The blowhole

a reply to: luthier

You seem to have completely missed the point I made. You can't test that fine tuning indicates design. There is no test whatsoever that can determine this empirically. You are referring to mathematical models, not empirical ones. It's one thing to try to simulate something that we barely know anything about. It's completely different to run empirical tests.

a reply to: Barcs

You can test random arrangement.

Edit
But yes. It's theoretical physics observation of an appeared fine tuning.

There is a lot we don't know for sure.

a reply to: luthier

Random arrangement of what???

You can test tons of things, but you CAN'T test design at all. There is no test to show the design of anything in the universe. Look at my post right above this, you are just trying to exploit semantics. ID is not testable at all. I don't get why you guys refuse to acknowledge this. Design is NOT a knowledge position, it never has been. It's based on faith.

a reply to: Barcs

Intelligent design is not testable? For infinity?

Science doesn't always have definite answers. They look for them. If you think people haven't tested and modeled fine tuning in serious science I don't know what else to tell you. Setting up mathematical simulations is part of discovery and science.

Now ID is a totally different subject. I agree with that.

We do know that carbon and hydrogen as far as we know can't fluxuate greatly in weight and expect to have life as we understand it.

originally posted by: Barcs
a reply to: cooperton
Venus is in the goldilocks zone

The average temperature on Venus is 864 degrees Fahrenheit. That porridge is lava hot.

Mars is also in the Goldilocks zone

On Mars, even at the equator, the nights get as cold as -100degreesF. That porridge is frozen cold.

originally posted by: Barcs
It's based on faith.

Your post-modernist faith ignores the beautiful mathematical laws that are the foundation of our universe. Mathematics are proof of design... Check any blueprint, computer code, phi and fractal branching patterns, pi and spherical geometry, energy and mass equivalency, etc, etc, etc. You are putting your head in the sand with your purposeful ambiguity of truth. You cannot effectively speak or listen if you hold such disdain for absolute truth.

a reply to: luthier

Intelligent design is not testable? For infinity?

Please explain your point here. ID is not testable and neither is "infinity".

My point all along was that fine tuning has nothing to do with Intelligent Design. That's what I said, ID is a different subject, not sure why you keep trying to argue about testing "random arrangement" and other unrelated tangents. There is no legitimate argument for design. It's all wishful thinking and what ifs.

originally posted by: cooperton
The average temperature on Venus is 864 degrees Fahrenheit. That porridge is lava hot.

Irrelevant. Venus is in the habitable zone of our star. If it didn't have such a thick atmosphere, it could support life. Same with Mars. The atmosphere is very thin and it has no plate tectonics. That also could support life if the atmosphere wasn't so thin. Scientists say that Mars and Venus both had oceans at one point, so you are dead wrong about earth being in the perfect position for life. That's a complete lie and shows you really don't know anything at all about science, not that I ever thought you did of course.

Mathematics are proof of design...

Nope. Mathematics are man made. We use numbers to measure and represent things. They don't prove design by a long shot. You don't even know what the word "proof" means, and I'm supposed to take your absurd claims seriously??? If you think math is proof, then you surely support membrane theory, even though it shows a natural explanation for the big bang, RIGHT??? Something tells me you don't support membrane theory and claim it's automatically false just like evolution and every other science or math that conflicts with your literal bible interpretation. LMAO at absolute truth. Just stop. Your arguments are trash. Why do you even bother?

a reply to: Barcs

It is not wishful thinking. You are being obtuse. It's a real question as to what is the universe. Is it designed. Are we in a simulation etc....

The tests that have been set up are in physics. By top notch scientists, Fermi labs for instance.

At this point I have to just stop arguing to your beliefs.

The fact that science tests theories about what information means they collect is not debatable. The fact that they have tested is this a code, or design is not debatable. You may think it's irelevant but serious labs from MIT, to Fermi labs actually test simulations.

ID is another issue however the simulation theory is ID. And it's tested. As is the holographic 2 d universe. So your only argument is that bible thumpers sometimes hijack these theories to try and prove the bible is real.

In which case I agree. It's a real long shot. However if you become reactionary it's easy to start stating fallacies, which is how people have lost debates to Christian apologists who should not have. Or people like Dawkins who ve poor philosophical understanding and try to expand into cosmological debates.

Edit and before I get a fallacy of definition I mean hypothesis in scientific terms not theory of simulation.

a reply to: luthier

It is absolutely 100% wishful thinking. Sorry, but holographic universe and simulation theory HAS NOT BEEN TESTED empirically. It has no backing at all outside of math theory, which isn't the same as empirical tests and results.

The fact that they have tested is this a code, or design is not debatable. You may think it's irelevant but serious labs from MIT, to Fermi labs actually test simulations.

ID is another issue however the simulation theory is ID. And it's tested. As is the holographic 2 d universe.

Then link me to the empirical tests that prove simulation. You are being willfully ignorant. None of that has been tested or confirmed. Sure, scientists try to work with it and create simulations to try to figure it out, but ID has never once been confirmed empirically at all by anyone ever. You keep grasping at straws to try to make it fit, but there is no evidence for ID. End of story. It doesn't matter how many irrelevant red herrings you use to justify it. It can't be tested, as there is no reference point to know whether something is designed or not.

If you wish to believe ID, I have no problem with that, but pretending like it's a scientific conclusion, is completely wrong.

a reply to: Barcs

Oh my goodness now you don't get science and are playing Strawman.

I never said confirmed. I never said I believe.

I said you are making false statement that these are not serious scientific research topics and are wishful thinking.

The department of energy spent 100's mIllions on the Fermi labs project studying the universe as a holographic universe.

What you don't get or allude to is the length of time and actual artifact inventions that are required to test things in theoretical physics. They literally have to spend years, decades creating the equipment and tests..like at cern.

There is a lot of real science being tested and unproven currently including parts of the standard model.

Science moved to falsifiable over empericism for this reason. Theoretical physics often do not yet, at the time of the hypothesis created from previous data, the equipment to do the test. So it moved to is it possible to create equipment to make a test...not empericism where it must be immediately tested to be real science. Even falsifiability is questioned as a necessity by real physicists. Who actual work in the field.

Without hypothesis we wouldn't get anywhere. My problem is not that you don't believe it's your ego that this is not real science..

To throw you a bone the first test of a holographic universe at fermilabs didn't look good for the theory. However. It is brand new equipment.

originally posted by: Barcs

Nope. Mathematics are man made. We use numbers to measure and represent things. They don't prove design by a long shot. You don't even know what the word "proof" means, and I'm supposed to take your absurd claims seriously??? If you think math is proof, then you surely support membrane theory, even though it shows a natural explanation for the big bang, RIGHT??? Something tells me you don't support membrane theory and claim it's automatically false just like evolution and every other science or math that conflicts with your literal bible interpretation. LMAO at absolute truth. Just stop. Your arguments are trash. Why do you even bother?

If you can't engage in debate without getting heated and ridiculing others then consider stopping altogether. You're probably a cool guy when you are not debating these things. Go and tell someone you love them.

originally posted by: cooperton

originally posted by: Barcs

Nope. Mathematics are man made. We use numbers to measure and represent things. They don't prove design by a long shot. You don't even know what the word "proof" means, and I'm supposed to take your absurd claims seriously??? If you think math is proof, then you surely support membrane theory, even though it shows a natural explanation for the big bang, RIGHT??? Something tells me you don't support membrane theory and claim it's automatically false just like evolution and every other science or math that conflicts with your literal bible interpretation. LMAO at absolute truth. Just stop. Your arguments are trash. Why do you even bother?

If you can't engage in debate without getting heated and ridiculing others then consider stopping altogether. You're probably a cool guy when you are not debating these things. Go and tell someone you love them.

Maybe one day you'll actually address the points I make in a post instead of looking for excuses to ignore it, but I'm not counting on it. You do this constantly. It's dishonest and your shtick is old. Have a nice day.

originally posted by: luthier
a reply to: Barcs

Oh my goodness now you don't get science and are playing Strawman.

I never said confirmed. I never said I believe.

I said you are making false statement that these are not serious scientific research topics and are wishful thinking.

What strawman? I already clearly explained it. I said that those research topics DO NOT prove or even indicate ID. I didn't say they weren't topics of research. Why do you keep trying to change my argument? ID is untestable. You keep deflecting away from that by bringing up unrelated topics.

The department of energy spent 100's mIllions on the Fermi labs project studying the universe as a holographic universe.

What you don't get or allude to is the length of time and actual artifact inventions that are required to test things in theoretical physics. They literally have to spend years, decades creating the equipment and tests..like at cern.

There is a lot of real science being tested and unproven currently including parts of the standard model.

Ok, so I'll ask you again. Link me to the scientific research papers that show testable evidence for holographic universe or ID. You seem to have a very warped understanding of science if you think ID is testable. I know what CERN does, and it's not just to test for holographic universe, it's much much deeper than that. If you are claiming that they can test those things, then link the research. Not that hard, right? Don't get me wrong, these kinds of things could be verified or discovered in the future, but as of now, there is no tangible link between ID and fine tuning.

Without hypothesis we wouldn't get anywhere. My problem is not that you don't believe it's your ego that this is not real science..

Where did I say any of it wasn't real science? All I said was that none of it actually indicates DESIGN. You don't seem to understand this. The design part of it, is completely opinion. I'm not trying to be mean here, but I don't think you get what I'm saying here. I am not saying that these things aren't legitimately being researched, I'm saying they don't indicate design.

a reply to: Barcs

Again why are you metioning ID as being proven or disproven, Did I make this claim?

Now you made the claim it's impossible to prove, which I would say is very bold. I wouldn't calm it science but impossible to prove means you know the future, and it's technology, and any possible interactions with other species in the universe.

And the holometer at Fermi labs was created to do the work of testing time space and if we're in a hologram. It's new and as I said the first experiment said no...they wrote a paper. You find it. Gave you all the info to google several posts ago. Hoping you would look into the subjects they are exploring

originally posted by: Barcs

Irrelevant. Venus is in the habitable zone of our star.

Yet no life lives on it. "scientists think water might have been there once". So what? It's too hot too ever have a stable liquid form of water

Same with Mars. That also could support life if the atmosphere wasn't so thin. Scientists say that Mars and Venus both had oceans at one point

Mars is too cold. All life would freeze to death every night. It is not a feasible planet to live on. Even if there were reservoirs of water at one point, the daily extremes would be too much for life

so you are dead wrong about earth being in the perfect position for life.

Said the man living on earth with a life expectancy above 75 years.

That's a complete lie and shows you really don't know anything at all about science, not that I ever thought you did of course.

No need to be abrasive. Cut this crap out of your personality.

a reply to: luthier

Where did I say that ID is impossible to prove? I said that it is untestable, which is true right now with our current level of understanding and technological development.

I mention ID because you are arguing against me saying that fine tuning doesn't indicate ID (my original point). Why else would you bring up fine tuning and defend it if not to suggest intelligent design? If you are making a different argument, then I'd appreciate it if you could clarify, maybe I'm misunderstanding your point. I'm well aware that scientists are experimenting with the nature of the universe and reality. They still have a long way to go before any reasonable conclusion can be made.

a reply to: Barcs

My objection is clear. It's when you use language that indictates the study of these hypothesis are trivial.

Wishful thinking etc..

Now I may be totalling misreading and I apologize if that is the case.

But it seems you keep challenging me where you don't have much emperical evidence of the study..
Which is fine. You should be skeptical.

Again I am sorry if I wasn't clear.

Edit usuay on a cell in between watching kids, unless it's late when I am working on guitars.

originally posted by: cooperton
Yet no life lives on it. "scientists think water might have been there once". So what? It's too hot too ever have a stable liquid form of water. Mars is too cold. All life would freeze to death every night. It is not a feasible planet to live on. Even if there were reservoirs of water at one point, the daily extremes would be too much for life

It doesn't matter that life isn't there. It's in the habitable zone of the sun, it just doesn't have the right environment to support life right now, which is not based on just the distance to the sun, it's based on the atmosphere. Both planets could have had life in the past. It's more about the greenhouse gases and how thick the atmosphere is, but there are numerous other factors involved.

No need to be abrasive. Cut this crap out of your personality.

Don't make things up about science and I won't call you out on it. The idea that the earth is the perfect distance from the sun is completely wrong. There is a large margin of error when it comes to distance from the sun. That was my point.

a reply to: luthier

I said that intelligent design was wishful thinking, not hypotheses in science that are currently under investigation. ID doesn't qualify as scientific hypothesis.

I'm not saying the studies are trivial. The argument that they show ID is trivial because there is too much we don't currently understand about those topics.

I apologize if I wasn't clear enough.