Toronto posted this comment on another thread:
A privileged planet, ( for observation of the universe ), would be one that could see “most” of the universe, i.e. not part of it.
We would sit on “top” of the universe so we could see more star systems than having to look “through” a mass of stars.
This position would also cut down on the effects of gravitational lensing.
We would also have a unique orbit both within our solar system, and as part of it.
Our solar system’s orbit would take us close to other star systems so we could investigate them without having to build spaceships that take more than a scientist’s lifetime to get anywhere.
Our atmosphere would shield us from almost any deadly radiation but not impede any signal we require for observing the universe.
Sadly , none of these things are true.
In reality, like any other planet, our positions are relatively fixed for much longer than our lifetime and radiation from the stars would kill us if we got close enough to observe them, provided the gravitational forces or asteroid impacts don’t kill us first.
which sparked a lengthy discussion, which at first I moved to Sandbox, but will now move here.
Enjoy 🙂
I don’t have to prove you set your status to “creationist”, you posted under that tag for many months. That’s sufficient evidence. If you disagreed with it you had ample time to change it.
And Joe, if it was a “group effort” why is it that when I run the text through an analyser and compare it to what “Joe” writes at UD it comes up as the same author?
Just a massive coincidence I guess….
Miss this did ya Joe?
If you are not a YEC then why the concern to show that the universe could in fact be young after all?
Set the record staright Joe.
Religious beliefs?
Age of the earth?
I thought Joe said he was Muslim.
Suggested image for the forthcomming ‘learning orbital mechanics’ thread:
http://demo.physics.uiuc.edu/lectdemo/descript/690/PIC00025c.jpg
could you repeat your answer please. I’m curious how old you think the earth is. If your answer isn’t a number or a range, then you’re obviously not ready to discuss scientific things as you can use the evidence to support an opinion.
You are a liar and cannot be trusted with anything you say. I do not believe you will be in the USA next week and I sure will not go running around looking for some anonymous wanker who won’t be any where near where I am looking?
You tell him! He’ll probably make up some sdress that is actually a parkign lot or something!
Robin,
Try to respond to what I said- the EXPLNATORY filter and Newton’s First Rule mandate that materialism be given first shot at explaining the evidence.
Also your Dembski quotes support what I said. Thanks.
Of course you don’t. bald assertions work fine for you.
Not me. Several people did.
To what?
LoL! I get to use the material we posted. If it still works I use it.
LoL! I go with the evidence. And I also know it matters how something was made when it comes to its age.
None
The same as I have told you many, many times-> no one knows. First we have to know how the earth was formed.
So is that atheist or agnostic, Joe?
Consider, God(s) may be wathcing.
How about a range, upper and lower bounds? That shouldn’t be to hard.
Ohh…Joe…I’m afraid I am responding to what you said. Here it is again:
That doesn’t fit with what Dembski states.
‘Fraid he disagrees. Sorry Joe.
Oh…and here’s your other quote:
No, he doesn’t. Again the EXPLANATORY FILTER supports my claim and Dembski’s quote all say materialism sucks.
Exactly- what is your problem?
But we do know how the Earth formed. And we know how old it is.
Funny Joe…you didn’t say anything about materialism sucking. In fact, you insist that the design inference relies upon it.
And how odd it is that I provided three quotes from Dembski that contradict your claim and yet you can’t seem to provide one quote from Dembski that supports your claim.
Oh…I’ve got no problem with you and Dembski disagreeing about ID. In fact, I see that as quite telling…
We don’t disagree- you only think we do. Huge difference.
No, we don’t. Unfoirtunately for you your model is untestable and cannot be replicated.
You may think we do, but that is about it.
Yes it relies upon it sucking, just as it does.
LoL! How do they contradict my claim? And obviously you have no idea what the explanatory filter is nor do you know what Newton’s first rukle is.
The explanatory filter and everything else he wrote, supports my claim- even the stuff you quoted
IE materialism sucks.
Again materialism sucks
And even more railing against materialism- That supports my claim, Robin.
Replicating the creation of the Earth — a unique event — is of course impossible. However, the theory of its formation is most certainly testable.
For example, the theory holds that the Earth formed from the same cloud of molecular hydrogen, helium and dust as the rest of the solar system and the Sun itself did. One can measure the ages of the oldest rocks on Earth and of meteorites and compare them. Or one can estimate the age of the Sun using models of stellar evolution (independently tested with other stars).
That’s just a couple of tests off the top of my head.
Joe if you can’t give a date range for the age of the universe, you’ve got no business opining on if you think it’s designed. Time is one of the probabilistic resources in play. Of course the real answer is that you’re desperate not to admit your YEC status. Hence your obfuscation when asked the simplest of questions.
So, if a fairy waves her wand at a prince and turns him into a frog, would the frog be natural in your view?
And if the fairy were to wave her wand and a beetle materialized ex nihilo, would the beetle be natural?
If a god is the proximate cause of a rock, would it be naturally produced?
If a rock is formed by a volcano, but the ultimate cause of the world in which there are volcanos was a god, would the rock be naturally produced?
If you could answer those questions, it might help us understand what you mean by natural.
So you agree with all of these statements by Dembski, eh?
“Indeed, intelligent design is just the Logos theology of John’s Gospel restated in the idiom of information theory.”
“I think the opportunity to deal with students and getting them properly oriented on science and theology and the relation between those is going to be important because science has been such an instrument used by the materialists to undermine the Christian faith and religious belief generally. This is really an opportunity to mobilize a new generation of scholars and pastors not just to equip the saints but also to engage the culture and reclaim it for Christ. That’s really what is driving me.”
“But there are deeper motivations. I think at a fundamental level, in terms of what drives me in this is that I think God’s glory is being robbed by these naturalistic approaches to biological evolution, creation, the origin of the world, the origin of biological complexity and diversity. When you are attributing the wonders of nature to these mindless material mechanisms, God’s glory is getting robbed…And so there is a cultural war here. Ultimately I want to see God get the credit for what he’s done – and he’s not getting it. And another thing I think we need to be aware of is that not every instance of design we see in nature needs to be directly attributed to God. Certainly as Christians we believe there is an angelic hierarchy – it’s not just that there’s this physical material world and there’s God. There can be various hierarchies of intelligent beings operating, God can work through what can be called derived intelligences – processes which carry out the Divine will, but maybe not perfectly because of the fall.”
“Thus, in its relation to Christianity, intelligent design should be viewed as a ground-clearing operation that gets rid of the intellectual rubbish that for generations has kept Christianity from receiving serious consideration.”
“If we take seriously the word-flesh Christology of Chalcedon (i.e. the doctrine that Christ is fully human and fully divine) and view Christ as the telos toward which God is drawing the whole of creation, then any view of the sciences that leaves Christ out of the picture must be seen as fundamentally deficient.
Christ is indispensable to any scientific theory, even if its practitioners do not have a clue about him. My thesis is that all disciplines find their completion in Christ and cannot be properly understood apart from Christ.”
“Theism (whether Christian, Jewish, or Muslim) holds that God by wisdom created the world. The origin of the world and its subsequent ordering thus results from the designing activity of an intelligent agent—God. Naturalism, on the other hand, allows no place for intelligent agency except at the end of a blind, purposeless material process. Within naturalism, any intelligence is an evolved intelligence. Moreover, the evolutionary process by which any such intelligence developed is itself blind and purposeless. As a consequence, naturalism makes intelligence not a basic creative force within nature but an evolutionary byproduct. In particular, humans (the natural objects best known to exhibit intelligence) are not the crown of creation, not the carefully designed outcome of a purposeful creator, and certainly not creatures made in the image of a benevolent God. Rather, humans are an accident of natural history.”
All science so far!
I wrote a post but it seems not to have made it, perhaps due to the number of links.
But Joe, if you would like to meet then I’ll be in the area, more or less.
You just have to say where and when. It’s up to you.
If I don’t show, then you say say what you like. But you suggested a meeting in the first place, I’m just taking you up on that offer. If you are not in fact interested, say so.
Joe the philosopher has spoken!
Joe, when you see the adults talking and using those big words you don’t understand perhaps you should just keep quiet so you don’t make a fool of yourself.
You mis-understanding of orbital physics is a keeper! One for the ages….
Prove it.
Joe, you claim to be a programmer. So why don’t you write up a quick program that demonstrates this and post the code?
If you
A) really understand what you are talking about
B) really can program
You won’t have any trouble at all. I’ve written more complex things in my lunch hour.
LoL! That is not a test on HOW the earth formed. Try again.
(what is was formed from does not equal how it was formed)
Just read the peer-reviewed literature. It is in there. OR you could just google it.
Again you could refute what I says just by producing some positive evidence for materialism. Yet you never do.
And your false accusation proves that you are a drooling loser.
Citation please.
Yet you seemed quite happy to meet, even asking what day I could be in Boston. What changed?
And I know your name and what you look like, so I’ll simply find you. And if we do arrange to meet I’ll be happy to share my details with you, fair is fair.
So, Joe, where and when?
But you don’t actually *say* anything other then “you are wrong”.
So there is nothing to refute!
For example, I suggest that your understanding of orbital mechanics is lacking and you could write a program that simulates what you claim happens (planets spiral into the sun) to demonstrate your claim but instead you respond that I should check the peer reviewed literature or google it.
So should I “refute” your suggestion that I google it? How exactly do I do that?
If you provided your model that could be refuted. But you can’t do that, can you?
It’s not a false accusation that you don’t understand orbital mechanics. You don’t!
I can certify that.
I am not a YEC
I understand orbital mechanics. And YOU cannot demonstrate the orbital mechanics of a universe with one star and one planet/ moon system.
Wrong again, oleg. YOU can’t even keep the context straight.
BTW I never said that a single planet cannot have a stable orbit around a star- never.
WASP – 18b look it up
http://phys.org/news170513793.html
Yes, you did. You kept asking silly questions like this:
Yes, that’s precisely the system that is stable and does not require any support from outside.
I came to my senses and realized I was dealing with a proven liar
Lizzie if you are going to guano this reply then guano all of OM’s posts
OR continue to prove that you are a one-sided pathetic excuse of a human
So you say yet cannot demonstrate.
Heck you can’t even get such a system in the first place.
Of course I can. It was first demonstrated by Newton, who derived Kepler’s laws from Newtonian mechanics and the law of gravity. It has been textbook stuff for centuries. And you are blissfully unaware of it. Case closed.
LoL! I am asking YOU to support YOUR position. And that has NOTHING to do with ID.
And yes I say “you are wrong” wrt ID. Ya see you never say anything wrt supporting your position.