as a result of the motions of the moon), to much more complex examples.
When you factor in the billions of years of time, and the enormous number of potential permutations that can arise during this time, it becomes pretty reasonable to expect much more complex information like we see in DNA/RNA.
Originally posted by iam_asiam68 DNA also requires a "Programmer" according to the Scientist who mapped the Genetic Code for DNA.
Even IF Watson or Crick or whomever said this, it can easily represent an example of the appeal to authority fallacy. Stating an opinion like that goes beyond the scope of explaining the structure and function of DNA. -
2019-07-16 at 7:27 PM UTC
Originally posted by iam_asiam68 I had to laugh at this specific notion from your post:
I mean, for all we know, there are thousands of planets just as intelligently populated as Earth.
This is by far the best catch 22 scenario I've seen from any post on this site.
(1) this could mean Intelligent Design
(2) or could mean you presume some people on planet Earth are actually intelligent
Science as an institution is only 2,000 years old in the current format we know and recognize as Science. It's really hard to make a claim that we have intelligent life forms when the majority of Theories I grew up with (Big Bang, Evolution, Singularity, Laws of Physics) have all but one went through major transformations.
(1) The "Big Bang" went from energy/Singularity/Laws of Physics cause heating.cooling.shrinking,expansion until annihilation. Today, after the experience of the KOBE Telescope Adventure, Theoretical Scientists like Krause understand that energy/Singularity/Laws of Physics "did not" cause the Bang, but were the result of the Bang.
That reversal has put Intelligent Design in the Front Runner.
(2) Evolution once were big proponents of "Randomness." It's the only way they could cleverly link the "Tree of Life" with any sort of reason and logic behind it. But experts who mapped the Genetic Code of DNA, knowing that What is amazing is that within the tiny space in every cell in your body, this code is three billion letters long!!2 Provides much detailed insight due to this bit of information, To grasp the amount of DNA information in one cell, "a live reading of that code at a rate of three letters per second would take thirty-one years, even if reading continued day and night."3 That Dr. Francis Collins, director of the Human Genome Project (that mapped the human DNA structure) said that one can "think of DNA as an instructional script, a software program, sitting in the nucleus of the cell."5 Then he added, "It is humbling for me and awe inspiring to realize that we have caught the first glimpse of our own instruction book, previously known only to God."8
Science has proven that it would literally be impossible for "Randomness" to program the cells within the DNA Code like they are. DNA is very much like your computer. It requires a programmer to input Data, Search Engines, etc… DNA also requires a "Programmer" according to the Scientist who mapped the Genetic Code for DNA.
That is another Theory now leaning heavily towards "Intelligent Design."
(3) We cannot forget Singularity:
Literally for the past 165 years using a microscope, we have observed over 2 billion single cell samples. Not a single one has ever split/divided and became a multicellular Species. Yes, Biologists have played God and we have manipulated the single cells into becoming a secondary Species. But "Naturally," that phenom has never happened on its own.
That is another nail in the many nails of the coffin proving single cell "does not" follow protocol as Evolutionists claim!!
It's like claiming I am energy and my keyboard is a secondary force of energy. That each time I type, I am not actually feeling my fingers press the keys, but that my energy and the keyboards energy are acting like magnets that retract when you try bringing 2 magnets together.
What's crazy about that Theory, is that you can replace your keyboard from being overused. So, was it over used from physical contact, or retractions of 2 energy forces acting like a magnet?
Let's revisit this statement one last time from You:
I mean, for all we know, there are thousands of planets just as intelligently populated as Earth.
Obviously, with all of the general Theories failing and having to be rethought, You surely are not claiming there are life forms on our planet that are intelligent. You clearly must be discussing Intelligent Design, since it's the only Theory not ever to be proven wrong!!
damn. i remember you now!! 😳
You're that 'cut/paste' "wall-of-text" poster.. on dh.😵
ffs, little baby jesus.. whyyyyy?!🙄 -
2019-07-16 at 8:53 PM UTCThe Universe is endless. There is no boundary. Same thing when you look inward; there is no end to the microscopic either.
-
2019-07-16 at 8:54 PM UTCUr mom
-
2019-07-16 at 9:31 PM UTChey hiki why do you keep making new accounts?
-
2019-07-16 at 9:34 PM UTCsorry we will try to stick to only one.
We're a fool with them plurals tee hee ~ -
2019-07-17 at 1:55 AM UTC
Originally posted by gadzooks Okay, hold up a minute here, you've given me a lot to unpack here.
If I'm parsing everything here correctly (and let me know if I'm not), you're delineating a sort of history of paradigm shifts in all the physical and biological sciences, where we originally saw things in terms of a singularity of all physical phenomena, and then everything was based on the concept of randomness, and so on.
But in the end you conclude that Intelligent Design automatically logically follows as the most correct theory to explain everything.
The thing is, without even getting into the potential flaws in any foundations for an Intelligent Design type theory (such as proving that an intelligent designer actually exists, where they came from, etc), I still don't see any reasonable justification for preferring I.D. over any other proposed theory like The Big Bang and so forth. The stuff you mention regarding genetic randomization and so on has yet to be effectively disproven. Even if we have not seen any empirical examples of single-celled organisms transmuting into multicellular organisms in a petry dish does not automatically result in the underlying theory being wrong. It's been a while since I've done any reading into abiogenesis theory, but if I recall correctly, they were making some solid progress with one experiment (originally developed by Miller and Urey) where they successfully recreated a physical environment mimicking that in which life would have evolved millions of years ago, and they actually observed amino acids forming spontaneously. It might not be multicellular life yet, but it's a start.
And to be honest, I'm not sure I'm up for getting into each and every one of the finer points of either evolution by natural selection or abiogenesis theory.
Suffice it to say that I don't really think you can actually claim that Intelligent Design is any more correct a theory than The Big Bang, or whatever other theory is held to be the most valid in the scientific community at the current moment.
I am not removing the "Bang" from the equation. I accept what Krausse proposed, there was nothing before, no ingredients for a "Soup Theory." It was just nothingness and then from out of nowhere, and no reason, the "Bang" took place. And as result of the "Bang," we have energy, the Laws of Physics, everything we originally thought that caused the "Bang," is obvious was the result from the "Bang!!"
Krausse, Atheist, Theoretical Physicist, now laying the foundation for "Intelligent Design."
Krausse is very much like British philosopher, Dr. Antony Flew, was a leading spokesperson for atheism, actively involved in debate after debate. However, scientific discoveries within the last 30 years brought him to a conclusion he could not avoid. Now is a front runner for Intelligent Design due to information discovered from DNA. Just as former atheist Dr. Antony Flew questioned, it is legitimate to ask oneself regarding this three billion letter code instructing the cell…who wrote this script? Who placed this working code, inside the cell? It must be God!!
Antony Few, former Atheist, now believer God, laying the foundation for "Intelligent Design."
These Atheist, one no longer and the other on the fence, are challenging "Randomness." The "Soup Theory" of how the "Bang" had been originally thought of now has become something intentional that brought forth the ingredients once thought to have been the cause of the "Bang."
And they propose DNA does not follow the structural rules we believe for "Natural Selection," and "Inherited Traits." And DNA defies every proposed idea of "Randomness."
But I do agree, that leaves the ultimate question, "WHO is the Designer?"
Neil Degrasse Tyson, and several others have no issue tossing out the term, "Alien."
But I propose this to Neil and the others, God would be Alien to them. And just because Science cannot find God, is no stretch of the imagination when we consider that Science is only 2,000 years old. There are trillions of things they don't know.
But something else, There are microwave red lines within our current Galaxy that we do not count when applying the 13 Billion year age. If we included those red lines, we would be just about the same as we calculate the age of the Earth, 4.5 Billion years old.
Why does science ignore these immediate red lines since we count the red lines to achieve the 13 Billion age range?
Does Science believe they are more intelligent than us?
We are talking about people who excel in Mathematics due to suffering from a form of Psychological Disorder like Autism. 8 out of every 10 Engineers have been diagnosed with some form of Autism, but they excel in Calculus which is the bases for Quantum Mechanics.
The biggest X-MAN ever, was Darwin himself. His own children describe his bouts he suffered with. At the time they had no idea what it was, but today it's rather obvious of his Mental Disorder.
I just get confused how the masses have allowed people who are diagnosed with even mild forms of Mental Illness, are the ones are looking at these mental midgets for answers.
Science created their own bi-laws, system to format theories, and their own language. None of which are sane!! None of which are relative to even the Human Species. Do you know most comic book creators suffer from general personality Disorders? They cannot envision normal images, but have these vivid demonic images.
I am myself both a Mathematician and Engineer. And these mental midgets weird me out!! -
2019-07-17 at 1:58 AM UTC
Originally posted by gadzooks Do you happen to have a source on that?
The thing is, this doesn't seem self-evident.
As long as the information "evolves" in its complexity over time, then you can trace a path from extraordinarily simple information in nature (such as oscillations of micro and macro phenomena giving off waves - manifesting, for example, as the patterns of the tides we see as a result of the motions of the moon), to much more complex examples.
When you factor in the billions of years of time, and the enormous number of potential permutations that can arise during this time, it becomes pretty reasonable to expect much more complex information like we see in DNA/RNA.
Even IF Watson or Crick or whomever said this, it can easily represent an example of the appeal to authority fallacy. Stating an opinion like that goes beyond the scope of explaining the structure and function of DNA.
All of your answers can be found by the man in charge of Mapping the DNA Genetic Code:
Dr. Francis Collins, director of the Human Genome Project (that mapped the human DNA structure) said that one can "think of DNA as an instructional script, a software program, sitting in the nucleus of the cell."5 -
2019-07-17 at 2 AM UTC
-
2019-07-17 at 2:08 AM UTCYou're kinda going off into some strange tangents in your previous reply, but to start with I'll address the following...
Originally posted by iam_asiam68 All of your answers can be found by the man in charge of Mapping the DNA Genetic Code:
Dr. Francis Collins, director of the Human Genome Project (that mapped the human DNA structure) said that one can "think of DNA as an instructional script, a software program, sitting in the nucleus of the cell."5
This analogy you're referring to is only meant to explain how DNA works, not delve into any speculation beyond simple transcription/translation and the production of proteins in biological systems.
Anything else abstracted from this analogy is not treating the analogy in good faith.
The evolutionary origins of the particular strands of DNA we see today is the scope of an entirely different field. -
2019-07-17 at 2:15 AM UTC
Originally posted by gadzooks You're kinda going off into some strange tangents in your previous reply, but to start with I'll address the following…
This analogy you're referring to is only meant to explain how DNA works, not delve into any speculation beyond simple transcription/translation and the production of proteins in biological systems.
Anything else abstracted from this analogy is not treating the analogy in good faith.
The evolutionary origins of the particular strands of DNA we see today is the scope of an entirely different field.
OK, I will add another comment from this same Dr so you can see as a Scientist, he does not believe in Evolution.
Dr. Francis Collins, director of the Human Genome Project, followed Clinton to the podium stating, "It is humbling for me and awe inspiring to realize that we have caught the first glimpse of our own instruction book, previously known only to God."8 -
2019-07-17 at 2:20 AM UTC
Originally posted by iam_asiam68 OK, I will add another comment from this same Dr so you can see as a Scientist, he does not believe in Evolution.
Dr. Francis Collins, director of the Human Genome Project, followed Clinton to the podium stating, "It is humbling for me and awe inspiring to realize that we have caught the first glimpse of our own instruction book, previously known only to God."8
So this dude believes in God... I mean, that doesn't really affect anything. His theological beliefs don't represent those of all genetic scientists, nor do the beliefs of any of these scientists have any bearing on truths beyond the scope of what they're studying. -
2019-07-17 at 2:26 AM UTC
Originally posted by gadzooks So this dude believes in God… I mean, that doesn't really affect anything. His theological beliefs don't represent those of all genetic scientists, nor do the beliefs of any of these scientists have any bearing on truths beyond the scope of what they're studying.
It does match the Pew Research Poll findings:
The Pew Research Center poll of scientists also found that levels of religious faith vary according to scientific specialty and age. For instance, chemists are more likely to believe in God (41%) than those who work in the other major scientific fields. Meanwhile, younger scientists (ages 18-34) are more likely to believe in God or a higher power than those who are older.
According to the poll, just over half of scientists (51%) believe in some form of deity or higher power. -
2019-07-17 at 2:37 AM UTC
Originally posted by iam_asiam68 It does match the Pew Research Poll findings:
The Pew Research Center poll of scientists also found that levels of religious faith vary according to scientific specialty and age. For instance, chemists are more likely to believe in God (41%) than those who work in the other major scientific fields. Meanwhile, younger scientists (ages 18-34) are more likely to believe in God or a higher power than those who are older.
According to the poll, just over half of scientists (51%) believe in some form of deity or higher power.
I guess that's kind of interesting, but not really relevant at all to the question of Intelligent Design vs any other theory.
Chemists, for example, aren't really in an academic position to be making factual claims about the existence of God and/or gods. The same applies to biologists and even physicists to a degree. Theological explanations regarding scientific origins are not necessary to explain the majority of scientific theories. -
2019-07-17 at 2:47 AM UTC
-
2019-07-17 at 3:25 AM UTC
Originally posted by gadzooks I guess that's kind of interesting, but not really relevant at all to the question of Intelligent Design vs any other theory.
Chemists, for example, aren't really in an academic position to be making factual claims about the existence of God and/or gods. The same applies to biologists and even physicists to a degree. Theological explanations regarding scientific origins are not necessary to explain the majority of scientific theories.
I get what you are stating. It's amazing just how many within science are believers in God, though. And obviously, 51% is the majority. I would bet it could be higher but some probably denied their beliefs due to what area of research they are involved with.
And any time you have Scientists claiming and living their lives as though God exists and is on a personal level to them, you are going to get a bigger push for the "Intelligent Design Theory." Especially when you take into consideration what the Pew Research Poll reveals (51% of Scientists believe in God)!!The following users say it would be alright if the author of this post didn't die in a fire! -
2019-07-17 at 3:30 AM UTCwow
