It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
however is that based on the odds of this coming about (as illustrated in my analogy) I think the more reasonable explanation is ID.
Often on talk.origins we have seen assertions to the effect that there exists a law that is well known to physicists and/or mathematicians (possibly implying that it is a mathematical theorem) that there is a particular order of probability below which any event is considered to be "essentially impossible". This statement usually preceeds a calculation based on some unrealistic model of the formation of complicated organic molecules via the random assembly of atoms as "proof" that abiogenesis is impossible. At the end of this article, references are given to several creationist sources that refer to this probability assertion as "Borel's Law".
No. I don't understand how you get that from Hawking's statement. Gravity is one of the laws which came into being with the creation of the Universe. Maybe you should read more of Hawking's (and other cosmologist's) work instead of jumping on a single out of context statement and drawing an incorrect assumption about it.
Would this not imply that laws such as gravity exist outside of the universe?
Speculation doesn't have to be reasonable but it helps if there is at least some factual basis for it. At least is does for me. That's why I prefer "hard" science fiction to fantasy novels.
You have me a bit confused as to what, in your belief, is grounds for reasonable speculation?
In the minds of men.
So where again does speculation based on perceived evidence end and fairy tales and unicorns begin?
Originally posted by AfterInfinity
reply to post by Afewloosescrews
And I suppose lack of conclusive evidence has nothing to do with that?
Oh, and multiverse theory is a very real possibility. Look it up sometime.
Your analogy is not evidence of odds. Do you have any calculations to prove these odds?
Let me warn you creationist have tried to prove this idea, but ideas in science are measured by how convincing they are to other scientists, and by this measure both creationism generally and ID specifically have been spectacular failures for a long time.
Good luck....
The odds of life coming into being by chance are vastly smaller than a fully functional computer being formed from scratch by the Pacific Ocean.
I would never attempt to give concrete mathematical figures as I don't claim to be an expert in probability. My statements were general and self evident. If you don't see that the odds of you and I existing on a naturalist view are absurdly slim, I can't help you.
And I suppose to be considered a bona-fide "scientist", one must first transpose upon their very core beliefs of a naturalist view? No, but unfortunately, this kind of homogenized cult mentality does pervade forums such as these as you have so aptly illustrated with your comments.
I'll stand by my statements...take them as you will. The odds of life coming into being by chance are vastly smaller than a fully functional computer being formed from scratch by the Pacific Ocean.
No. I don't understand how you get that from Hawking's statement. Gravity is one of the laws which came into being with the creation of the Universe.
Speculation doesn't have to be reasonable but it helps if there is at least some factual basis for it. At least is does for me.
Yes, there is. You are missing a great deal. Read the book...and others by him and other cosmologists. Do not rely on a single out of context quote to form your interpretation of what science says about the matter.
Unless there is some sort of esoteric way of interpreting this fairly straight forward statement that I am apparently missing?
Occasionally and briefly it does. Mostly it doesn't. But you know eclipses don't occur during a full Moon, right?
Is it not a fact that to the earth-bound, naked eye the diameter of the sun matches the diameter of the full moon?
As of yet no moons have been discovered outside of the Solar System. According to your logic that means there are none?
Is it not a fact that the sun-moon-earth relationship is unique in the discovered universe?
Speculate all you wish. Don't confuse speculation with evidence.
Why don't these observations qualify as facts that can prompt speculation?
Originally posted by AfterInfinity
reply to post by Afewloosescrews
All of your fancy words and indignation don't mean crap without solid facts. Stop sputtering and either put out or shut up, please. You're just giving us reasons to accept your beliefs without reason and then getting offended when we don't buy it. I'm tired of this game. We're just not that easy, OK?
Give us facts, we'll accept them. Give us sound theories, we'll work with you. You have done neither. Sorry.
edit on 2-6-2013 by AfterInfinity because: (no reason given)
Absurdly slim? Your studies have failed you, the evidence for natural processes is overwhelming.
As for your statements being self evident, if all you have is rhetoric and unfounded assertions then your position is intellectually bankrupt and deserves the ridicule and criticism.
I'm asking for evidence. There is no substance behind your ideas or ID, no ideas that cannot be refuted in a few sentences, with evidence and always logic, no real research or even any hypotheses testing of any kind.
Your computer analogy is just another straw man repackaged similar to Hoyle's 747 in the junk yard fallacy that has been debunked a thousand times world wide and in these forums.
I have to laugh everytime someone hasn't a clue what they are talking about. How about you show us some of this vaunted scientific research that is being done in the name of ID?
Yes, there is. You are missing a great deal. Read the book...and others by him and other cosmologists. Do not rely on a single out of context quote to form your interpretation of what science says about the matter.
Occasionally and briefly it does. Mostly it doesn't. But you know eclipses don't occur during a full Moon, right?
As of yet no moons have been discovered outside of the Solar System. According to your logic that means there are none?
Speculate all you wish. Don't confuse speculation with evidence.
Originally posted by Afewloosescrews
reply to post by Phage
Occasionally and briefly it does. Mostly it doesn't. But you know eclipses don't occur during a full Moon, right?
Yes. It does.To the naked eye as I have just asserted. I made no mention of a solar eclipse.
Then maybe you shouldn't make assumptions about what science says about the origins of the Universe. I make no claims about what that article says, unlike you making claims about what science says.
I don't feel compelled to labor through Hawking's book or any like it for the same reasons you refused to read the article I provided
No. It doesn't. The naked eye can easily discern the difference during an annular eclipse (the predominant eclipse type). The major point of this thread is the erroneous claim that during a solar eclipse the Sun is perfectly covered by the Moon.
Yes. It does.To the naked eye as I have just asserted. I made no mention of a solar eclipse.
I make every effort not to do so.
Why thank you kind sir. And in turn, might I ask that you not confuse evidence with speculation.
Originally posted by Phage
reply to post by Afewloosescrews
But you know eclipses don't occur during a full Moon, right?
Originally posted by Phage
reply to post by NewAgeMan
Very nearly equal
Love it.
Works with horseshoes. Works with nukes.
Close enough for government work.
Good enough for God too, I guess.
Originally posted by NewAgeMan
The God Theory
"The God Theory" by Bernard Haisch
www.amazon.com...=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1249274834&sr=8-1
Haisch is an astrophysicist whose professional positions include Staff Scientist at the Lockheed Martin Solar and Astrophysics Laboratory, Deputy Director for the Center for Extreme Ultraviolet Astrophysics at the University of California, Berkeley, and Visiting Fellow at the Max-Planck Institute for Extraterrestrial Physics in Garching, Germany. His work has led to close involvement with NASA; he is the author of over 130 scientific papers; and was the Scientific Editor of the Astrophysical Journal for nine years, as well as the editor in chief of the Journal of Scientific Exploration.
an excerpt
If you think of white light as a metaphor of infinite, formless potential, the colors on a slide or frame of film become a structured reality grounded in the polarity that comes about through intelligent subtraction from that absolute formless potential. It results from the limitation of the unlimited. I contend that this metaphor provides a comprehensible theory for the creation of a manifest reality (our universe) from the selective limitation of infinite potential (God)...
If there exists an absolute realm that consists of infinite potential out of which a created realm of polarity emerges, is there any sensible reason not to call this "God"? Or to put it frankly, if the absolute is not God, what is it? For our purposes here, I will identify the Absolute with God. More precisely I will call the Absolute the Godhead. Applying this new terminology to the optics analogy, we can conclude that our physical universe comes about when the Godhead selectively limits itself, taking on the role of Creator and manifesting a realm of space and time and, within that realm, filtering out some of its own infinite potential...
Viewed this way, the process of creation is the exact opposite of making something out of nothing. It is, on the contrary, a filtering process that makes something out of everything. Creation is not capricious or random addition; it is intelligent and selective subtraction. The implications of this are profound.
If the Absolute is the Godhead, and if creation is the process by which the Godhead filters out parts of its own infinite potential to manifest a physical reality that supports experience, then the stuff that is left over, the residue of this process, is our physical universe, and ourselves included. We are nothing less than a part of that Godhead - quite literally.
More @ Brilliant Disguise: Light, Matter and the Zero-Point Field.(MUST READ!)