Posted: Feb 05, 2017 9:29 pm
Dark energy wrote:Pebble wrote:Dark energy wrote:
nah,we just want to have both way,enjoy this infinitely small mortal life and hopefully the afterlife.
Don't you ever wonder why an omniscient being would demand incessant ritualistic behavior of no practical value during the short sojourn in this place? Aggravated by providing no verifiable evidence that such actions are of any merit.
It might have no value in materialistic world
This presumes in advance that there exists any other world to concern ourselves about, which is one of those core mythological assertions that remains unsupported by evidence. The onus is on those treating this assertion as fact, to demonstrate the factual nature of this assertion, and thus far, supernaturalists have had 5,000 years in which to do so, during which time they have all failed.
Dark energy wrote:but these short ritualistic behaviors are worth it
The mere fact that many here regard said ritualistic behaviours as superfluous to requirements and irrelevant, from the standpoint either of leading a full and meaningful life, or of acquiring useful substantive knowledge, should be telling you something important here. As should the fact that there are other people, who, as a result of adherence to different mythologies, based upon assertions that are incompatible with the assertions of your chosen mythology, say exactly the same thing about the ritualistic behaviours arising from their choices of mythology.
Indeed, that's a central critique of the entire supernaturalist enterprise that I present frequently here. Namely, that humans have invented a multitude of mythologies, all based upon the treatment of unsupported assertions as purportedly constituting fact, and supernaturalists cannot agree amongst themselves on a global scale, which of these mythologies is purportedly the "right" mythology. Worse still, even self-proclaimed adherents of a particular mythology, cannot agree amongst themselves what that mythology is purportedly telling us. See:schism.
Dark energy wrote:I would like to have a proof which can be tested again and again in the laboratory but we are still looking for that quantifiable evidence .
Good luck with that one, given the complete failure of supernaturalists to find evidence supporting even peripheral mythological assertions, let alone core assertions.
Dark energy wrote:interesting that The Solar system, galaxies,the planet Earth, every plant, animal and human has a well-consided structure.
Correction. These are entities possessing an observable structure. Nothing about the observable structures in question points to these structures being the product of sentient intent. On the other hand, there are truckloads of peer reviewed scientific papers, containing evidence that testable natural processes are sufficient to account for those structures.
Take biology. The arrangement of tissues was given its first in-depth insights by a seminal paper, written by Alan Turing in 1952 (yes, the same Alan Turing who was a central figure in the cracking of the WWII Enigma code). In that paper, he proposed a mathematical model, in which growth promoters and repressors diffused through tissues in accordance with a well-defined set of partial differential equations, and demonstrated that said model was capable of reproducing a wide variety of observed biological structures. Since that paper was written, more work has been performed in the field, and as evidence of this, I have 18 papers in my collection, devoted to the application of this model to papilio dardanus mimetic wing patterns alone. Recently, a candidate polygene responsible for those wing patterns has been identified as the invected gene, courtesy of this recent paper in Proc. R. Soc. Lond. B., which adds a 19th paper to my collection with respect to this topic. A later paper, namely this one, used higher resolution genetic analysis to home in on another candidate, the engrailed gene, which happens to reside adjacent to the invected gene on the requisite butterfly chromosomes. That paper brings the total in my collection to 20.
As for physics, you might be shocked to learn that Isaac Newton alighted upon the reason for the structure of Earth, the Solar System and galaxies back in 1667, courtesy of gravity. Again, much work has been completed since that date, and as a result, the manner in which gravity can generate such structures is now well understood, to the point where NASA has been able to use that knowledge to plan gravity-assistance spaceflight trajectories of stunning precision. For example, using that knowledge, NASA was able to guide the Cassini-Huygens mission to Titan, a mission involving a 7 year spaceflight and three gravity assists (one past Venus, one past the Earth, and a third past Jupiter), and a flight journey of some 7 billion miles, at the end of which the mission planners were able to park the spacecraft in orbit around Titan, to within 100 metres of where they wanted it to be. Now gravity is as mindless an entity as one could wish for, yet, its action permits the emergence of a vast range of structured entities. Even if one uses the computationally simpler Newtonian model, as opposed to the more precise, but far more involved model from General Relativity, it is still possible to model the behaviour of a vast range of entities to exquisite precision. With access to the requisite experts, and powerful enough computers, even more stunning results can be derived from the relativistic model, including results that are beyond the remit of the Newtonian model (frame-dragging etc). Among the successes arising from such work, we have the planetary accretion model for planet formation, which now enjoys observational support from the use of space based telescopes.
Indeed, the entire motivation for the hypothesis of dark matter, centres upon the deviation of observed galaxy rotation from the model. Since the models we have of gravity work so well elsewhere, and it's extremely difficult to produce an alternative model that still accounts for all of the observations with which the current model is in accord, the simplest approach was taken, namely asking what would happen, if missing mass was added to the model. Adding the missing mass, in an approximately spherical distribution, resulted in the model's behaviour matching observed galaxy behaviour far more closely, and reproducing the elusive galaxy rotation curves that were so difficult to reproduce beforehand.
Now, of course, there exists the question of what form this missing mass takes, if it does indeed exist, and why it was not detected before. Since all the previously known matter was detected via its interaction with electromagnetic radiation (e.g., light), it was then hypothesised that this new form of matter, if it does indeed exist, is a form of matter that simply does not interact with electromagnetic radiation (or the electromagnetic force) at all, hence the term "dark matter". It is, of course, hypothesised to interact with gravity, a necessary condition if it is to form the basis of the solution to the galaxy rotation problem, but this leaves open the question of the other forces, namely the weak and strong nuclear forces. The two favoured possibilities centre on interaction (or not) with the weak nuclear force, as this would not open up scattering problems that might affect strong nuclear interactions. Of course, direct detection of this matter still remains an unfulfilled experimental goal, but given the manner in which the dark matter hypothesis explains a number of observations, including weak gravitational lensing, competing theories still have to account for these other observations, as well as providing differential predictions allowing decisive test.
And at this point, this is where I introduce the essential principle that differentiates scientific theories from mythological assertions. Namely, in the world of scientific theories, systemic failure to account for observed data, eventually leads to that theory being falsified, and discarded in favour of another. Data is king in the world of science, and no matter how ugly the data, no amount of theoretical elegance can overcome failure to match the data. Mythological assertions, on the other hand, are dispensed as purportedly constituting "absolute truth", and any contrary data is hand-waved away with apologetic fabrications. Another reason that many here reject mythological assertions, over and above the complete absence of any corroborating data, or in numerous cases, data that actively refutes those assertions.
Moving on ...
Dark energy wrote:Why is that so?
It isn't so. It's an illusion. See above.
Dark energy wrote:for me ,it means and points to the creator, not blind nature like my atheists friends like to argue.
Except that testable natural processes enjoy massive empirical support. Mythologically asserted supernatural entities enjoy zero empirical support. Game over.
Dark energy wrote:For the building particles - atoms and molecules still follow a pattern,that is enough to convince me of the designer.
Again, completely wrong. Look up "Pauli exclusion principle". Which explains exquisitely the Periodic Table.
Meanwhile, care to explain what sort of "designer" would arrange for the existence of Carabid beetles, which have fully functional wings under their elytra, but which will never use them because those elytra are fused shut?
Dark energy wrote:p.s God takes 25 min out of 1440 of my daily life that is 0.01666666666 quite insignificant according to calculations but what matters is intentions.
Actually, I think you'll find what really matters, if you want to make real progress, is ensuring that your ideas are in accord with the data. Because if they aren't, it doesn't matter how many good intentions you have, you're doomed to failure from the onset.