Intelligent Design: Evolution 2.0

[Guyver]

11 minutes ago, XenoFish said:

While this is true. There are those who only want belief over knowledge. This is nothing wrong with having faith in a higher power, it's a personal belief.  However, I can not help but think that those who want to connect dots that don't exist do not actually believe, they need something to validate their spirituality that's concrete. This is one of the reasons I've put spirituality in the psychology (soft science) bin. It deals with thoughts, feelings, and emotions. And how beliefs affect you. 

Yes, I think I understand your point and agree with you.  I did say that I disavow all religion, and it is because in my mind, it is filled with nutters.  I accept that many weirdos believe in religion, and they have some weird beliefs.  But the world is filled with weird people, and maybe we're all a little weird, IDK.  Like I said before, I don't really care so much about what other people believe, I'm more interested in my own beliefs.  If someone comes up in here with nuttery, there's nothing wrong with shining the light of logic and reason on it.  But, if they are expressing their beliefs and understanding here, I'll listen and judge it for myself....sure.  

[MauriOra]

5 minutes ago, eight bits said:

Kia ora, Mo.

I meant "operator" in the sense of a person who takes telephone calls and dispatches resources. The linkage of "mind" and "feel" was taken and continued from the post to which I responded.

Sorry if any of that was unclear

Atamarie Eightbits. Kia Ora to you too ... I like .!! 

E Pai Ana Koutou, it is Algud..

No sorrys Necessary friend , I see your point with the Mind and Feel , thankyou for the clarity ..

As to the "Operators" I do know what you Meant.. I just added My Feel on the Matter ..

When we are all Interlinked in Mind, there will be Specific Operators who will deal in that specific Area, say Healing for Instance, it will be A Resonance, Vibration, Energy Frequency, and Visual too, as in seeing in the Auric Field, what the Sickness may be ..

In other words, Tuning In .. 

When One is very in tune with their Own Hum, or Vibe, One knows when Other Energies, not of their own is Coming in .. This can be from Another's thought .. 

This is the Mind Connection I'm Speaking of.. That specific Operator, will pick up the Vibe, and know what to do from there.. 

This specific Operator, may tune in to the Others Energies, from a distance too, because Its Energy.. And do the healing from where they are .. It is Very Easy .. 

Mo..xx

[XenoFish]

2 minutes ago, Guyver said:

Yes, I think I understand your point and agree with you.  I did say that I disavow all religion, and it is because in my mind, it is filled with nutters.  I accept that many weirdos believe in religion, and they have some weird beliefs.  But the world is filled with weird people, and maybe we're all a little weird, IDK.  Like I said before, I don't really care so much about what other people believe, I'm more interested in my own beliefs.  If someone comes up in here with nuttery, there's nothing wrong with shining the light of logic and reason on it.  But, if they are expressing their beliefs and understanding here, I'll listen and judge it for myself....sure.  

It really depends on what you define as nuttery. Like I mentioned in my previous post. Having faith in god or a higher power is alright, go for it. Knock yourself out. It's when it begins to cloud judgment, that's where the problem is. 

[MauriOra]

16 minutes ago, XenoFish said:

While this is true. There are those who only want belief over knowledge. This is nothing wrong with having faith in a higher power, it's a personal belief.  However, I can not help but think that those who want to connect dots that don't exist do not actually believe, they need something to validate their spirituality that's concrete. This is one of the reasons I've put spirituality in the psychology (soft science) bin. It deals with thoughts, feelings, and emotions. And how beliefs affect you. 

Life's experience is the knowledge you will be Using in The Spiritual Journey ..

That book of your life. Is what you will make reference too, this will be all the Experiences, all the knowledge, all the Emotions, Everything..

I had Personal Beliefs Before My Awakening and Now I have Knowing ... I know what I know because of My Action in this Testing of Lessons and Blessings .

My Guides help me, they guide me, and because I Listen, and Do as I Am Bid, I get More Knowledge..

Its the Saying, When the Student is Ready ,the Teacher Will Appear ..

Well I Am Ready, and The Teachers have Appeared ..

Mo..xx

[cormac mac airt]

8 minutes ago, Guyver said:

I accept the modern scientific understanding of the universe, I'm guessing that you do also?  If so, the precision of the universe is especially evident at it's beginning as I understand it.  We assume that the universe is not infinite as that's a difficult concept anyway, and that it is a closed system.  As such, all the universe in its entirety; it's matter and energy were present in a single point in space and time at it's beginning.  Considering the enormous nature of the universe and the expression of that energy......I like to use the term nearly infinite.  I know some people will object to that.....and it's OK.....but that's alot of energy.  So much, that it does rival infinite in my mind......or close to it anyway.  Point being that it is the beginning of the universe in it's precise expansion and cooling that allowed matter to exist as we understand it now.  There are scientific materials available for study on this topic.

That said, the universe is a machine in one sense of the world.  All the stars that are born and die, only to live again are all part of the system you describe.  So in that sense, it's a thing in it's entirety, a sum of it's parts and it's in motion.  The motion is expressed and continues in the things you mention, and from the initial "explosion" if you will - the enormous release of energy in it's beginning.  I guess I just don't understand how this puts me in a quandry.  

Your “precise” expansion is about as precise as the movement of air within a balloon while someone is blowing it up. In short, not remotely precise as the air only has so many directions it can go and does not move at a uniform speed throughout. Your idea of precision is meaningless in that regard. 

cormac

[Guyver]

32 minutes ago, eight bits said:

Kia ora, Mo.

I meant "operator" in the sense of a person who takes telephone calls and dispatches resources. The linkage of "mind" and "feel" was taken and continued from the post to which I responded.

Sorry if any of that was unclear.

Guyver

I didn't get that from the post in the context of the exchange of which it was a part. It may be a fine line between criticizing the world view and criticizing the person, but it looked to me like Harte stayed in fair territory.

Speaking of world views, I think I understand that you believe in God, and that you believe that God sometimes intervenes in the world. I am not at all clear about what you think about God in relation to evolution by natural selection, nor your thinking on whether real science does or can include any form of "supernaturally directed" evolution.

 

I don’t hold any particular belief or disbelief in scientific models as it pertains to evolution, adaptations, etc. and I consider our own origins an unknown.  I do argue against common ancestry at times due to my views on it being so assumptive and presented as not, but sure.....if God made us through evolution, then I have no problem with.  I believe in accepting what is, not fighting against it.  It’s the getting to what is that is tricky.

[Guyver]

10 minutes ago, cormac mac airt said:

Your “precise” expansion is about as precise as the movement of air within a balloon while someone is blowing it up. In short, not remotely precise as the air only has so many directions it can go and does not move at a uniform speed throughout. Your idea of precision is meaningless in that regard. 

cormac

Well, I guess we just disagree on it then.  That’s fine.  My understanding is that scientific models of the early universe show that very nearly exact precision was required in order for matter to form as it did.

[+joc]

18 hours ago, Crazy Horse said:

1; why?

2; yes there is.

3; experiencing life in a body is different than on the mental plane. Ps, the Earth is green.

1.brain damage

2. bs

3. Zappa

[+joc]

22 hours ago, Illyrius said:

Really? Is it me?

kind of....belief is just belief...truth just is

[Illyrius]

4 minutes ago, joc said:

kind of....belief is just belief...truth just is

[MauriOra]

2 minutes ago, joc said:

kind of....belief is just belief...truth just is

Atamarie Mr Joc ..

Absolutely ..

The Belief, that there is only this  Physical , Material Dense reality, is just a Belief ..

The Truth ... is  It Is Not ..

It is Energetic Also .. And We Humans are Part Physical, Part Energy ..

Only the Physical is Acknowledged.. But Not Any More .. People Will Find Out the Truth ..

Mo..xx

[cormac mac airt]

33 minutes ago, Guyver said:

Well, I guess we just disagree on it then.  That’s fine.  My understanding is that scientific models of the early universe show that very nearly exact precision was required in order for matter to form as it did.

Nope:

Quote

In the first moments after the Big Bang, the universe was extremely hot and dense. As the universe cooled, conditions became just right to give rise to the building blocks of matter – the quarks and electrons of which we are all made. A few millionths of a second later, quarks aggregated to produce protons and neutrons. Within minutes, these protons and neutrons combined into nuclei. As the universe continued to expand and cool, things began to happen more slowly. It took 380,000 years for electrons to be trapped in orbits around nuclei, forming the first atoms. These were mainly helium and hydrogen, which are still by far the most abundant elements in the universe. 1.6 million years later, gravity began to form stars and galaxies from clouds of gas. Heavier atoms such as carbon, oxygen and iron, have since been continuously produced in the hearts of stars and catapulted throughout the universe in spectacular stellar explosions called supernovae.

https://home.cern/about/physics/early-universe

Where is this alleged precision you’re talking about? It’s not readily apparent and it should be. 

cormac

[Harte]

6 hours ago, Illyrius said:

In that case i have a better painter than that. And it is called digital camera.

That camera only paints what it sees. The program paints non-existent landscapes.

Admittedly, it's not very good at it.

Yet.

Harte

[Harte]

6 hours ago, Will Due said:

 

And they make fun of people who believe in God, but go on to believe that a machine can imagine.

By golly, imagine that. Lol

They make fun of them?

Haven't seen that.

Harte

[Harte]

3 hours ago, Guyver said:

I just don’t understand why people talk like this.  Who in the hell are you to tell another man his worldview is lacking?  Lacking in what?  How you see the world?  So, if someone doesn’t have the same world view as yours they’re less?  I mean, it’s a negative opinion.  A persons worldview is not as important as their actions in this world.

A person's worldview can and does shape that person's actions in this world.

You would assert that all worldviews are equally valid?

What about the worldview that brought about the extermination of millions of people in the 1930s and 40s?

A person's worldview is far more important than you seem to think.

Harte

[+joc]

2 hours ago, MauriOra said:

Atamarie Mr Joc ..

Absolutely ..

The Belief, that there is only this  Physical , Material Dense reality, is just a Belief ..

The Truth ... is  It Is Not ..

It is Energetic Also .. And We Humans are Part Physical, Part Energy ..

Only the Physical is Acknowledged.. But Not Any More .. People Will Find Out the Truth ..

Mo..xx

The difference MO is that you can prove the physical...the Etheric is just belief.  The physical iS energy...your belief that something else exists beyond this realm is just that..belief...but it cannot be proved.  Physical is easily provable.  So, if I am going to place my faith in something...it is going to be that which I know to be true.

 

 

 

[Guyver]

2 hours ago, cormac mac airt said:

Nope:

https://home.cern/about/physics/early-universe

Where is this alleged precision you’re talking about? It’s not readily apparent and it should be. 

cormac

"The premise of the fine-tuned Universe assertion is that a small change in several of the dimensionless physical constants would make the Universe radically different. As Stephen Hawking has noted, "The laws of science, as we know them at present, contain many fundamental numbers, like the size of the electric charge of the electron and the ratio of the masses of the proton and the electron. ... The remarkable fact is that the values of these numbers seem to have been very finely adjusted to make possible the development of life."[4]

If, for example, the strong nuclear force were 2% stronger than it is (for example, if the coupling constant representing its strength were 2% larger), while the other constants were left unchanged, diprotons would be stable; according to physicist Paul Davies, hydrogen would fuse into them instead of deuterium and helium.[9]This would drastically alter the physics of stars, and presumably preclude the existence of life similar to what we observe on Earth. The existence of the diproton would short-circuit the slow fusion of hydrogen into deuterium. Hydrogen would fuse so easily that it is likely that all of the Universe's hydrogen would be consumed in the first few minutes after the Big Bang.[9] This "diproton argument" is disputed by other physicists, who calculate that as long as the increase in strength is less than 50%, stellar fusion could occur despite the existence of stable diprotons.[10]"

 

link

[Only_]

4 hours ago, XenoFish said:

While this is true. There are those who only want belief over knowledge. This is nothing wrong with having faith in a higher power, it's a personal belief.  However, I can not help but think that those who want to connect dots that don't exist do not actually believe, they need something to validate their spirituality that's concrete. This is one of the reasons I've put spirituality in the psychology (soft science) bin. It deals with thoughts, feelings, and emotions. And how beliefs affect you. 

That's concrete enough to me:

Edited February 25, 2018 by Clockwork_Spirit

[+Sherapy]

8 hours ago, Harte said:

There's at least one computer on this planet that would beg to differ:

https://io9.gizmodo.com/5879423/a-computer-program-painted-this-artwork-from-its-own-imagination

Harte

Interesting add to Harte, very interesting indeed. Thank you for sharing.

[cormac mac airt]

1 hour ago, Guyver said:

"The premise of the fine-tuned Universe assertion is that a small change in several of the dimensionless physical constants would make the Universe radically different. As Stephen Hawking has noted, "The laws of science, as we know them at present, contain many fundamental numbers, like the size of the electric charge of the electron and the ratio of the masses of the proton and the electron. ... The remarkable fact is that the values of these numbers seem to have been very finely adjusted to make possible the development of life."[4]

If, for example, the strong nuclear force were 2% stronger than it is (for example, if the coupling constant representing its strength were 2% larger), while the other constants were left unchanged, diprotons would be stable; according to physicist Paul Davies, hydrogen would fuse into them instead of deuterium and helium.[9]This would drastically alter the physics of stars, and presumably preclude the existence of life similar to what we observe on Earth. The existence of the diproton would short-circuit the slow fusion of hydrogen into deuterium. Hydrogen would fuse so easily that it is likely that all of the Universe's hydrogen would be consumed in the first few minutes after the Big Bang.[9] This "diproton argument" is disputed by other physicists, who calculate that as long as the increase in strength is less than 50%, stellar fusion could occur despite the existence of stable diprotons.[10]"

link

And yet your claim of "exact precision" necessarily implies (IMO) that it originates solely within our universe AND ONLY our universe which is NOT what Hawking has more recently said. You have then effectively started in the middle of a book, reading to the end and now are trying to tell us you read the whole thing IMO. Hawking actually has the following to say on the matter:

Quote

We will describe how M-theory may offer answers to the question of creation. According to Mtheory,
ours is not the only universe. Instead, M-theory predicts that a great many universes were
created out of nothing. Their creation does not require the intervention of some supernatural being
or god. Rather, these multiple universes arise naturally from physical law. They are a prediction of
science. Each universe has many possible histories and many possible states at later times, that is,
at times like the present, long after their creation. Most of these states will be quite unlike the
universe we observe and quite unsuitable for the existence of any form of life. Only a very few
would allow creatures like us to exist. Thus our presence selects out from this vast array only those
universes that are compatible with our existence.

Source:  Stephen Hawking, Leonard Mlodinow  The Grand Design  (2010)

As should be obvious Hawking's understanding changed significantly from 1988 when he wrote A Brief History of Time to 2010 when he co-wrote the above book. 

cormac

Edited February 25, 2018 by cormac mac airt
Clarification

[Illyrius]

4 hours ago, Harte said:

That camera only paints what it sees. The program paints non-existent landscapes.

Admittedly, it's not very good at it.

Yet.

Harte

Yes, but it paints... maybe it is not imaginative but if it paints then it is intelligent, no? I mean it paints very realistically, must be very intelligent. Mr. Nikon, a wonder or realism, can paint dogs in movement in a milisecond - what an intelligent beast... which painter can do that, huh?

https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/the-fallacy-of-thinking-of-intelligence-as-software_us_59aacb14e4b0d0c16bb52543

Edited February 25, 2018 by Illyrius

[Crazy Horse]

12 hours ago, Harte said:

We know that paper will survive the "death" of a computer - an entirely separate pile of material.

What about the program installed in the computer? Does it still run on some "astral plane?"

Harte

The soul doesnt dwell with the body after death, it is reabsorbed back into the meta-physical/mental/spiritual plane.

Does the programme still survise inside the computer once it has been broken-up? No, but that programme was thought up in someones mind, so it survives there.

 

[Crazy Horse]

12 hours ago, Harte said:

Prior to the adoption of the scientific method, originating with Aristotle (in many ways,) it was commonly thought that flies simply formed out of rotting meat.

Experimentation proved otherwise in one of the earliest truly scientific experiments.

That's why.

Harte

How about you take a shot at answering the other main point, about how two apparent contradictory truths can apparently occupy the same space? 

[Crazy Horse]

14 hours ago, Sherapy said:

I know and it is so easily rectified, a basic academic based understanding of Scientific testing would do the job, perhaps just a bit of critical thinking too

Sheldrake came up with the best possible explanation that a dog meets the owner at the door is because the dog is psychic, it was at this point he became a "brand" to sell books instead of a man of Science to actually take serious. IMHO

 

Hi S

And yes, that is the best possible explanation, that the dog knows that its owner is coming home due to some kind of mind/energetic connection/transference.

If anybody can put forward a different reason? 

Why does a dog get up and wait by the door at the exact same moment that its owner decides to come home?

[Crazy Horse]

14 hours ago, Illyrius said:

Animal nature is a part of us too. I am not so sure animals feel guilt, they would need a moral judgement for that. I think he more sensed you were angry or something and it felt bad cus he felt no whiskas for him. I know about cats haha.

Hay man..

Did you ever catch one of your cats trying to sneak-up and kill a bird?

They sure look guilty to me! 

And dogs too.. Some of them dogs look guilty has all heck!