also, if you make a universe, surely everything is designed isnt it?

It isn't.

why not?

Царь Славян wrote:I knew it wouldnt last long. I tried to be nice,

Sure thing, Tsar, you tried to be nice - by calling everyone the worst human garbage ever !

Sure thing, Tsar, that's trying to be nice. But go ahead and play the victim here. You can fool yourself, maybe you can fool your religious friends about how mean the evil atheists are.

but the first post I got in response used bad language again

So here we go again...

Whaddya know, Tsar's back with another serving of juvenile logic failure.

My logic is juvenile?

Yes,, that's what I said, and I demonstrated that I'm correct in saying it. Your logic is juvenile - and wrong.

You wanna know what's juvenile? The animals Darwin had sex with while on Galapagos.

Oh, you're so funny. Did you dream that up yourself ?

Some people think dreams are very significant. I wonder what your dreams might signify about you.

QED. Tsar's sniveling excuse for why he won't/can't use the same decent manners with everyone here is a total logic failure.

My sniveling excuse? You wanna know what's sniveling? Darwin's beard after drinking horse cum and having his beard plasterd all over. That's what's sniveling.

You're trying too hard. You've lost the comic touch.

Spearthrower wrote:This is an outright lie and is against the forum rules as well as being contrary to all conventional honour and morality.

I never once attacked you personally.

Further, your response was a bait and switch.

Had I have attacked or even called people at the Discovery Institute 'utter fucking retards', which I most certainly didn't, that would not have been a personal attack on you.

Did I use 'bad language'? Yes, possibly depending on what you consider to be bad language. Did I use it AT you? No.

Please don't make false accusations like this impugning mine and others characters when it is you who had a meltdown and went on a personal abuse spree.

I don't remember having been even remotely impolite to Tsar either. Perhaps he can point out where exactly I have displayed this alleged impoliteness.

hackenslash wrote:

Царь Славян wrote:

Spearthrower wrote:I never once said 'you need to know intent to infer design' - I said that 'design necessarily infers intent' - you purposefully obfuscated that because the line of reasoning buried your pathetic attempts at shoring up the medieval masturbatory fantasy now known as "ID".

You said that I can't infer design without intent. Don't make me go and quote you again.

Do you understand the difference between being able to infer intent and actually knowing what that intent is? It's a very important distinction in the context of the exchange between Spearthrower and yourself here.

There are only 2 reasonable explanations for Царь's 180° as comprehensively listed a couple of pages back.

1) He still hasn't grasped the extremely simple point that design necessarily infers intent, even though he has admitted that this is the case.

or

2) He sees what an absurd position admitting this is irrevocably going to lead him into and is desperately backpedalling and flailing about trying to think of a way to evade it. If he carries on long enough, the point will be so far back that I will have to effectively restate the entire case and all the object examples from his claims will be lost in the murky depths of this thread where he hopes I wont venture to reclaim.


I am still of the mind that it is this which caused him to throw his toys out of the pram. Very effective sleight of hand.

Царь Славян wrote:

Just repeat the same crap all over again, crap that has been regurgitated ad nauseam at times. (Of course, the QM crap you've been posting, is new to me, at least. But it is still crap, misrepresentation of science, ignorance in a very big scale. ) And not only that, but you refuse to learn.

No, you see, as I stated earlier, you don't know any science. You know POPULAR science, but not science. There is a big differnce between popular science and science. Reading few books about popular science like Relativity and Quantum Mechanics, does not mean you know anything about science.

But let's not waste words anymore shall we. Let's actually show you some science, other than popular science you are used to.

Actually, I am studying physics. With real professors. Actual professors with PhD.

Царь Славян wrote:
The aether, you know, the mediom that ligt travels through. To bad you never heard of it. Yet, you claim that your strong field is physics.

I have but it is a notion that is obsolete. There is no aether medium. None has been found ever, in space.

Царь Славян wrote:

This signifies that the spacetime,
or a vacuum is endowed with structural properties that turn us out to a certain
aether, but rather quantum one.
In recent years several serious attempts to re-introduce an aether in physics have
been made [5-11]. Similarly, in the previous works of the author [12-19] a simulation
of a vacuum in the form of a cellular elastic space has been proposed and deterministic
quantum mechanics based on the strong interaction of a moving particle
with such a space net has been constructed.

http://arxiv.com/PS_cache/hep-th/pdf/0205/0205196v1.pdf

Following the 19th century program by Dirichlet, Helmholtz, Thomson, and Hertz to obtain a completely kinematic interpretation of classical mechanics by the nonlinear Euler equations, an attempt is made to interpret the gauge and equivalence principles hydrodynamically in the framework of the Planck aether model.

http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1995IJTP...34..265W

Here we have a case of an article that describes the working of gravity on the quantum level. And it introduces a concept of deterministic QM based on the aether. The kind of interpretation that does no contradict logic and break the law of causality. The second article describes the workings of the aether on the Planck scale, just as I believe that I mentioned way back before.

Now that you have been schooled about non-popular science, please do think about your future steps.

Really? Nobody knows every paper that comes out. I did not know about these papers. The first paper, from what I glanced seemed to introduce the concept of yet another particle called inerton in order to satisfy his interpretation of QM. Which seems to be unnecessary complexity, IMHO. Frankly, I looked in a couple of my books, etc. and have not found any mention of this interpretation. and no, they are textbooks on QM, nuclear and particle physics not popular science books. And from what I can gather this is probably an obscure interpretation, and there is no mention of it in any of my books, and some are after this guy started promoting his own hypothesis.

As for the second one, it is behind a paywall, and I will get it when I have some time to look for it through my University's access. yes, Czar, I am studying physics, at a real university.

Царь Славян wrote:

The job of the NCSE is to keep science in school. Evolutionary theory is scientific, therefore the NSCE is right to want to keep it in schools.

No. Science is about falsifying theories. You are not supposed to keep a theory in school forever.

You are supposed to keep it until a new and improved theory comes along. And evolutionary theory does not have any other contenders. ID IS NOT SCIENCE!

Царь Славян wrote:

Unlike your fantasy designer. As for Dawkins, so fucking what? That's his opinion.

And it's opinion of some ID proponents that they are Christians. So what?

But ID IS NOT SCIENCE! And there are plenty of Christians who are evolutionary biologists and say that ID = creationism. Kenneth Miller: ever heard of Prof. Kenneth Miller?

Царь Славян wrote:

Neither Dawkins nor the NCSE have anything to do with your designer, which is god, by the admission of the DI.

Wrong. Where does it say that?

From the Discovery Institute's site:

The point of view Discovery brings to its work includes a belief in God-given reason and the permanency of human nature; the principles of representative democracy and public service expounded by the American Founders; free market economics domestically and internationally; the social requirement to balance personal liberty with responsibility; the spirit of voluntarism crucial to civil society; the continuing validity of American international leadership; and the potential of science and technology to promote an improved future for individuals, families and communities.

Here: http://www.discovery.org/aboutFunctions.php

Isn't the above enough? So, when they talk of an intelligent designer, they talk of god...

Царь Славян wrote:

I get it. Too many superhero comic-books.

I'm simply posing a philosophical question.

There is a subforum for navel-gazing, you can go there and post as many philosophical questions as you want.

Царь Славян wrote:

That something can be described with "engineering jargon" does not mean automatically that it is designed.

That's pretty much obvious.

That is another non-sequitur on your part.

No, because I never said that.

Really? Let's see:

Царь Славян wrote:
Could be, I don't know. I never claimed that the whole universe is designed. Maybe it is, maybe not. I'm just saying that teh hypothesis of an engineerd world is a good scientific hypothesis because there are so many things in nature we can describe with engineering jargon.

You are lying and contradicting yourself here.

Царь Славян wrote:
There is. Particulary in the case of the flagellum.

FAIL. As a lot of people said, and as Prof. Kenneth Miller showed in the famous Kitzmiller vs. Dover trial... THE FLAGELLUM IS NOT DESIGNED!

Царь Славян wrote:
Yes I know that.

Read above. Maybe you know that now...

Царь Славян wrote:
You first have to have engineering to make something that is engineerd.

Comprehension fail. I was clearly talking about words and their usage, not engineering. And some forms of engineering have existing for more than 2000 years. Ever seen Roman aqueducts or the Via Appia? Engineering feats of the ancient Romands. And many more ancient civilizations had one form of engineering or other. And as for words, many times we use words that originally had a different meaning. Many words that are used in one field may have had a different meaning in the past. See, language evolves the same as other things.

Царь Славян wrote:
Neitehr did I say that fine-tuning is the evidence of design!

Here it is:

Царь Славян wrote:
Because in order for life to exist in teh first place, the universe has to support it. So out of all possible ways the universe could exist, this one exists. One of the possible explanations is design.

Again contradicting yourself? maybe you did not use fine-tuning, but according to your definition of fine tuning:

Царь Славян wrote:
No, it doesn't follow. Fine-tuning simply means that the life can exist in the first place.

Царь Славян wrote:
Do you believe in abiogenesis?

Abiogenesis is a scientific theory for the origins of teh first replicator. I accept the work of scientists on it. I accept that abiogenesis, with our current understanding of science, is very much probable.

Царь Славян wrote:
Yes, and that's why you don't actually need to see Rosetta stone get designed in person. You can infer it. Right?

Yes, but as I have been trying to explain to you, the Rosetta stone has nothing to do with ID. You are trying to compare ants with stone...

Царь Славян wrote:
But he didn't know much about it.

Much more than you do apparently. You can think whatever you want about Darwin, that does not invalidate his contribution to science.

Царь Славян wrote:
Yes I do. Based on what exactly did you conclude that I don't. Cite me the part that I said that was wrong.

Just the fact that you think it is illogical.

Царь Славян wrote:
It's not scientific not because it's an interpretation. It's not scientific because it's an illgoical interpretation.

Physicists disagree with you. You may think whatever you like, and you may not like the Copenhagen interpretation, but that does not mean that it is not scientific. All physics textbooks, and QM textbooks include the Copenhagen interpretation, but nothing includes your Ukrainian guy.

Царь Славян wrote:
A designer of what?

Are you fucking kidding me? Aren't you the one who is postulating the existence of a fucking designer?

Царь Славян wrote:
No. I never said the designer designed any of those.

Fucking hell! Not only are you contradicting yourself, you are also lying about it. And you did cut out the part where I was showing you your own contradiction. Want me to do it again? here it is then:

Царь Славян wrote:
It's a theory because everything you observe in nature is evidence for this hypothesis. Thus everything can be explained by it.

And we were talking about ID.

Царь Славян wrote:
And neither do the archelogists know who and where made the Rosetta stone. They are also assuming about it's origin. We simply do not know.

Well,

Царь Славян wrote:
Wrong.

I never said that I will call everything designed. Things that can be accounted for by natural laws and chance, are not to be infered as designed. I told you that already. Why did you tell me that I will call everything designed, when that's clearly not the case?

Again lying:

Царь Славян wrote:
It's a theory because everything you observe in nature is evidence for this hypothesis. Thus everything can be explained by it.

Царь Славян wrote:
I didn't refuse anything. Cite me the parts that I refused.

Царь Славян wrote:
There is. Particulary in the case of the flagellum.

And as a lot of people have said, the flagellum IS NOT DESIGNED NOR IS EVIDENCE FOR DESIGN.

Царь Славян wrote:
Here is the work done by the Biologic Institute. This is a DI funded group of scientists who are all doing science from a design perspective.

http://biologicinstitute.org/research/

Nope, it is not the Discovery Institute. It's another institute.

Царь Славян wrote:
Can you find the designer who made the Rosetta stone?

No, because that person has died a long time ago. See, I know that this person(s) existed and died. How about your designer? You are postulating design! maybe your designer is dead? Or maybe he never existed except in the minds of certain people?

Царь Славян wrote:
Then why are you wasting my time? And Specified complexity is a mathematical notion not a biological one.

[/quote][/quote]

Well, Specified Complexity is an argument, not mathematics. And it is an argument that was made to promote ID by Dembski, and it is MATHEMATICALLY UNSOUND, as a lot of real scientists will say to you. So, why lose my time with a mathematically unsound argument? It has no use nor validity in anything.

Царь Славян wrote:
But let's not waste words anymore shall we. Let's actually show you some science, other than popular science you are used to.
The aether, you know, the mediom that ligt travels through. To bad you never heard of it. Yet, you claim that your strong field is physics.

Wh...?!?
WHAT??!?!?

Oh my fucking bearded zombie prophet's mother on a pogo stick!

Look at the hubris coupled with complete ignorance of science.

The aether?

THE AETHER?



This just tickles me no end. Tsar keeps on rattling on about science, but hasn't yet figured out that bad ideas get killed off through a process known as falsification.

The aether?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michelson% ... experiment

The Michelson–Morley experiment was performed in 1887 by Albert Michelson and Edward Morley at what is now Case Western Reserve University. Its results are generally considered to be the first strong evidence against the theory of a luminiferous aether. The experiment has also been referred to as "the moving-off point for the theoretical aspects of the Second Scientific Revolution".[1]

The thing is, they set out to actually measure the luminiferous aether and ended up falsifying it... because it didn't exist. Special relativity really put the final nail in the coffin for it.... but suddenly Tsar's decided to resurrect a hundred year old zombie and use it to berate another member here, who is studying her Physics degree, as if he was in a position of knowledge.

I call that intentional deception, in my book, and if it wasn't so inanely funny, I would report it.

Now that you have been schooled about non-popular science, please do think about your future steps.

You know what they call 'non-popular science'? Absolutely nothing... if it's not popular, no one found a use for it, as in, it was unnecessary.

Soearthrower, what he is trying to talk about is not aether.

If I remember correctly, this is something to do with space being granulated. We perceive it as smooth, because the granules are smaller or equal to Planck lengths.

Some physicists equate this granulated space with aether, and this is what the Planck aether model is. However, this does not in itself say anything about any of the interpretations of Quantum Mechanics.

I don't know about these proposed interpretations of QM he has linked to, but I will probably ask one of my tutors.

Tsar is threatening to make fun of Darwin

In a classic case of creationist projection he thinks insulting Darwin will hurt us in the same way mocking Jesus would hurt him.

We don't worship Darwin, silly.

Царь Славян wrote:Before we continue, I would like to make few things clear. First things first.

......

To the rest of you:

Now that we have no reason to pretend that we like each other, I will come clean so that we can either continue this discussion politely or not at all. In my opinion you all, are the worst case of human garbage that I ever came across. I don't like you one bit and I don't care what happens to any of you. If it was up to me, I would not care if all your relatives got cancer. And as a matter of fact, that would be just fine as far as I'm concerned.

And I'm sure the feeling is mutual. So now that we know that we do not care for each other, the discussion can continue any way you want it to. It's up to you. My following posts will be perfectly polite. If I even for a second sense that I'm not getting back that same politeness, you will be hearing stories of Darwin and his pets for as long as it will be needed. It's your choice.

I function using a framework of Humanism so it is not possible for me to feel such sentiments against you.

Perhaps you just need a nice cup of tea ?. I like Lapsang Souchong as it does remind me to the scent of smoke on boiled water that you get when camping.

Царь Славян wrote:Before we continue, I would like to make few things clear. First things first.

To the mod:

Durro wrote:Czar was temporarily suspended for a 24 hour cool off period.

I'm sorry bout no. You are either not being honest on purpose or you have been deceived. I was NOT banned for 24 hours for a cooling period. The reason for my ban, as it was stated, was the following. It said in the ban message, that I abused the Private Message function. I have sent a PM to a particular member, and after that particular member could not resopond to me, because that particular member obviously saw I was right, the said member either banned me, or asked someone else to do it.

That is all concerning you.

Fucking hell! NO THAT IS A COMPLETE LIE. I did not respond to your PM because it was abusive and it was a personal attack against me and many other people on the forum. You were suspended because of your last posts and your PM to me, in order to cool down, to calm down as Durro said to you. I had nothing to do with your suspension, I was not involved with that decision at all exactly because I am both involved with the discussion here, and because I was the recipient of a very abusive PM. And of course, I do not respond to abusive PMs.

I cannot bring it here as evidence without your prior consent. Do you consent for me to disclose the PM I received? Even if you don't, all the other moderators saw it, as I reported it.

Царь Славян wrote:The aether, you know, the mediom [sic] that ligt [sic] travels through. To [sic] bad you never heard of it. Yet, you claim that your strong field is physics.

Darkchilde's question mark was not an indication that she didn't know what you were talking about, but incredulity that you erected such previously refuted nonsense. There were these two gentlemen, names of Michelson and Morley. Too bad you never heard of them.

I have to revise my earlier statement: The wicked course Tzar has taken in this thread is beyond what you usually get from a creationist. It is digusting, vile and far from the behavior you'd normally expect from a sane, adult person.

In the avalanche of extreme hubris that are Tsar's posts, we have an individual expounding his "above average" skills in mathematics, information theory, Quantum Mechanics and evolutionary biology. So much so, that he feels confident simply handwaving away objections by the actual authors of the papers he handwaves away, including but not limited to pretending he would have something interesting to debate a fucking nobel laureate with.

Did anyone notice how he just shook off the actual authors of the original NFL theorem, because they critiqued Dumbski's insane mangling of their work?

And we dare not make fun of the DI or Dimwitski, or he will again tell stories about his repressed, sorry no, I mean't Darwin's bestial and homoerotic sexual lust.

Scar wrote:I have to revise my earlier statement: The wicked course Tzar has taken in this thread is beyond what you usually get from a creationist. It is digusting, vile and far from the behavior you'd normally expect from a sane, adult person.

Yes but you see, if you look at his avatar, you might think he's here on behalf of Jesus Christ. That would explain a lot really...

More interestinigly, that avatar has Jeebus looking like he's got steam coming out his ears, which explains the behaviour of the last few pages, maybe...

Animavore wrote:Tsar is threatening to make fun of Darwin

In a classic case of creationist projection he thinks insulting Darwin will hurt us in the same way mocking Jesus would hurt him.

We don't worship Darwin, silly.

But that's the thing... he actually believes we do. That's also why he constantly has to reference Richard Dawkins, and functionally redefine atheism at any opportunity. He thinks the world works in a certain way and his entire purpose in being here is apparently contingent on the factual nature of this world view. When it is demonstrated to him that he's actually wrong about what he thinks about evolution, Darwin and atheism, it logically follows that he has no case to begin with. I'm sure that is a most disturbing feeling to him and so he has to deny it.

This was made plainly obvious in his whole sidetrack on the purpose/bias of the journal Nature, and how he constantly brought up whatever Dawkins thinks on the subject as evidence that Nature must be biased. And then of course, how he insisted that evolution is a "world view" from which we get our "atheist moral relativism".

I have to say, given the choice between Tsar's Divine Command Theory (he wouldn't mind that we all die horrible deaths to cancer) and the "atheist moral relativism" of the members on this board, I think I'll just stick with the atheism thing.

Darkchilde wrote:Soearthrower, what he is trying to talk about is not aether.

If I remember correctly, this is something to do with space being granulated. We perceive it as smooth, because the granules are smaller or equal to Planck lengths.

Some physicists equate this granulated space with aether, and this is what the Planck aether model is. However, this does not in itself say anything about any of the interpretations of Quantum Mechanics.

I don't know about these proposed interpretations of QM he has linked to, but I will probably ask one of my tutors.

Indeed, described here:

eproceedings.worldscinet.com/9789812777850/preserved-docs/9789812777850_0080.pdf

Foolish scientists, they scoffed at my hypothesis. But I'LL SHOW THEM MWAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!!!!

So, twistor59, this was a case of equivocation and as a consequence, quote mining?

hackenslash wrote:

Царь Славян wrote:The aether, you know, the mediom [sic] that ligt [sic] travels through. To [sic] bad you never heard of it. Yet, you claim that your strong field is physics.

Darkchilde's question mark was not an indication that she didn't know what you were talking about, but incredulity that you erected such previously refuted nonsense. There were these two gentlemen, names of Michelson and Morley. Too bad you never heard of them.

It is even worse than that Hack.

He talks about aether, but what he is talking about is the Planck aether model. I have written to my last year's Physics tutor, she has a PhD in molecular physics and has done work in archaeological science. When I'll hear from her on said model, I'll put up a longer summary.

There is another OU tutor who is an expert on QM, and would probably know a lot, but have to find his e-mail address and ask him about it. He was one of my tutors in last year's experimental course.

In none of his physics, he ever mentions any names first. I always mentioned the names first. Check all my posts where I respond to him, and his posts. The evidence is all there. He mentioned the aether, but not that he was talking about a different thing, namely the Planck aether model. He talked about the Heisenberg Uncertainty principle, but no names again. Not until I mentioned Heisenberg, he named him, and also I was the first to name the Copenhagen interpretation and the Many Worlds Interpretation. [Btw, the summary on the two main interpretations I gave is from a physics assignment from last year, and of course I aced that question.]

As for the aether, seeing that he made a very ignorant error, I think that Czar, just put aether into google scholar, found two papers at random and gave them here. I don't think he knows anything about QM, he is just writing bullshit. He tried to make it so that they were apparently by unknown physicists/mathematicians and he succeeded with one, but the second paper is from a well-known in physics professor, F. Winterberg.

Darkchilde wrote:As for the aether, seeing that he made a very ignorant error, I think that Czar, just put aether into google scholar, found two papers at random and gave them here. I don't think he knows anything about QM, he is just writing bullshit.

That seems like a very likely explanation. If I recall correctly, the Planck aether model gained prominence briefly around 10 years ago, and seems to have subsequently disappeared without a trace. I don't see any references to it anymore.