Jobar

Refractor:
Amino acids and proteins are not "living organisms". Do you have any idea how big of a gap there is between the mere building blocks of life, and a fully functional organism? It is the difference between a pile of rubble and a skyscraper. Building blocks still require a builder. I think you'll have better luck finding an example of self-assembled skycraper than finding an example of self-assembled organism. Thanks!

Take that to our E/C forum and see how well it flies, Refractor.

Muad'Dib

I think I can sum up our differences, which aren't really differences: I responded to "math equals observation plus experiments" by saying there's a lot more to math than applies to physics. You responded to that with the example of tachyons, and my point was not that there are predictions that haven't been verified or theoretical physics that have no engineering applications, but rather there is mathematics that does not apply at all to physics or to the modeling or understanding of the universe. Physicists do math, of course, but there's more to math than is done by physicists. Mathematicians often do math without caring in the slightest bit what it says about any aspect of the universe we live in. That was what I was driving at, and it doesn't really matter to the point you were making.

It may be a pedantic distinction, but those darn physicists can get so uppity sometimes!

Mageth

Take that to our E/C forum and see how well it flies, Refractor.

I'm waiting for Refractor to post an opinion on the sequoia I posted. Is it or is it not at least analogous to a "self-assembled skyscraper"?

Jobar

Maud'dib:
Physicists do math, of course, but there's more to math than is done by physicists. Mathematicians often do math without caring in the slightest bit what it says about any aspect of the universe we live in.

Once wade-w (who has a degree in math) had a discussion about this with me (I have a degree in physics.) We started at that point- the conversation quickly went off in the direction of infinite sets, irrational and unreal numbers, and how those things do or do not relate to the physical world. There wasn't much disagreement, actually.

We both agreed that some branches of mathematics had almost as little to do with reality as theology.

theophilus

Prophets of science!!!!!!!1

and that's not FAITH??

Shadowy Man

No. It isn't.

Fiach

No, it is not faith. Faith is belief in something totally lacking in evidence, usually acquired by hearsay or imagination.

Hypothesis is a rational description of a possible or probable mechanism or phenomenon with some evidence behind it such as direct or implied from other phenomena. It remains a hypothesis and may share the room with other hypotheses, waiting for further data to single out one hypothesis. That hypothesis is then tested and retested. Attempts to disprove it are conducted. If it passes, it becomes a theory. The theory may be more extensively tested and if it fits all protocols, has no contradictions, cannot be disproven, it become a fact or Scientific Law.

Mark Twain: "Faith is belief in what you know ain't so." That is a joke. I don't thnk that. Faith is belief in something with intuitive brain circuits programmed by what you are taught in childhood, or input from family, schools, churches, or comunity.

My Christian colleagues (2) accept scientific theories and believe in Jesus Christ.

Fiach

Muad'Dib

Cool! My degree is in math as well. It's obviously superior to your dull dry applied mathematics.

I think everyone agrees that at least some theology has no correspondence with reality. At least mathematics doesn't pretend.

Lobstrosity

Once again, this is a fallacy. Logical induction does not lead to this conclusion because you're induction isn't based on anything valid.

1) You see that physics within the current universe follows a cause and effect model.
2) You then falsely apply this physics to the creation of the universe itself and see that it does not make sense.
3) You conclude the unverse was created by something else.

Step one is incorrect. Physics in our universe is not relegated to cause and effect processes. Only macroscopically does this appear to be the case. The Big Bang model, for which there is an incredible amount of compelling evidence, has the universe originating from the quantum domain*. Step two is not valid. You cannot assume either of these steps and as such your conclusions, which arise from these two steps, are faulty. Your only "evidence" for a supernatural causes is some personal logical conundrum. This is not evidence and this is not compelling logic. For example, how do you know the universe wasn't always here, either as a seed for the Big Bang or fully-formed in some way we haven't yet thought about? Why must it have been created? That option is equally as likely as your supernatural creation, except it doesn't require us to assume some entirely new realm of existence occupied by an all-powerful intelligent creator. You also have yet to coherently explain why a self-creating universe is logically impossible. As we have zero experience with the creation of universes and the physics that might govern such processes (yes, it's entirely plausible that blind laws of "physics" in some other "realm" generate universes left and right), we can't make any logical statements about them. The notion of a universe popping into existence from nothing isn't any more illogical than the notion of a whole new plane of existence that houses an immortal intelligent being, doesn't conform to cause/effect physics, and likes to generate new unverses willy-nilly. Your whole logic is based on human experiences and I hope one day you realize that such experiences have no bearing on the regime to which you currently apply them.

* Even if you don't like the Big Bang model, then your other alternative is a steady-state universe that is eternal. There is no need for creation. So you're between a rock and a hard place when you try to justify that this universe was "created" in the first place. Arguing that macroscopic physics couldn't have created the universe is completely pointless and cannot be the basis for any logical inductions.

Lobstrosity

You don't actually know the slightest thing about what science really is, do you?