It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Which theory will be next?

page: 1
<<   2 >>

log in


posted on Feb, 9 2006 @ 06:27 PM

Say the whole ID debate is eventually settled, whether they scrap evolution in schools and put in ID, it loses its heat in public discussion, whatever. My question is, what theory is the next one that will be attacked?

Will they start talking about how Gravitational Theory doesn't cut it? Will people propose Intelligent Falling instead?
OK, I couldn't resist that one; it'd be more like Intelligent Attraction Between Masses or something.

How about Atomic Theory? Will its rival be Intelligent Particle Theory?

Maybe they'll go after the Germ Theory of Disease. It will become Intelligent Disease Theory.

What about Cell Theory? Will it be Intelligent Cell Theory, or is that one already covered by ID?

Maybe they'll go after Boyle's Law. Maybe it will be Intelligent Gas Expansion.

Or maybe they'll start tackling all the theories from math, proofs be damned.

I dunno, what do you think?

If you ask me, this is not likely to happen. Doesn't mean it won't, just not likely (damn, triple negative
). Why not? Because all these other theories don't necessarily conflict with people's religious or philosophical beliefs, or appear to to them, anyway. I think evolution is getting mobbed because so many people, mostly Christians in this country, think that it makes fun of Jesus or something.

But, you never know. One day, people might start saying, "teach Intelligent Attraction Between Masses in physics classes. It's science."

posted on Feb, 10 2006 @ 02:02 PM

Maybe they'll go after Boyle's Law. Maybe it will be Intelligent Gas Expansion.

Rather then attacking the gap's in scientific discoveries, this is what IDT needs to prove themselve's as scientific. All IDT has done so far is shown that there are gaps in our knowledge. We already knew this however. BUT scientists have already shown how the universe and life can occure without a divine creator.

[EDIT] What IDT need's to be focusing on, rather then attacking the gaps of knowledge in existing scientific discoveries, IDT should be proving that life CANNOT occur naturally and that life NEEDS a creator. If they can do that, then the next and final step for them would be proving that an intelliget designer did in fact create the universe and direct the flow of life on this planet.

P.S. -from the link in my sig

[edit on 10-2-2006 by Produkt]

[edit on 10-2-2006 by Produkt]

mod edit to remove tasteless comment

[edit on 10-2-2006 by DontTreadOnMe]

posted on Feb, 13 2006 @ 01:09 PM
Wow, it's pretty quiet in here.

Thanks for your input, Produkt. But of course, the supporters of ID will only give flimsy arguments for their side with no evidence, while claiming another theory is baseless despite its evidence.

So, Produkt, which theory do you think will be next, if any?

posted on Feb, 13 2006 @ 01:12 PM
For creationism? I'm not sure what silly notion's they'll come up with next. Any fanciful fairy tail is possible.

As for science, I think M-Theory is closing in on the right track, but there could be another variation of this theory that explain's and predict's thing's abit better.

posted on Feb, 14 2006 @ 03:49 AM

You’ve written on the anti-evolution movement. Do you think ID will change at all in response to its defeat in the Dover trial?

Not likely, I have a sense that Dover was ID’s Waterloo. But not to worry, I’ve already heard the newest buzzword used by creationists: you see, it’s not “intelligent design theory” anymore, it’s “sudden emergence theory”…

well it looks like "sudden emergence theory" is the next battleground...

posted on Feb, 14 2006 @ 04:12 AM
IDT has not shown how the universe came about at all. It is still a mystery. Please do not give anyone anymore exaggerated claims from quantum maths teachers.

Things do not simply spontaneously manifest. The info for that is greatly flawed and over rated.

posted on Feb, 14 2006 @ 04:54 AM
heh, well those 'exaggerated' claim's allow for the model of physics that allow for us to exist ... the fanciful fairy tale foretold by IDT doesn't. IF IDT can show a model of physic's where life and the universe cannot occur naturally without the need of a divine creator, then IDT literally has crap to go on. For now, I'll go with the observed evidence and experimental proof discovered by science.

When you play the lottery, does god make you win, or is it by chance?

When two stars collide creating a powerfull explosion leading to a nebula, does god force them to collide, or do they collide by chance during the course of they're life?

If a bee sting's you, does god force it to sting you, or do you happen upon that bee by chance and depending upon you and the bee's action's at the time, does it sting you by chance?

Why is chance such a hard concept for religous folk to grasp? You people deal with it constantly. You have no evidence nor experimental proof of a god. All you have is this silly stupid little gene inside yourselve's that give you a sense of a higher power, a sense of togetherness, and a sense of well being. These chemical's, along with the stories mankind love's to create, make's you think you've felt god or in some cases if your clinicly insanse, even slightly, they make you "hear" god or "see" god. Why not believe other stories man has created that excite those same chemical's in the brain? Why these religous stories? Because religion has been around forever to explain the WHY of thing's that man could not explain before. Man invented the notion of god, told other people and as far as people were concerned, it must be true, there was NO other alternative at the time, we didn't have the tool's to even have an alternative. Now we do and it scare's the crap out of you people that death is NOTHING special. That your live's are nothing special. That your time is being wasted. It's too traumatic to your little brain's that your brain's scream no no no and force you to produce chemicals that make you not understand chance, infinity and seemingly nothingness. You CAN'T grasp those concept's. And if you don't think man was capable of comming up with these stories, then I say your a JOKE. Look at the entertainment industries. WE THRIVE ON STORIES OF FANTASY AND MYSTICISM.

If you met someone tomorrow, and he said he was a messanger of god and had to kill your family or one of your friends for they were really of he devil and pulling wool over your eye's blah blah blah. Just came up with some very convincing sounding story after observing you and knowing your religous background ... Would you let him do it? Would you question a messenger of your god? would you question your god? You can see example's like this through out the bible. Question is... WOULD YOU YOURSELF in this day and age?! I doubt you would honestly answer that question. You could lie to me and say yes, if he really made you believe, was convincing enough. But you know damn well you'd be lying. Self preservation my friend. The hardest instinct to overcome, even for the religous. When it all come's down to it and your god seemingly place's the preassure onto you through some idiotic serial killer stranger, you would not do as your god commands.

Pathetic. Ignorant. Childish. Arrogant.

[edit on 14-2-2006 by Produkt]

posted on Feb, 14 2006 @ 05:19 AM
Who said anything about God? I didn't. God existing is just as unlikely as a universe manifesting from nowhere. But also just as likely.

You have to throw the 'bible basher' thing at me because you have safe and cliched thoughts. That's why you believe scientists. In general that's a smart thing to do, concerning the mundane aspects WITHIN a reality. But please don't presume they know a thing about anything OUTSIDE a reality.

Common sense, surely? Our world exists in a sea of unreality, and any attempt by maths to know that is a waste of time.

Your greatest argument is 'look around you. We exist. Hence something had to come from nothing.' That's your ONLY argument. If you want to stay within the confines of logic.

My answer to that?

There is no answer.

Your quest ends here.

posted on Feb, 14 2006 @ 05:23 AM
All I ask is that you do not have a concrete belief system. Be it god or science. All are just as unreal. This world is unreal. It's against the laws of everything for us to exist. For anything to exist.

If you put your faith completley in science you are no better than a fundamentalist Christian killing a witch.

posted on Feb, 14 2006 @ 05:47 AM
Heh, now I understand your stance ... you think both idea's are wrong. IDK, maybe you don't believe in god, but you also show a little misunderstanding of quantum physics and m-theory. In another thread you stated quantum physics was ... flimsy. How about you explain to quantum physicist how quantum computer's and teleportation work's for real then? These people study and experiment in this stuff for year's .. you what? glossed over it a month and said perpostrous! Ridiculous! nothing from something pffft *scoff*

Indeed, something from nothing does sound abit wierd. How the heck is that possible! But, scientist's have experimentally shown that this does indeed happen. They've observed these ridiculous particle's popping in and out of existance. They can put this effect to use in zero point energy research to create electricity... someday atleast, if they haven't already and the oil industry is just keeping it covered up best they can, as they stand to suffer the most from this technology.

While I agree, holding belief in one particular theory without knowing for a fact is abit stupid, but it also help's when one particular theory is actually showing sign's of evidence and experimental proof's towards it's validity. Science does just this. No, it doesn't say for a fact, but it says there's strong evidence suggesting it may be on the right path of discovery.

When you goto a crime scene... you've only got so many clue's at hand to discover how that crime happened. You don't know all the detail's or exact circumstance's, but you still figure out how and why that crime happened.

posted on Feb, 14 2006 @ 06:02 AM
I know full well that some quantum stuff is physically repeatable.

But the conclusions drawn are not 100%.

'Indeed, something from nothing does sound abit wierd. How the heck is that possible! But, scientist's have experimentally shown that this does indeed happen. They've observed these ridiculous particle's popping in and out of existance. They can put this effect to use in zero point energy research to create electricity'

This does not conclusively prove that these particles are spontaneously manifesting into existence. It is one theory. Other stuff could be happening here. Those particles may simply have been converted from other particles. They may simply be wavering in and out of the range of the devices used to monitor them. These experiments do not give you the right to say that something from nothing is an everyday occurence.

These particles are existing in an already existing world. I'm concerned with particles manifesting in pure 100% nothingness.

posted on Feb, 14 2006 @ 06:10 AM
The thing is though, it's not pure 100% nothingness. And I'm sure quantum physicist's had the same concern's you brought up. Yet, if other cause's, such as pre-existing, then, why do quantum physicists still hold to they're popping in and out of existence? How many experiment's have you done compared to quantum physicists? Lemme guess ... Zero? These people study this stuff for year's. They know more about it then you do. May sound ridiculous to you, but to them it's an everyday thing.

Formally, a particle is considered to be an eigenstate of the particle number operator a^\dagger a where a is the particle annihilation operator and a^\dagger particle creation operator (sometimes collectively called ladder operators). In many cases, the particle number operator does not commute with the Hamiltonian for the system. This implies the number of particles in an area of space is not a well-defined quantity, but like other quantum observables is represented by a probability distribution. Since these particles do not have a permanent existence, they are called virtual particles or vacuum fluctuations of vacuum energy. In a certain sense, they can be understood to be a manifestion of the time-energy uncertainty principle in the vacuum.

An important example of the "presence" of virtual particles in the vacuum is the Casimir effect. Here, the explanation of the effect requires that the total energy of all of the virtual particles in the vacuum be added together. Thus, although the virtual particles themselves are not directly observable in the laboratory, they do leave an observable effect: their zero-point energy results in forces acting on suitably arranged metal plates or dielectrics.

posted on Feb, 14 2006 @ 06:15 AM

The Casimir effect is an outcome of quantum field theory, which states that all of the various fundamental fields, such as the electromagnetic field, must be quantized at each and every point in space. In a naïve sense, a field in physics may be envisioned as if space were filled with interconnected vibrating balls and springs, and the strength of the field can be visualized as the displacement of a ball from its rest position. Vibrations in this field propagate, and are governed by the appropriate wave equation for the particular field in question. The second quantization of quantum field theory requires that each such ball-spring combination be quantized, that is, that the strength of the field be quantized at each point in space. Canonically, the field at each point in space is a simple harmonic oscillator, and its quantization places a quantum harmonic oscillator at each point. Excitations of the field correspond to the elementary particles of particle physics. However, as this picture shows, even the vacuum has a vastly complex structure. All calculations of quantum field theory must be made in relation to this model of the vacuum.

The vacuum has, implicitly, all of the properties that a particle may have: spin, or polarization in the case of light, energy, and so on. On average, all of these properties cancel out: the vacuum is after all, "empty" in this sense. One important exception is the vacuum energy or the vacuum expectation value of the energy. The quantization of a simple harmonic oscillator states that the lowest possible energy or zero-point energy that such an oscillator may have is

[E] = \begin[matrix] \frac[1][2] \end[matrix] \hbar \omega \ .

Summing over all possible oscillators at all points in space gives an infinite quantity. The removal of this infinity presents a challenge for theoretical particle physics, and as of 2005, there is no compelling explanation for how this infinity should be treated as essentially zero (as a non-zero value is essentially the cosmological constant; a large value causes trouble in cosmology).

posted on Feb, 14 2006 @ 06:42 AM
No, I haven't been using my proton accelerator at all.

The problem here is that your sense of 'nothingness' is not my sense of 'nothingness'. Your quantum nothingness still contains stuff. I'm talking about complete nothingess. If you are saying there's no such thing. Then you are also implying that energy has always existed. Which is just as impossible as something springing from nothing.

'Yet, if other cause's, such as pre-existing, then, why do quantum physicists still hold to they're popping in and out of existence?'

Perhaps they are conceited? They are just human. Perhaps you haven't actually heard the truth off them, but the sort of selective biased stuff you get in scientific journals. Perhaps they aren't saying what you think they are saying. Perhaps they are dealing with a quantum sense of nothingness, in which you now admit is not nothingness at all.

And I do still think that all this science is in its infancy. If any scientist is actually going around suggesting that their clunky instruments can capture every available energy form they are mad. We barely understand anything of reality.

Ok, now we've established a proper understanding of ther nothingness I'm talking about (unreality). Can we now agree that something manifesting from that nothing is not an act of science, but an act more akin to magic?

posted on Feb, 14 2006 @ 06:56 AM
Interesting notion of nothingness...

I do understand true nothingness. But there's no indication that pre big bang was true nothingness. As I said, about the crime scene, you've only got a few clue's to go on to discover what happened and why it happened. Same thing with our universe. We've got a few clue's here and there, and everything point's to the quantum nature of reality, including pre big bang. Why's it so hard to believe the quantum nature of reality to just always have been in existence? You (if you do, still unsure) really think that something existed in nothing when there's no indication's of that? You'll furthur conclude that this something existing in literally nothingnes also had these mystical power's to create something out of literally nothingness? Yet you can't accept that just perhap's, as all clue's and evidence is pointing to, that the quantum nature of reality has always just been?

I find it rather funny how people think. They use example's such as, I built my computer or designed my house, they didn't just pop into existance, so therefore there must be a creator of the universe. How ignorant can one get? Don't they realize they're equating something on a macro scale with something on a quantum scale? Quantum physics doesn't do so well on the macro scale. Hate's it actually. Like mixing oil and water. Like mixing alqueda and christians. Gunna be issues. Sure, people may have designed they're computer's and such, but they had no power of the atomic interaction's that lead to the material's that they used. It happened by chance that these interaction's at the atomic level formed those material's. They don't even think about that. It's pure ignorance of the unedumacated follower's of faith that lead to this silly magical being who hold's no power in today's world.

People can believe in a magical being living in literal nothingness, but they can't accept that just perhaps that this quantum reality of the universe just always was there.

posted on Feb, 14 2006 @ 08:26 AM
Back are we?

Right. Infinite time negates action. There you go. Easy. In infinite time you can always set back any event happening. Hence it never does. Or, the universe would already have expanded and contracted an infinite amount of times. And would be full of stuff. Etc

Oh, I'm too tired for this. Can't you do a search on google instead?
Someone will be able to explain it better. Ask Albert Frankenstein, or something.

In short, forever is impossible and something from nothing is impossible.

Hence I am God now. Please to fund me through paypal.

And I've just had a look at this 'popping in and out thing'. Isn't there something called The Higgs Field theory that could explain that?

Or maybe you can suggest a site that would blow me away?

posted on Feb, 14 2006 @ 08:55 AM
And after having another look around find that this is true. Particles are manifestations of underlying quantum fields. This is not a genesis then. In a nothingness there would be no underlying quantum fields. Hence no particles.

So having discounted the notion of infinite time also, we now understand that the universe is impossible (if the word magic is too much for you).

Cup of tea anyone?

posted on Feb, 14 2006 @ 09:06 AM

Right. Infinite time negates action. There you go. Easy. In infinite time you can always set back any event happening. Hence it never does. Or, the universe would already have expanded and contracted an infinite amount of times. And would be full of stuff. Etc

There could very well be another universe out there that has done just that! Actually ... quantum reality suggest's that's actually true. But there's no indication that this particular universe has any hope's of a big crunch. We live in a flat universe, meaning it's going to expand forever. Of course, eventually everything is gunna eventually fizzle out, maybe. We're not sure yet. But we do know this universe won't be having a big crunch. Infinite space, infinite time, infinite possibilities of quantum reality allow for an infinite variation's of differing univere's. Your just living in one that happened by chance to work right for us. Quantum reality even suggest's that there could be other univere's out there with me and you in it right now!

The Higgs Boson may or may not exist. No one's experimentally found it yet at the predicted energy level's where it should be detectable. Reason could be ... it doesn't exist. Just look's nice on paper. However, the higgs boson, if it does exist, imparts mass on particles. Icluding itself. From seemingly nothingess.

The quantum nature of reality is just that ... a reality. We use it everday as you were told in the other thread.

posted on Feb, 16 2006 @ 06:30 AM
'Infinite space, infinite time, infinite possibilities of quantum reality allow for an infinite variation's of differing univere's. Your just living in one that happened by chance to work right for us. Quantum reality even suggest's that there could be other univere's out there with me and you in it right now!'

That's the problem. There would be an infinite universes with you and me in it. Infinite universes with just me in it. Infinite universes with you in it, wearing a big yellow stetson. If indeed you aren't that very fellow right now.
Infinity is not a number and hence for it to be included with science you find the illogical happening.

It cannot be the answer, hence quantum nothingness cannot be considered as the true nothingness, as it still has stuff going on in it.

But the alternative is just as impossible. Yet here we are. There is no answer. Just to linger in a constant state of Critical Paranoia.

[edit on 16-2-2006 by albie]

posted on Feb, 16 2006 @ 06:37 AM
science isn't theorizing that the pre-big bang universe existed is absolute nothingness. Science is theorizing that the pre-big bang universe was this sea of quantum reality, and based upon the prediction's of that theory, along with observational evidence and experimental proof of those prediction's we're getting a clearer picture on how the universe was made. There's no indication's that there ever was an absolute nothingness before the big bang. The big bang never would've happened without this sea of virtual particles. Perhaps creationist's would like to come up with a model showing how god can create something out of nothing while those creationist's keep saying you can't get something from nothing ... should be an interesting experiment.

top topics

<<   2 >>

log in