Origin of Earth

[Gipper]

Before you kiss his ... too much, review his posts on gun control. I am incapable of debating or comprehending them.

Well then, even at your advanced age you have yet to learn the old adage...knowing when to shut up...

 

[numinus]

Hahahahaha....

Lets see now...the Ludington Geezer is upset that Numinus posts at the HOP with well thought out intelligent statements that he is incapable of debating or comprehending...and he thinks that is so unfair.

Numinus, apparently Geezer thinks you are just too smart for him and the rest of us. Is this some sort of effort at socialization of intelligence?

Please keep posting.

What I find really offensive is that he thinks this forum is bereft of sensible members. That is probably why he has the gall to make an utterly racist remark like 'brown monkey' in the public domain.

I have only recently realized that the root of all evil is STUPIDITY -- whether you look at it in a metaphorical or actual sense. Sensible people have an obligation to point out stupid nonsense wherever it may manifest.

 

[Gipper]

What I find really offensive is that he thinks this forum is bereft of sensible members. That is probably why he has the gall to make an utterly racist remark like 'brown monkey' in the public domain.

I have only recently realized that the root of all evil is STUPIDITY -- whether you look at it in a metaphorical or actual sense. Sensible people have an obligation to point out stupid nonsense wherever it may manifest.

Agreed. But, sadly stupidity is something most prevalent in humans since the beginning of time and we don't appear ready to lose that trait. In fact, a strong case could be made that stupidity is on the rise around the world.

We were given this beautiful Earth and the ability to enjoy it's great wonders. Yet, we continually descend into darkness causing each other terrible pain and suffering.

 

[numinus]

Agreed. But, sadly stupidity is something most prevalent in humans since the beginning of time and we don't appear ready to lose that trait. In fact, a strong case could be made that stupidity is on the rise around the world.

We were given this beautiful Earth and the ability to enjoy it's great wonders. Yet, we continually descend into darkness causing each other terrible pain and suffering.

It is enough that you are aware of it -- you then have the ability to change it.

Exactly what is the common element between the burning of the koran in the us and the attack on un personnel in afghanistan?

STUPIDITY.

 

[Gipper]

It is enough that you are aware of it -- you then have the ability to change it.

Exactly what is the common element between the burning of the koran in the us and the attack on un personnel in afghanistan?

STUPIDITY.

I could not agree more.

And, the stupidity extends to those who excuse these horrific acts and those who fail to recognize the dangers "stupid people" can cause for all of us.

 

[numinus]

I could not agree more.

And, the stupidity extends to those who excuse these horrific acts and those who fail to recognize the dangers "stupid people" can cause for all of us.

Exactly!

Stupidity is dangerous. It is inexcusable!

 

[PLC1]

Exactly!

Stupidity is dangerous. It is inexcusable!

I think you're talking about ignorance, not stupidity. There is a difference. Just because a box has no apples doesn't mean that it will hold none.

Willful ignorance is inexcusable. We are all ignorant, just in different areas.

And there is none so willfully ignorant as he who thinks himself bereft of all ignorance.

He who knows not, and knows not that the knows not, is a fool, shun him.
He who knows not, and knows that the knows not, is a child, teach him.
He who knows, and knows not that the knows, is a asleep, wake him.
He who knows, and knows that the knows, is wise, follow him.

 

[numinus]

I think you're talking about ignorance, not stupidity. There is a difference. Just because a box has no apples doesn't mean that it will hold none.

Willful ignorance is inexcusable. We are all ignorant, just in different areas.

And there is none so willfully ignorant as he who thinks himself bereft of all ignorance.

He who knows not, and knows not that the knows not, is a fool, shun him.
He who knows not, and knows that the knows not, is a child, teach him.
He who knows, and knows not that the knows, is a asleep, wake him.
He who knows, and knows that the knows, is wise, follow him.

No. I meant stupidity. A profound unwillingness to exercise even the most rudimentary reasoning faculty.

 

[Gipper]

No. I meant stupidity. A profound unwillingness to exercise even the most rudimentary reasoning faculty.

And, a good example of stupidity is the belief by many of man caused global warming...

And, the belief that raising taxes raises revenue to the Treasury.

And, the belief that Islam is a religion of peace.

And, the belief that limiting handguns will reduce crime.

And, the belief that Christianity is no different than Islam.

And, the belief that Israel is unjust and should leave it's homeland.

And, the belief that the majority of the media is NOT liberal.

And, the belief that Obamacare is effective and beneficial.

I could go on, but you get my point.

 

[dahermit]

What I find really offensive is that he thinks this forum is bereft of sensible members.

Do not put words in my mouth. This forum has the "normal distribution" when it comes to members. However, there are very few members (those who still post), left.

That is probably why he has the gall to make an utterly racist remark like 'brown monkey' in the public domain.

There it is, the master of insulting other posters trying to frame himself as the victim.
Actually, it was meant as a term of endearment.

 

[numinus]

Do not put words in my mouth. This forum has the "normal distribution" when it comes to members. However, there are very few members (those who still post), left.

How did you put that again? The big frog in a small pond of tadpoles? Its like the forum is populated with imbeciles, instead of one or two very noisy imbeciles.

For the record, I have great respect for a lot of people here. That's why I come back.

There it is, the master of insulting other posters trying to frame himself as the victim.
Actually, it was meant as a term of endearment.

I have NEVER complained about any insult directed at me. And yes, I find you endearing. As endearing as that unmistakable itch on your balls in the morning.

 

[dahermit]

I find you endearing. As endearing as that unmistakable itch on your balls in the morning.

I thought that was going to be our little secret.

 

[Dr.Who]

Is it possible to use science to support the idea of creation of the universe by an intelligent being?

Lets break that down.

An intelligent being exists or it does not.

The word "being" just means something that exists. It does not imply a body or what shape that body would take.

So we need only ask"

Is it possible to use science to support the idea of creation of the universe by an intelligence?

It is widely accepted that science already and quite validly supports the idea that the universe was created. So we need not question that part.

The only question is whether or not there is an intelligent or a non-intelligent cause for the creation.

Since science is capable of identifying something as intelligent or not it is therefore possible for science to support the idea of creation of the universe by an intelligent being. We have both a hypotheses and a null hypotheses so now all that is left is to disprove one of them (leaving the other as the accepted scientific theory).

What evidence do we need to disprove the hypotheses that a non-intelligent cause created the universe? First we need to show that it is not random. Are there any other kinds of non-intelligence that could create the universe? If so then we need to disprove those too.

Regarding it not being random: should we use the alpha level of significance (standard in science) which says that the results obtained could only be wrong 5% of the time or a more exacting level of significance? Or should we use a more stringent level than has ever been demanded?

I think that even the most stringent level would be met - the universe is not random. So what do we make of people who would still expect an even higher burden of proof than is expected in other other endeavor of science?

 

[Dr.Who]

The more I thought about that since I left that last post the more I was thinking that the options are an intelligent created universe or a non-intelligent created universe and that the non-intelligent created universe did consist of more options than just random.

A non-intelligent created universe could be random but it could also be orderly too. For example, on a smaller scale a tree is orderly but it is not intelligent (unless like a computer program that is not intelligent it is designed by an intelligence).

So, how could we have an orderly non-intelligent created universe?

All the things we see in this universe clearly are ordered and it is frankly beyond reason to imagine that they are ordered by chance. But there are only a few (that we know of) forces that govern the universe. These are the major forces (magnetic, gravitational, strong, weak) and the laws that govern them.

Could it be that the laws and the major forces came into existence randomly and as a result they caused everything else to behave orderly?

Calling the orderly result of random laws the null hypotheses, how would we disprove it? Are the laws of nature designed by a creator (the founders of science called them laws because like human laws they thought that they were created and designed by a creator)?

Do the laws of nature have some underlying order to them that would cause us to conclude that they are designed or are they random and unorderly but they cause the rest of creation to act orderly?

 

[Dr.Who]

After reading a few artcles this is what I found.

The laws of chemistry rely on the laws of physics which in turn rely on the laws of mathematics and logic to exist.

If I see order in in the way a plant grows or in my morning coffee getting cool it is only because math and logic are orderly.

It is inconceivable that the development of a plant would be orderly without something imposing that order on it. Many see God but it could as well be that there are a few laws which cause all order.

Even if the results are orderly are those few laws random and unorderly?

It is not proven yet but deductively all our observations have lead us to answer that yes even the basic laws are orderly. We have laws that we use to describe the actions of the laws.

For example, the laws of nature of not orderly might work one way today but work a different way in ten thousand years. They might not be consistent from one side of the galaxy to the other. But we have observed that the laws of nature do follow order and they appear to be completely orderly in terms of how they operate both across time and space.

Are math and logic the result of an intelligence? If we are to be consistent then before answering the question we must define what criteria we will use to say if a thing is the result of intelligence or not then apply our rubric to the question of math and logic.