[Closed] evolution/creationism

deadlydarcy - Member I don't recall claiming to be an astrophysicist. Are you one?

Nope but I am a physicist. Maybe this conversation will serve as to get you educated, why not do physics A level in night school? Then come back and comment.

deadlydarcy - Member

But can science explain a woman's intuition?

Intuitively, this seems like bollox to me

Well, it's not. At least, I assume you are talking about the superposition of quantum states, rather than something not existing and existing. Something can be in two states at the same time. It all makes perfect sense if you actually study it properly. It's all about waves, which can be super-imposed on each other quite readily.

This woolly thinking has no place in our world

No? Why's that then?

I think that what you meant to say was that it has no place in YOUR world 🙂

deadlydarcy - Member

But there are many things which we observe but cannot explain. The beauty of a flower, woman's intuition, Lionel Messi, consciousness. I wish science would get on with explaining these things instead of worrying about Big Bang Bollocks.

If you look hard enough you will find science has an explanation for many of these things (apart from Lionel Messi who is he?), you are basically commenting from a position of ignorance.

molgrips - Member

Intuitively, this seems like bollox to me

Well, it's not. At least, I assume you are talking about the superposition of quantum states, rather than something not existing and existing. Something can be in two states at the same time. It all makes perfect sense if you actually study it properly. It's all about waves, which can be super-imposed on each other quite readily.

This woolly thinking has no place in our world

No? Why's that then?

I think that what you meant to say was that it has no place in YOUR world

Molgrips which side of the fence are you on?

I'll think you will find I phrase my sentences quite carefully so do not waste your time trying to correct them, what you think I wanted to say has no bearing on what I said and what I wanted to say. Woolly thinking has no place in your world either, unless you can prove to me that God exists, then he doesn't and no amount of postulating or talking about it will prove otherwise.

all of those things can be explained by evolution darcey, not proved but can be explained

You call it the FSM or god it doesn't make any difference. I've never heard of that and the fact that athiest have a theory of a FSM basically means that they do believe in god they just don't want to call it god because then they're accepting religious teachings, mostly because of a need to be subversive not because of any true desire to find understanding of anything. Its the most absurd counter argument. Correct me if I'm wrong but weren't nhiedls bhor and einsten both very religious. So much so that einstein married his own cousin and I was of the belief that to be that inbread you had to be religious. As for proving something that does exist like the god particle? People believe it exsts so much they look for it, then they can't find it so they rationalise about it. It sounds alot like religion to me. Reminds me of an episode of the tick where scientists discovered that light wasn't the fastest thing in the universe lint was, why? Because its already there when you get your jeans out of the washing machine.

It was, of course, a lie what you read about my religious convictions, a lie which is being systematically repeated. I do not believe in a personal God and I have never denied this but have expressed it clearly. If something is in me which can be called religious then it is the unbounded admiration for the structure of the world so far as our science can reveal it. (Albert Einstein, 1954)

alex222 - Member

You call it the FSM or god it doesn't make any difference. I've never heard of that and the fact that athiest have a theory of a FSM basically means that they do believe in god they just don't want to call it god because then they're accepting religious teachings, mostly because of a need to be subversive not because of any true desire to find understanding of anything. Its the most absurd counter argument. Correct me if I'm wrong but weren't nhiedls bhor and einsten both very religious. So much so that einstein married his own cousin and I was of the belief that to be that inbread you had to be religious. As for proving something that does exist like the god particle? People believe it exsts so much they look for it, then they can't find it so they rationalise about it. It sounds alot like religion to me. Reminds me of an episode of the tick where scientists discovered that light wasn't the fastest thing in the universe lint was, why? Because its already there when you get your jeans out of the washing machine.

They postulated the FSM to prove exactly how absurd god is, they don't believe in the FSM, they use it as an example to show how dumb believing in a god is. The rest of what you wrote there is just irrelevant. Apart from the lint thing, that was funny.

I also thought quantum physics explained the same thing existing twice using photons. Light can therefore behave has a particle and a wave. I remember an experiment with an plate and some kind of device where by if light were a wave changing the intensity would mean changing the frequency hence taking it out of the visible spectrum whereas if light were a particle changing the intensity ment more particles hitting the plate. Hence light can exist as a particle and a wave, allowing one photon it to be diffracetd into two points of light.

why not do physics A level in night school

But this would never get me to the level of guys like you, yet you feel the need to insult my level of intelligence so readily. Is this to make me feel bad? Or to make yourself feel better? From my studies into Buddhism, I've gained a useful insight into why others choose to insult...but I'm always open to furthering that insight. It's a fine religion you know.

So I watch TV and read a bit about it on Wiki...going any deeper would simply confuse me. Whenever I flip a bit of pron onto my phone, mrs deadly comes downstairs even though I've got it on silent. Isn't that woman's intuition?

Did you have a read of that poem? I find that sciencey types get so involved in their world of discovery that sometimes they forget the beauty that's around them, that hasn't been explained yet?

A man's ethical behaviour should be based effectually on sympathy, education, and social ties and needs; no religious basis is necessary. Man would indeed be in a poor way if he had to be restrained by fear of punishment and hope of reward after death. (Albert Einstein, Religion and Science, New York Times Magazine, 9 November 1930)

How many people [b]fully[/b] understand the workings of, for example, an iPhone?

Does one person's ignorance of the workings of that technology provide evidence of a 'higher being'?

Here's a question:

Would you prefer to jump from a cliff with a hang-glider that had been designed by someone with knowledge of accepted engineering principles of wing design or one that had been designed by somebody without technical knowledge but a lot of prayer?

not proved but can be explained

Appart for the looking for something that doesn't exist. Like hmmm the higgs boson?

But this would never get me to the level of guys like you, yet you feel the need to insult my level of intelligence so readily. Is this to make me feel bad? Or to make yourself feel better?

You're the one that came on the thread with the argument 'The Big Bang is a bollocks theoary so it must be bollocks'

Lifer, what do you do for a job? Look uo what some people once said? 😀

I've never heard of that and the fact that athiest have a theory of a FSM basically means that they do believe in god

[URL= http://www.venganza.org/ ]read about His noodly appendage here[/URL]

Atheists don't believe in FSM either. Only the devoted Pastafarians do.

But this would never get me to the level of guys like you, yet you feel the need to insult my level of intelligence so readily.

How do you know it wouldnt help you to understand this, I think it would. I wasn't insulting you, more taking the pish, but the night school comment was genuine freindly encouragement. Do it, science is wonderful and beautiful.

I find you non science types get involved in your world of whatever that you forget the beauty that's intrinsic in the physical word around us.

I haven't read the poem, I have googled it though and will take a look, 99% of poetry I find dull, quite like Seigfried Sassoon and some of the other war poets though.

Does one person's ignorance of the workings of that technology provide evidence of a 'higher being'?

Yes! St. Steven!

Alex222 do you want some more quotes to prove you wrong about Einstein?

And how do you know it doesn't exist when we've only just developed the equipment necessary to start looking for it?

"Saying something is the deffinative answer surely is unscientific."

Hypocrite.

Molgrips which side of the fence are you on?

Both, and neither 🙂

The question remains, if I like Woolly Thinking, why should I not be allowed to think in a Woolly manner?

Science clearly works for you, Woolliness might work for me. As long as I am not influencing others, or trying to do anything scientific, what's the Woolly problem?

alex222 - Member
Lifer, what do you do for a job? Look uo what some people once said?

No, I work in accounts.

I thought it was good practise to back up what you say with evidence, otherwise you could spout any old nonsense.

molgrips - Member

Molgrips which side of the fence are you on?

Both, and neither

The question remains, if I like Woolly Thinking, why should I not be allowed to think in a Woolly manner?

Science clearly works for you, Woolliness might work for me. As long as I am not influencing others, or trying to do anything scientific, what's the Woolly problem?

As I said before I'm not an exclusionist, you think what you like. I won't take you seriously that's all.

I am going to make lifers quote my tag line. It's just about the most sensible thing I've heard all day and quite witty.

I thought it was good practise to back up what you say with evidence, otherwise you could spout any old nonsense.

Science clearly works for you, Woolliness might work for me. As long as I am not influencing others, or trying to do anything scientific, what's the Woolly problem?

Woolliness is fine based on that description.

Lifer I was joking, I do believe you . My point wasn't whether the higgs boson exists or not it was aboout looking for answers, and in that sense there really isn't much difference between religion and science. Except for the fact that science builds huge circular place of worship and the anglican church builds cross shaped places of worship. Plus you can drink in a church I don't think you can drink whilst operating the hadron colider.

As for proving something that does exist like the god particle? People believe it exsts so much they look for it, then they can't find it so they rationalise about it. It sounds alot like religion to me.

Er, it's not the same at all. The existence of the 'god particle' is predicted by the Standard Model of elementary particles, which has so far stood up to about 50 years of pretty rigorous experimentation. It's not a matter of 'believing' it exists and then rationalising it if you can't find it. How is that like religion?

You won't take me seriously at ALL? Or just when talking about the origins of the universe?

What about when talking about say, servicing Pace suspension forks?

The name God Particle is not something used by the physicist anyway it used by the media. The Higgs Boson is not considered to be so important as to need a moniker such as that.

So in 50 years of experimentation it hasn't been found . So do you create a new model or keep looking and keep looking until you find something that vaguley resembles what you want then hurrah you have almost created a religion. If you still don't find it you build an even bigger churc, I mean collider until you do find it. What happens if the hadron colider doesn't work will that mean a new model will be created or someone will build an even bigger collider? I think number 2

molgrips - Member

You won't take me seriously at ALL? Or just when talking about the origins of the universe?

What about when talking about say, servicing Pace suspension forks?

Maybe, depends on how woolly you are about it... 😛

I have called it both. I think Higgs Boson sounds better. It could be a trick shot in snooker 😀

alex222 - Member

So in 50 years of experimentation it hasn't been found . So do you create a new model or keep looking and keep looking until you find something that vaguley resembles what you want then hurrah you have almost created a religion. If you still don't find it you build an even bigger churc, I mean collider until you do find it. What happens if the hadron colider doesn't work will that mean a new model will be created or someone will build an even bigger collider? I think number 2

This is drivel. Da Vinci proposed that man could fly in machines, it took 400 years to prove him right. Taking 50 years to find something doesn't make it invalid, it just makes it hard to find.

Well y'know, you have to undo the thing, then pull the other thing, and it should all work out, I guess...

FWIW I am an atheist. But I support others rights to believe what they want. I also maintain that for a belief to be widely cherished, then [b]by definition[/b] it has value.

Da Vinci proposed that man could fly in machines

Da Vinci did some nice drawings of stuff he pulled out of his arse that showed a total lack of understanding of simple Physics. Genius? I'm not sure.

So ratinalising something does exist beause its the only way to complete this model and then not finding it and then just saying well it must because of this current model of elementary particles which has stood up for 50 years before hand and we wouldn't want to rock the boat or think outside the box because all of this hard work comes undone. That actually sounds alot like religion to me.

People have been looking for god for well over 2000 years does this mean that he does exist then?

But science is constantly rocking the boat and thinking outside the box.

molgrips - Member

Well y'know, you have to undo the thing, then pull the other thing, and it should all work out, I guess...

FWIW I am an atheist. But I support others rights to believe what they want. I also maintain that for a belief to be widely cherished, then by definition it has value.

I do not object to people believing what they want. It's the acting on those beliefs I object to. I do object to religion and creationism being taught in schools, unless as a form of secularist observation, with lots of ridicule thrown in.

Ok you lot have stopped amusing me now, I'm off to do some work. Or go home and fit my new 203mm disc that just arrived..

No problem with religion being taught, but it must be inclusive and expansive and be in specific Religious Education lessons.

And don't get me started on the Lords Spiritual.

So ratinalising something does exist beause its the only way to complete this model and then not finding it and then just saying well it must...

but they haven't "not found it". LHC is the first attempt to look for it.

It's not like they started by looking in their pockets, then checked down the side of the couch, tried the junk drawer in the kitchen and slowly built up to the point where they had a 9 billion dollar, 27km donut to look for it!

The Higgs Boson is not considered to be so important as to need a moniker such as that.

But important enough to build a big ol' tunnel in the ground and nearly bring about the end of the world looking for it. Didn't they nearly create a black hole or something? 😯 Quite scary this science stuff...

Lifer in theory I agree except for the fact that astro physisists can only be open minded when they want to be. When some one questions what they are looking at it suddenly becomes absolute. ie toy19 gets taken to china town and then throws his toys from the pram.

So ratinalising something does exist beause its the only way to complete this model and then not finding it and then just saying well it must because of this current model of elementary particles which has stood up for 50 years before hand and we wouldn't want to rock the boat or think outside the box because all of this hard work comes undone. That actually sounds alot like religion to me.

All this shows is your total lack of understanding of what you're talking about. What exactly do you think physicists have been doing for the last 50 years?