Your not wrong, we just have naysayers that once there argument falls flat they attack the very methods of understanding.

Once there arguments are shown to be illogical and not backed by evidence they claim logic fails.

Its the death knell of a specious argument.


I have never read such an idiotic statement in my life.

Well, considering the fact that you have yet to show where I've been wrong about anything I don't think I need to be concerned with your idle threats.

Just exactly what is it that you think I've misrepresented about science?

You've been harping on the DNA thing, but I've never made any absolute statements about DNA other than sharing with Redykeulous something things that I feel will be quite interesting when geneticists finally get around to discovering them.

When they get to that point they will be able to put precise numbers are exactly how probable it is for DNA to seed life. Currently they do not have that information. They have no clue of precisely what it took for a 'living' cell to get up and running from scratch. If they could do that then they could need 'create life' from inorganic material.

Insofar as I'm aware they have not yet achieved this feat.

If you have information to the contrary I'd be more than happy to hear about it.

Well, no wonder. We draw lines in different places between what we consider to be "technology" versus "science".

Take biology for example. The dicovery of DNA was a "major breakthrough" in science. Since that time we have started the Human Genome Progect to exam exactly how information is stored and read in DNA.

From your point of view you may view the entire Human Genome Project as "Scientific Discovery".

I don't. I view it as simple the techonology of sorting out the detials of what had been the "Scientific Discovery" that DNA stores the instructions of how to build biological bodies.

So my view only appears 'idiotic' to you because we have entirely different views on what constitutes a 'Scientific Discovery'.

I don't view the unraveling of the details as a "Scientific Discovery".

Although, I will consider it to be a major "Scientific Breakthrough" when they finally figure out what it takes to boot the process up from scratch.

But we're not there yet.

When we do get there we'll be able to tell precisely how likely, or unlikely it was for the process to start by random chance.

We'll also be able to tell how many different kinds of boot processes might actually work, and what different kinds of evolution they might lead to.

There are a lot of interesting questions on the horizon there that will eventaully be discovered. Potentially within the next decade or so, according to a cutting-edge lecture I just watched on that particular subject.

Can you point to a major scientific discovery that has occured since 1949 other than the cosmological discoveries of Dark matter and an accelerated expansion of the universe?

I don't consider the little technological advances of things we already know about to be "scientific discoveries".

Those are more like "technological discoveries" based on science that has already been recognized, IMHO.

No the real reason your not concerned is because your world is unchanged by reality.

Skoku:

It looks to me like your own ego is showing. I hope you have something to back up your threats, because so far you aren't doing too well.

So are you now the authority on "Reality?"

I said, 1949, which was the year I was born. But I really meant more like 1969, about the time I had graduated high school and was entering college.

Because I do believe that Quarks were discovered, as well as DNA itself, in the interim of 1949-1969.

So I'm really talking about from about 1969 forward. (i.e. my adult lifetime) Not a whole lot has changed since I graduated from highschool as far as major discoveries are concerned, IMHO.

Well, if my world is unchanged by reality then what could reality even mean?

If I'm immuned to reality, then I must be a supernatural being.

So you think you have a handle on reality?

Here's what Albert Einstein has to say about that: "Whoever undertakes to set himself up as a judge of Truth and Knowledge is shipwrecked by the laughter of the gods."

<---- laughter of the gods.

All I can say is that it is 48 pages later and everyone has debated the question to death!

In the end everyone has their own philosophy that rings true for them.

If we can find an ACTUAL evidence that the whole world can agree on would be quiet interesting indeed. Of course if that will ever happen sounds like an impossible feat, yet the word "impossible" is what drives most people of all studies to search for it. That we know has never changed.

Well anyway don't mind my blah blah blah, but take my chocolate covered strawberries that I just made as a token of peace and happiness.

And don't be greedy! Share them no matter what difference of opinion everyone has concerning "Evidence of a Designer".

I love chocolate covered strawberries. I serve them at very special occasions.

and at funerals.

Oh wow! Chocolate covered strawberries! Yum Yum!



We're not out to prove anything to anyone Smiless. We're just sharing food-for-thought. Sometimes it doesn't appear as pretty as chocolate-covered strawberries, but it's still just food-for-thought.

Well eat and eat alot everyone! Enjoy!

Believe it or Not! The Evidence for a designer lies in the chocolate covered strawberries.

I see it!

I see it!

Eureaka!

It makes one wonder if a designer can ever be found or at least an answer of how everything started can be proven.

Look at this mathematical genius that had a movie called "A Beautiful Mind" with Russel Crowe.

He just sees everything with numbers. He looks at his tie, then at other objects and you see only numbers.

I wonder if all these mathematical scientists preceive this world in this fashion all the time or turn it on when they want to to get deeper answers?

How did Einstein really look at this world and the universe. I mean yes we have written documents that indicate what he said and wrote about, but how did he really see it with his own eyes! That would be interesting?

Could Math alone figure out if there was a designer in the first place?

It would be interesting to know wouldn't it.

Yes I know many will say no and others yes, but perhaps we haven't achieved mathematical genius yet! Perhaps there is more we need to learn in that department.

Of course we have spiritual options. My goodness are there thousands of them, but it seems when it comes to these hard questions about what started everything you have

science and only science

science with spirituality

spirituality and only spirituality

then a little technology to help the science

then a little of everything

am I making any sense here? lol

What I am trying to say is you have different perspectives of what the designer could be. That is if one believes a designer even exists. Some don't believe there is a reason or needs to be either. I kind like that also myself. It is much easier to accept, although it keeps you curious and wondering at times.

In the end what if "math" would find the answer. That would be amazing wouldn't it? Maybe not glamourous like we want to see it. I mean how many people enjoy calculus, alegbra, trigonometry, and the host of other number solvations we have in this world.

How many actually do it on a daily bases today using formulas to really see how a designer could exist or get close to finding out if it is possible?

Okay let me stop or I am hogging up the whole thread talking alot of nonsense anyway.

To what question?

Is the world quantized? Zeno gave us the answer to that question 2000 years ago using pure thought alone. Today, this is precisely what Quantum Mechanics is saying. It's saying that we live in a "quantized" universe. It's saying that the true nature of this universe is indeed quantized and not a continuum like had previously been thought.

Yet, our mathematical formalism is STILL based on an idea of a continuum! So does are man-made mathematics genuinely even reflect the true nature of the universe at all.

I like what Albert Einstein had to say about this:

"God does not care about our mathematical difficulties. He integrates empirically."

Notice how even Einstein was trapped in the popular social convention of always referring to God as a "He", even though he clearly did not believe in a personified godhead:

"The religion of the future will be a cosmic religion. It should transcend personal God and avoid dogma and theology. Covering both the natural and the spiritual, it should be based on a religious sense arising from the experience of all things natural and spiritual as a meaningful unity. Buddhism answers this description. If there is any religion that could cope with modern scientific needs it would be Buddhism. (Albert Einstein)"

Still he got caught-up in often referring to "god" as a "He" and speaking about God as though God does have a persona (i.e. "God does not play dice!")

That's hard to avoid when we live in a society that views God as a "Fatherly Image".

In any case, clearly our mathematics is in conflict with our physics.

Our physics says the world is quantized, but our mathematics is based on the idea of a continuum. No one seems to be concerned with that incompatiblity.

Actually I wonder if math alone could find the answer to a designer. That is what I meant by that, but to carry on with what you answered:


So if we changed our thought process to "quantized" instead of "continuum" that would be a significant step in finding out more if it is possible for a designer to have existed or continued, or however possible way of seeing how it all started in the first place would happen.

Am I understanding this correctly? If not then I would need layman terms please

By George I think he's got it!

Now that I think about it. If math would be quantized would that help physics in finding more answers about existence of a designer, or at least come closer to new possibilities?

If I understand correctly what both you and Abra are referring to, I think that if math were quantized, it would not longer be math - it would be something else. I can't even imagine what "quantized math" would be like.

But it's an intersting idea.