ID is officially dead.

JAL said:

-snip-That success isn't ABSOLUTE PROOF that reality reflects them LITERALLY. I'm pretty sure that space is flat rather than curved. -snip-

Click to expand...

Science is a tool for understanding physical reality, "pretty sure" doesnt cut in in science. Its what can be supported with data and facts. And you cant support any of your assertions.

VirOptimus said:

Math does not involve "common sense". Do you know what a formal logical system entails?

Click to expand...

Merely telling me I'm wrong won't convince me. You haven't refuted the argument in my post. See my discussion of a dictionary.

JAL said:

If you draw a straight line connecting one point to another, that line is not curved. Oh I forgot, Einstein says it's curved, so I'm supposed to believe him on blind faith. Gotcha.

Click to expand...

Spacetime is curved (in GR) .. yet you seem to keep referring to 'space'(?)

Einstein had and still has, everyone's respect ... that doesn't mean that the context of SR/GR won't be updated with new data.

It doesn't matter whether you believe in what he published or not, when it comes to thinking scientifically about what happens on the larger scales/more extreme velocities. Beliefs are optional but I can guarantee you, you will not advance in scientific thinking unless you're willing to park 'em outside the door labelled Science Department .. because few have the time to sort out misconceptions based on a lack of education in Science (and undo the claimed benefits resulting from some abundance of education in Philosophy).

JAL said:

This criticism seems silly. I have some degree of confidence in the equations of imaginary numbers, but that doesn't prove that they LITERALLY reflect reality. One must look a bit deeper than that.

Click to expand...

Math is a formal logical system (including imaginary numbers), math is not a description of reality. Do you know the difference?

JAL said:

Or you not understanding religion.

Click to expand...

No, you are in error. Also, its against forum rules calling science a religion.

VirOptimus said:

No, you are in error. Also, its against forum rules calling science a religion.

Click to expand...

Actually I wasn't aware of that. In that case, I might need to leave this thread.

Yeah I've decided. I'm leaving this thread because it's distracting me from my responsibilities. Thanks to everyone for your lively discussions and your patience with me.

JAL said:

This criticism seems silly. I have some degree of confidence in the equations of imaginary numbers, but that doesn't prove that they LITERALLY reflect reality. One must look a bit deeper than that.

Click to expand...

If you were the one that looked deeper you would find observation supports the existence of curved space-time based on non Euclidean geometry used in general relativity.
There are many examples here are a couple.

Example 1.
Gravitational arcs caused by the bending of light in curved space-time.

Example 2.
The precession of the gyroscope axis on the Gravity Probe B indicating the curvature of space-time around the Earth.

• 

JAL said:

No magic. I entered this thread at post 375. Since then I've been explaining that the Bible is 100% material dynamics, nothing supernatural/magical, contrary to what the theologians have been saying about it. Basically I believe in one main principle confirmed by every day experience - free will moves bodies. Everything supposedly "supernatural" in the Bible, including creation, can be understood as that principle.

Click to expand...

You do know, don't you, that life can have a spiritual aspect to it with out the supernatural or magical component. I think that's what your missing.

dlamberth said:

You do know, don't you, that life can have a spiritual aspect to it with out the supernatural or magical component.

Click to expand...

That's like saying you can have electricity without electrons.

dlamberth said:

You do know, don't you, that life can have a spiritual aspect to it with out the supernatural or magical component. I think that's what your missing.

Click to expand...

"Spiritual" has to be among the
most equivocated words ever.

Estrid said:

"Spiritual" has to be among the
most equivocated words ever.

Click to expand...

I think you may be right in a lot of ways. For myself though, being aware of the spiritual aspect of life is directly connected to what we are conscious of.

AV1611VET said:

That's like saying you can have electricity without electrons.

Click to expand...

Our conscious awareness provides the electrons.

JAL said:

No magic. I entered this thread at post 375. Since then I've been explaining that the Bible is 100% material dynamics, nothing supernatural/magical, contrary to what the theologians have been saying about it. Basically I believe in one main principle confirmed by every day experience - free will moves bodies. Everything supposedly "supernatural" in the Bible, including creation, can be understood as that principle.

Click to expand...

How does this do a better job at explaining physical reality than what we know so far in science? Does your "material dynamics" explain time difference we see in satellites (which correspond nicely to special relativity formulae, by the way), how matter generates gravity, and why quantum tunneling happens? If not, then why do you complain that science doesn't have some explanations yet either?

dlamberth said:

Our conscious awareness provides the electrons.

Click to expand...

That's shocking!

Subduction Zone said:

Though anyone in the sciences knows that ID died a long time ago.

Click to expand...

I somehow don't think, just because Douglas Axe changed jobs, that the ID movement is going to die.

Mr Axe can still promote Intelligent Design.

And for the record, if Intelligent Design is of God, then this principle applies ...

Romans 8:31 What shall we then say to these things? If God be for us, who can be against us?

JAL said:

I can't imagine a genetic or biological anomaly problematical for my version of OEC where God was in a learning process - that means potentially making any number of mistakes, as any student would, and experimenting in myriad enigmatic ways with the DNA. What's the problem here?

Click to expand...

So god messes up? You have a lower opinion of god then creationists do.

loveofourlord said:

So god messes up? You have a lower opinion of god then creationists do.

Click to expand...

I'm trying to get off this thread, but had to answer this one. You are obviously not familiar with my views. Note I used the past tense when I wrote:
"God was in a learning process"
He's not making any mistakes now! Or rather He is negligibly fallible - meaning He's innumerably magnitudes of order more perfect than we need our King to be.

This isn't a lower opinion of Him than orthodoxy, it's much higher. The 13 billion years (minimum) of labor/suffering involved in the learning process is precisely why He merits praise. The orthodox God hasn't done such labor to become holy and thus doesn't merit praise for being holy - and yet demands it anyway! If someone does nothing to merit praise, and yet still expects it, I'd consider that person a jerk. Also the Bible is pretty clear that Yahweh is the sort of person who merits praise - and it 's clear that He labored/suffered for ages.

I'm sure you'll have more objections to my views but unfortunately I don't really plan to monitor this thread.