fayfreethinkers.com

"If you and I were sitting in a circle of people
on the prairie, and I were to place a
painted drum or an eagle feather in the middle
of this circle, each of us would perceive these
objects differently. Our vision of them would
vary according to our individual position in
the circle, each of which would be unique." Hyemeyohsts Storm

We are all looking at "The Evidence" of creation. It's not your evidence or mine, it just is. We are all looking at the same thing from a different place in the circle. Most of the people who deeply ponder the universe and how it works are in your camp...academia, scientism and religion. I have tried to respect and understand other view points without being indoctrinated by them but I usually just piss people off If I dare attempt to state my point of view. I get bullied by people like you i.e. "you're a stupid buffoon that just goes around spouting bullshit and are not to be taken seriously." That's o.k. If you need someone to look down on from up there on your high horse, 'help yourself to me."

All of your hoof stomping and snorting can't hide the fact that you only see about 6% of the universe (about the square root of shit) and you have used a tiny fraction of that 6% to extrapolate a point of creation while ignoring the other 96% as a possible source of creation.

I find it humorous that science and religion are engaged in a feud over their concepts of the creator (religion has "sky man" science has "singularity") because they are both deathly afraid of the Gods they have created.

Gravity is the inflation of Dark Energy which forms Dark Matter which then in turn creates matter through vortical motion.

"God made everything out of nothing,
but nothingness shows through" Valery

gray

graybear13 wrote:Gravity is the inflation of Dark Energy which forms Dark Matter which then in turn creates matter through vortical motion.

?........I was almost certain that gravity was the ejaculation of a million masturbating unicorns which in turn gives rise to space AIDS that, through anal vortical motion, induces a state of existence upon the universal wave-function.....um...wink....

I'm going to have to go with kwlyon here on the "ejaculation of a million masturbating unicorns through the anal vortical motion." That's just the way the feather looks from this angle.

But seriously. Science was developed in order to over come this effect of the feather looking different from every angle. But you have to be mentally mature enough (and honest) to set aside your own personal emotional attachment of thinking the feather looks like X, in order to humbly admit that no... the science shows, objectively, that the feather shape is actually Y. Graybear doesn't have the intellectual honesty to overcome his personal devotion to his poorly formed delusions and he doesn't have the courage to admit what everyone knows anyway, he knows nothing of the science beyond absurd, simplistic, new age, caricature misunderstandings of science.

Darrel wrote: he doesn't have the courage to admit what everyone knows anyway, he knows nothing of the science beyond absurd, simplistic, new age, caricature misunderstandings of science.

Give credit where it is due, however. The man has the courage to show up here...though I am not really certain it is courage alone that prompts him to do so. But yes, the point of the sciences is to objectify physical phenomenon. One of the root axioms of the scientific method that has thus far proven so exceedingly successful at imparting understanding, is that there is, despite all possible perspectives, only one reality. There may be different "models" that may be applied in certain circumstances that predict the same observed effects, however when this occurs the discrepancy always seems to boil down to a matter of semantics/notation. The real issue I would have with grey's theory is that it seems to be utterly non quantifiable. He is just a guy shooting the breeze with the limited scientific understanding of the average joe. If he were in a room with a bunch of stoned hippies he would be received more kindly I think.

Again Grey, keep thinking. However I DO HEARTILY recommend that you look into studying some basic physics. You will have a new perspective on a lot of these more intellectually stimulating great questions with a little more solid foundation. I think you would really enjoy taking a couple physics classes if you ever have the time. Depending on where your math skills are I would recommend Physics for Human Affairs up to College Physics to start with. These are both...kinda the rough less interesting stuff but they provide the necessary basics for you to begin to understand the "cool stuff". You will find PHA kinda....weak. However it requires NO math skills whatsoever. If you feel comfortable with a little algebra, go for College Physics instead. Hey, it's free! And it's not like you have to worry about your grades...just have fun. Oh, the BOOK for PHA is really, really good. It was written to be at the level of everyday joe on the street. The author is our own Art Hobson, actually. ISBN: 0131879464. It is an excellent way to brush up on important physical principals as well as give you a solid view of what role physics plays in our environment and pretty much every aspect of our lives. I have actually learned quite a bit flipping through the pages. And hey, if you have questions, I HAVE OFFICE HOURS!

graybear13 wrote:I find it humorous that science and religion are engaged in a feud over their concepts of the creator (religion has "sky man" science has "singularity") because they are both deathly afraid of the Gods they have created.

DOUG
Science is in a feud with religion because science wants to spread the truth and religion wants to spread dogma whether or not it's true.

And science isn't afraid of anything. The history of science proves that. Scientists will change their minds due to the weight of the evidence.

Show me a church that will do that. They are few and far between.

Darrel wrote:I'm going to have to go with kwlyon here on the "ejaculation of a million masturbating unicorns through the anal vortical motion." That's just the way the feather looks from this angle.

Congratulations for seeing, clearly, 6% of that feather, and knowing the other 94% is there even though you cannot seeing it.

Lets just say that what you see clearly are the barbs of the feather. You clearly see a very beautiful manifestation but you cannot see where they come from or what holds them together. For you to say I cannot see the quill because I cannot see the barbs as clearly as you do is the height of arrogance. I really do have the right to my position. If that makes me an intellectually dishonest, stupid,cowardly buffoon in you eyes, so be it. Unless you really are the "everlasting know it all."

My fall back position is...Pink unicorns are running around the universe eating Dark matter, drinking Dark energy and shitting galaxies.

gray

graybear13 wrote: Congratulations for seeing, clearly, 6% of that feather, and knowing the other 94% is there even though you cannot seeing it.

DAR
I don't need to see it from my angle, because I have tireless, objective, impartial machines that can observe it and record it from every angle and in a hundred different ways. And this evidence can be confirmed by anyone.

You clearly see a very beautiful manifestation but you cannot see where they come from or what holds them together.

Wrong. I can. Science has the power to reveal such reality.

For you to say I cannot see the quill because I cannot see the barbs as clearly as you do is the height of arrogance.

That's why I am not saying that. I don't believe in your post modern, multiple reality, bullshit.

I really do have the right to my position. If that makes me an intellectually dishonest, stupid,cowardly buffoon in you eyes, so be it.

It does. When you scratch the underbelly of this stupid new age nonsense the true poop comes forth. And that is the vague, wishy washy, useless "I'm okay, you're okay, I have my reality and you have yours."

This New Age garbage always boils down to that at the very bottom. It's the very foundation of this religion and it's wrong. We can measure and quantify that feather to the ninth degree. Your analogy fails and is just another attempt to hide your inaccuracies, absurdities and made up assertions behind the skirt of post modern, reality denying, superstition. You do this because you are lazy and arrogant and don't want to do the hard work of learning and figuring things out as they actually are. You have no interest in that. It's the ancient and timeless anti-science, reality denying position of all Foo Foo meisters. You want reality shiny and fun and handed to you on a platter in a Urantia book or a Carlos Castaneda story where you get to be a sorcerer and have knowledge you don't have and powers you will never have. Sorry, I have nothing but disrespect for that kind of posturing and intellectual cowardice.

D.

graybear13 wrote:It's not your evidence or mine, it just is.

Hold up. Earlier, you said that it wasn't your job to present evidence. Though nobody "owns" the evidence that exists, the problem with your view is that it has no evidence that supports it. The evidence that exists "just is," while evidence that supports your view "just isn't."

graybear13 wrote:We are all looking at the same thing from a different place in the circle.

Two bits:
1. In terms of looking at the universe around us, we're all in the same place with the same view. None of us are in the delta quadrant with a different perspective.
2. As Darrel pointed out, science is specifically set up in a way that maximizes the possibility of eliminating this alleged sampling bias. Plus you're ignoring all of the efforts we've made to gather other information, via new measurement techniques and probes sent to transmit information from far from Earth.

graybear13 wrote:but I usually just piss people off If I dare attempt to state my point of view.

Speaking of sampling bias... No, you don't piss people off merely by stating your point of view. You piss people off when you say that you have an awesome theory that shows that the rest of us are idiots, then you say that you don't need to have evidence for your position. You piss people off when you make shit up and pass it off as valid because it sounds science-y with buzzwords like "dark energy" and "gravity vortex" when -- in reality -- there is no connection to reality whatsoever present in your ramblings. In short, you piss people off when you accuse people who have supporting evidence of being wrong while ignoring evidence that shows that you're wrong.

graybear13 wrote:I get bullied by people like you i.e. "you're a stupid buffoon that just goes around spouting bullshit and are not to be taken seriously."

Sometimes, the truth hurts. But that doesn't make it any less true.

graybear13 wrote:If you need someone to look down on from up there on your high horse, 'help yourself to me."

No, we have no shortage of people who have an unacceptable deficiency in their understanding of reality. I'd be much happier having no idiots around than having to call people idiots.

graybear13 wrote:... and you have used a tiny fraction of that 6% to extrapolate a point of creation while ignoring the other 96% ...

Nevermind that the numbers you give aren't supported by data; the numbers you give don't even make sense. And you dare lecture us about how academics can't be trusted to get things right?

graybear13 wrote:I find it humorous that science and religion are engaged in a feud over their concepts of the creator

Neither I nor science gives a rip about what religion does. It tends to work only the other way around because religion has something to hide: that it is unreasonable.

graybear13 wrote:Gravity is the inflation of Dark Energy which forms Dark Matter which then in turn creates matter through vortical motion.

If this is correct, then we should see matter popping up in gravitational fields. We don't. Therefore, you're wrong.

graybear13 wrote:Lets just say that what you see clearly are the barbs of the feather.

Let's just say that you're in no position to be saying things and expecting us to take them as facts.

graybear13 wrote:For you to say I cannot see the quill because I cannot see the barbs as clearly as you do is the height of arrogance.

I'm not merely asserting that you can't see the quill. I'm arguing that you have no evidence that you see the quill, and that there is therefore no reason for me to accept that you do. I'm also arguing that your conclusions about the quill are contradictory to our observations of other parts of the feather; as not both of us can be right, and as only our side has evidential support, I reject your position, and so does the rest of science.
What's ironic here is that you accuse us of the height of arrogance because we accept where the evidence -- which has nothing to do with us -- points us... yet you also want us to blindly accept your position which has no evidence because it has to do with you and your 25 years of not knowing what the hell you're doing.

graybear13 wrote:I really do have the right to my position.

And nobody here has argued otherwise. You seem to be stuck on this point. Perhaps you should see a mental health professional about your persecution complex.

graybear13 wrote:If that makes me an intellectually dishonest, stupid,cowardly buffoon in you eyes, so be it.

No, simply having the right to your position is not what makes you those things, but the fact that you want to pretend that we think it is just proves Darrel's point: You truly are intellectually dishonest.

graybear13 wrote:Unless you really are the "everlasting know it all."

Don't be silly. I'm not everlasting.

graybear13 wrote:My fall back position is...Pink unicorns are running around the universe eating Dark matter, drinking Dark energy and shitting galaxies.

Well there's your problem. Your "fall back" position is more reasonable than your main position. Switch!

Doug wrote: science isn't afraid of anything.

Well they should be!
Fear is an instinct that is important to self preservation.

Prometheus was right that man would use fire (scientific self-awareness)
for great good in the world but the Gods
were also right that man would misuse and destroy with it
for example...nukes and the war machine.
What is it that will tip the balance and good will
outweigh the evil? Right now it seems that the
evil is a realistic threat to destroy us all.

gray

Savonarola wrote:

graybear13 wrote:Unless you really are the "everlasting know it all."

Don't be silly. I'm not everlasting.

I didn't know you had a sense of humor.

Doug wrote: science isn't afraid of anything.

graybear13 wrote: Well they should be!
Fear is an instinct that is important to self preservation.

DOUG
Individual scientists may fear things, but the field of science is not guided by the fear of discovery, as are many aspects of your beliefs, for example.

In other words, science pursues the truth wherever it leads, even if it leads to the overthrow of cherised scientific beliefs. Science has undergone revolutions in the past due to discoveries. But science has no dogma about the world, it will embrace whatever is true.

Religion tends to fear discovery because religion thinks it has the truth; it does not pursue truth, so discovery brings the opportunity for finding out bad news, and religion doesn't want that.

graybear13 wrote: Prometheus was right that man would use fire (scientific self-awareness)
for great good in the world but the Gods
were also right that man would misuse and destroy with it
for example...nukes and the war machine.
What is it that will tip the balance and good will
outweigh the evil? Right now it seems that the
evil is a realistic threat to destroy us all.
gray

DOUG
Science has produced bombs and pollution, etc. But it has also produced specialized crops, medicine, and other things that have saved the lives of countless billions of people. Billions. That's more than religion can boast.

Doug wrote: science isn't afraid of anything.

But science has no dogma about the world, it will embrace whatever is true.
[/quote]

All evidence to the contrary...I think it is disingenuous,
dare I say, "cowardly and intellectually dishonest" for anyone
to suggest that evolutionary religion has not been a force
for good in the world. You like to minimize the evil of science
while maximizing the evil of religion but the percentages are
probably not that dissimilar.

I my view evolutionary religion is the mother of science.

True science can have no lasting quarrel with true religion.

Science has created a supernatural God that created the
universe...Singularity...and is using this 'dogma' to create
another supernatural God of destruction...Black Hole...a
timeless place of holograms and gravitational torture,
sounds like Hell.

Can you not see a similarity between the confusion of
science and the confusion of religion?

Science has lost its idealism in the hypothesis of a first
cause. The ideal would be the Theory of Everything and
it cannot contain 'singularity'. IMHO

gray

graybear13 wrote:All evidence to the contrary...I think it is disingenuous,
dare I say, "cowardly and intellectually dishonest" for anyone
to suggest that evolutionary religion has not been a force
for good in the world. You like to minimize the evil of science
while maximizing the evil of religion but the percentages are
probably not that dissimilar.

I my view evolutionary religion is the mother of science.

Evolutionary science is based on evidence. It is not based on faith. It is not a religion.

Anyone who thinks that evolution is a religion is just ridiculous.

Doug wrote:

graybear13 wrote:All evidence to the contrary...I think it is disingenuous,
dare I say, "cowardly and intellectually dishonest" for anyone
to suggest that evolutionary religion has not been a force
for good in the world. You like to minimize the evil of science
while maximizing the evil of religion but the percentages are
probably not that dissimilar.

I my view evolutionary religion is the mother of science.

Evolutionary science is based on evidence. It is not based on faith. It is not a religion.

Anyone who thinks that evolution is a religion is just ridiculous.

Hi Doug,

I never challenged the 'base' 0f evolutionary science....
The great fathers from Sir Isaac Newton to Einstein have kept us on the path...the trail of evidence.

I'm just saying that an element of faith 'was' introduced around 1930 and it is a stain on the evolution
of science.

We should not use mathematics to create a supernatural creation point. When we began to use
mathematics to go beyond what we can look back and see with 'Hubble' we started on a path
that made us leave the natural world behind. If it's outside the natural world science should
reject it. Singularity is outside the natural world.

No singularity no Big Bang
No singularity no Black Holes sucking everything in.
It's a push...the weight of Dark Energy pushing everything in,
pushing galaxies around.

Come back to reason.
Leave faith to religion.

I did not say that 'evolution is a religion'.
Evolutionary religion is religion that is evolving.

It seems to me that early human evolution was dominated by religion.
As we made the transition from just animal instinct to self awareness
we moved through superstition to religion to science and religion.
The introduction of science into our evolution was the gift of 'fire'.

gray

graybear13 wrote:I'm just saying that an element of faith 'was' introduced around 1930 and it is a stain on the evolution
of science.

DOUG
Please show me biology textbooks from the 1930's, or journal articles, or lectures by professional biologists at conventions, that introduce this element of faith into science. I'm sure we'd all like to see this.

We should not use mathematics to create a supernatural creation point. When we began to use
mathematics to go beyond what we can look back and see with 'Hubble' we started on a path
that made us leave the natural world behind.

Um...are you suggesting that if something can not be directly observed it lies outside the realm of science? Because that is utterly absurd and, as a spectroscopist, I take rather a great deal of exception to that assertion. We create models all the time that stretch us beyond the realm of the directly observable...but certainly not beyond the natural world. There is much much much more to the natural world than can be directly observed. Models make testable predictions which allow us to evaluate their veracity...The big bang model is no exception and its observable predictions have been spot on beyond anyones expectations.

Kevin

Doug wrote:

graybear13 wrote:I'm just saying that an element of faith 'was' introduced around 1930 and it is a stain on the evolution
of science.

DOUG
Please show me biology textbooks from the 1930's, or journal articles, or lectures by professional biologists at conventions, that introduce this element of faith into science. I'm sure we'd all like to see this.

"Stephen Hawking's Universe The cosmos explained."
by David Filkin

Chapter 4 'In The Beginning'

"In 1927, Georges, Lemaitre, a Belgian Jesuit Priest
and the leading theoretical cosmologist working
at the Vatican Observatory, had been musing over some
of Albert Einstein's ideas and mathematical equations.
Lemaitre himself vehemently argued that he simply
wanted to make a model of the universe which would
be consistent with Einsteins theories; but others
where convinced that he was trying to come up with
a scientific explanation of the universe which would
allow for a moment of creation: something which
Newton's eternal and infinite model seemed to rule out.
It was important for the Catholic Church to find a way
of making the creationist ideas in the Bible consistent
with all of the scientific discoveries about the universe;...."

http://www.basicbooks.com author David Filkin for the rest of the story....

gray

Not that it matters much but... continuing the quote where Gray left it off...

"...and it's scientists at the Vatican Observatory were finding this an uphill task. Lamaitre apparently wanted to find some new evidence to suggest that the universe was finite and therefore must have had a clear beginning."

LINK for more.

I trust Doug will provide the names of the fallacies Graybear is employing this time.

kwlyon wrote:

We should not use mathematics to create a supernatural creation point. When we began to use
mathematics to go beyond what we can look back and see with 'Hubble' we started on a path
that made us leave the natural world behind.

Um...are you suggesting that if something can not be directly observed it lies outside the realm of science? Because that is utterly absurd and, as a spectroscopist, I take rather a great deal of exception to that assertion. We create models all the time that stretch us beyond the realm of the directly observable...but certainly not beyond the natural world. There is much much much more to the natural world than can be directly observed. Models make testable predictions which allow us to evaluate their veracity...The big bang model is no exception and its observable predictions have been spot on beyond anyones expectations.

Kevin

I'm sorry you misunderstood what I said. I would never suggest that science should not push the envelope and follow the math.
I have great respect for mathematics; but it can take you to la la land and singularities if you let it get to far out in front .

Having a supernatural God (Big Bang) that no one can convince you doesn't exist....sounds familiar somehow.

The observable predictions that are "spot on" cannot be attributed to a Big Bang without a leap of faith, wasn't that what the
LHC was going to settle? Something about a God particle?

gray

graybear13 wrote: Having a supernatural God (Big Bang) that no one can convince you doesn't exist....sounds familiar somehow.
The observable predictions that are "spot on" cannot be attributed to a Big Bang without a leap of faith,...

Perhaps you should acquaint yourself with the reasons/evidence for why the Big Bang is the prevailing theory (and essentially the only game in town). Notice: That Lamaitre may have had religious motivations, is not, and would not, ever have anything to do with such a list:

a) Large-scale homogeneity
b) Hubble Diagram
c) Abundances of light elements
d) Existence of the Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation
e) Fluctuations in the CMBR
f) Large-scale structure of the universe
g) Age of stars
h) Evolution of galaxies
i) Time dilation in supernova brightness curves
j) Tolman tests
k) Sunyaev-Zel'dovich effect
l) Integrated Sachs-Wolfe effect
m) Dark Matter
n) Dark Energy

Some of these were predicted by BB theory and have since been confirmed. Each one of the above is carefully explained, in laymen's terms here.

As we say to the creationists... what have you got in support of your "theory?" Or do you even have one? (They don't).