God's Physics Experiment

Tech Central Station ^ | 07/31/2003 | Kenneth Silber

[Paloma_55]

Don't take it too personal. Its just a general point I find humorous when someone criticizes someone else and proceeds to shoot themselves in the foot at the same time.

As for my ability to understand the arguments you ass_u_me that since I disagree with you, I must not understand it. That is your problem, not mine.

[edsheppa]

you ass_u_me that since I disagree with you, I must not understand it.

Your disagreement is not why I think you're a poor reasoner, it's that you consider your non sequitur a logical argument.

Don't take it too personal.

Oh, I don't take it personally at all coming from you.

[Jeff Gordon]

One might as well marvel at the fact that that one's address just happens to be where one lives.

Perfect analogy!

I have to give The Intelligent Designer kudos for creating Cannabis to help thinkers like Mr Barr work their was through the puzzles of reality.

[<1/1,000,000th%]

The real question is whether they do so in a process of random causation, constrained only by "natural selection/survival of the fittest"; or whether the evolution is a working out of a plan of "free" development "constrained" by fundamental laws built into the "plan" of the universe (so to speak). Darwinists opt for the former; to me, the latter just makes more sense.

I think most biologists would say that evolution works through principles of organic chemistry and molecular biology, as when proteins get glycosylated in mammals, although they've been unable to frame any hard and fast "laws". There may be strawman darwinists who think selection is random, but the only place I've ever heard it is here on FR.

[AndrewC]

Absolute existence. Remember I believe in the God whose name is "I AM".

[P.O.E.]

I've sometimes wondered if the "point" of matter just before the big bang was the black hole singularity of the previous universe, and that this one will collapse into itself and set off the next big bang.

To your point, I think, this is just as axiomatic as referring to the predecessor of the beginning as the "prime mover".

[Alamo-Girl]

Thank you so much for your post! Indeed, I also see design in the universe. Hugs!

[Vindiciae Contra TyrannoSCOTUS]

(And how were they to get the dates right if the zero and decimal place hadn't been invented yet?)

Reminds me of wondering how the R.O. got the E.C.P. right at S5G (the ketchup bottle with natural circ S/Gs, in the middle of the Idaho dessert) after an all niter in the local beta bar, before the invention of the P.C.

[Robert A Cook PE]

Most slept it off during the 1-1/2 bus ride ....

Waiting for twenty minutes in -25 degree air will do wonders for soberin' a guy up.............. 8<)

[edwin hubble]

Here is a link to an interesting site (Peacock at CalTech) discussing:

The Weak Anthropic Principle - (The universe seems to be 'tuned' for human life - for whatever reason).

The Strong Anthropic Principle - (There must be an intelligent plan).

http://nedwww.ipac.caltech.edu/level5/Peacock/Peacock3_5.html

...And an analysis in terms of Karl Popper's test of a scientific proposition: Can it be falsified?

[RightWhale]

Eventually each of us jumps onto the philosophy merry-go-round and takes a swipe at the brass ring. This is one of the big questions right now, how the earth or the universe is just right to support life. I never worried about it before, being since the age of 9 mystified by the question of why we are anywhere. I understand that is a poor philosophical question of the order of why does it rain only on weekends and vacations, but even Karl Popper and the rest of the Vienna Circle have not provided satisfactory answers. Or maybe they did and my German isn't good enough to catch the right nuances.