Does Intelligent Design Seek to Undo Modern Science?

Jul 13, 2008 | Posted by: roboblogger | Full story: Discover

Biologist Kenneth Miller thinks so. published online July 11, 2008 The proponents of Intelligent Design seek nothing less than a true scientific revolution, an uprising of the first order that would do a great ...

Comments
81 - 96 of 96 Comments Last updated Jan 7, 2013
First Prev
of 5
Next Last
charlieb1950

Gastonia, NC

#81 Nov 21, 2008
OK,fellows,what is the definition of a singularity?

Level 1

Since: Nov 08

Boise, ID

#82 Nov 21, 2008
charlieb1950 wrote:
OK,fellows,what is the definition of a singularity?
A gravitational singularity (sometimes spacetime singularity) is, approximately, a place where quantities which are used to measure the gravitational field become infinite. Such quantities include the curvature of spacetime or the density of matter. More accurately, a spacetime with a singularity contains geodesics which cannot be completed in a smooth manner. The limit of such a geodesic is the singularity.

The two most important types of spacetime singularities are curvature singularities and conical singularities. Singularities can also be divided according to whether they are covered by an event horizon or not (naked singularities). According to general relativity, the initial state of the universe, at the beginning of the Big Bang, was a singularity.

Read more here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravitational_si...

“Quantum Junctn: Use Both Lanes”

Level 2

Since: Dec 06

Tulsa, Oklahoma USofA

#83 Nov 21, 2008
charlieb1950 wrote:
OK,fellows,what is the definition of a singularity?
Why do you want to know?

You cannot possibly understand the science behind it. You've demonstrated this time and time again.

What possible motive would anyone have to try to teach you something you lack the reasoning skills to even _begin_ to understand?
The Dude

Watford, UK

#84 Nov 22, 2008
No-one cares what you think, Charlie.

“Maccullochella macquariensis”

Since: May 08

Melbourne, Australia

#85 Nov 24, 2008
Erasmus05 wrote:
<quoted text>
A gravitational singularity (sometimes spacetime singularity) is, approximately, a place where quantities which are used to measure the gravitational field become infinite. Such quantities include the curvature of spacetime or the density of matter. More accurately, a spacetime with a singularity contains geodesics which cannot be completed in a smooth manner. The limit of such a geodesic is the singularity.
The two most important types of spacetime singularities are curvature singularities and conical singularities. Singularities can also be divided according to whether they are covered by an event horizon or not (naked singularities). According to general relativity, the initial state of the universe, at the beginning of the Big Bang, was a singularity.
Read more here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravitational_si...
As I am sure you know there are of course other types of singularity. For example, how many sides/edges does a strip of paper have? Now join the ends together giving one end a half twist to make a Mobius strip. Now how many sides/edges? One. This is just one type of singularity. There are others.

The point of this is to show that words have context, without context we cannot tell what is meant by them. Thus to ask what is a singularity is a meaningless question, unless you provide the context within which you are talking.

“Turning coffee into theorems”

Since: Dec 06

Trapped inside a Klein Bottle

#86 Nov 24, 2008
Bluenose wrote:
<quoted text>
As I am sure you know there are of course other types of singularity. For example, how many sides/edges does a strip of paper have? Now join the ends together giving one end a half twist to make a Mobius strip. Now how many sides/edges? One. This is just one type of singularity. There are others.
The point of this is to show that words have context, without context we cannot tell what is meant by them. Thus to ask what is a singularity is a meaningless question, unless you provide the context within which you are talking.
Actually, Bluenose, what you described with the Mobius strip is not considered a singularity in mathematics. There are, however, several different type of singularities, and I won't claim to know them all. The most commonly mentioned is where a function goes to infinity. This is the closest to the singularity describes in a black hole.

Another type of singularity is given by this example - two cones connected at their points. This is a topological singularity. As you move from one cone to the other, you move from a 2D surface to a point (not a 2D surface) and back to a 2D surface. The cones are entirely 2D surfaces, except at the point. The point is a singularity. The Big Bang singularity is more akin to this type, since the three spacial dimensions all collapse to zero at that point.

“Maccullochella macquariensis”

Since: May 08

Melbourne, Australia

#87 Nov 24, 2008
Darwins Stepchild wrote:
<quoted text>
Actually, Bluenose, what you described with the Mobius strip is not considered a singularity in mathematics.
No?[shrug] I guess things have changed since I was taught about this type of mathematics - a looonnngggg time ago. LOL! Never mind, the main point stands as exemplified by the next part of your post:
There are, however, several different type of singularities, and I won't claim to know them all. The most commonly mentioned is where a function goes to infinity. This is the closest to the singularity describes in a black hole.
Another type of singularity is given by this example - two cones connected at their points. This is a topological singularity. As you move from one cone to the other, you move from a 2D surface to a point (not a 2D surface) and back to a 2D surface. The cones are entirely 2D surfaces, except at the point. The point is a singularity. The Big Bang singularity is more akin to this type, since the three spacial dimensions all collapse to zero at that point.
One of the things I like about this place is the opportunity to learn from those who know more than I do. Pity some others hereabouts don't do the same thing <ironic grin>

“Turning coffee into theorems”

Since: Dec 06

Trapped inside a Klein Bottle

#88 Nov 25, 2008
Bluenose wrote:
<quoted text>
No?[shrug] I guess things have changed since I was taught about this type of mathematics - a looonnngggg time ago. LOL! Never mind, the main point stands as exemplified by the next part of your post:
<quoted text>
One of the things I like about this place is the opportunity to learn from those who know more than I do. Pity some others hereabouts don't do the same thing <ironic grin>
I agree with this last bit. I have learned a lot about geology from Fossil Bob, and about biology from several different people. The pro-evolution group has quite a few people well educated in various science, and it is definitely an opportunity to learn.

“Quantum Junctn: Use Both Lanes”

Level 2

Since: Dec 06

Tulsa, Oklahoma USofA

#89 Nov 25, 2008
Bluenose wrote:
One of the things I like about this place is the opportunity to learn from those who know more than I do. Pity some others hereabouts don't do the same thing <ironic grin>
Darwins Stepchild wrote:
<quoted text>
I agree with this last bit. I have learned a lot about geology from Fossil Bob, and about biology from several different people. The pro-evolution group has quite a few people well educated in various science, and it is definitely an opportunity to learn.
Aaaaand we have ANOTHER difference between science and religion.

Science is based on curiosity: how? and by what method? and such.

It encourages such questions and more: every time a Major Question gets a pretty good answer, we discover "behind" the answer....even MORE questions!

Which encourages another round of "how's that again?" and "how did THAT happen?" and so on.

Now, contrast this with most religions who actively suppress questions such as "why did god do such and such?" which, most times is "answered" with the suppression statement, "it's a mystery of god" or the parallel one, "it's the will of god".

Both of these non-answers tend to quash a questioner's curiosity. For the REAL meaning behind them is:

"we don't have a frikkin' clue AND STOP ASKING"

..........

Is it any wonder why so many questioners, over the centuries, turned to science instead?
Nelson

UK

#90 Dec 3, 2012
McGoo wrote:
<quoted text>
Would you define the ability of ants to cooperate as moral?
If you cannot define it as moral, what difference does it make?, beside, ants can only cooperate because they have the ability to or is part of their characteristics, but humans can't even agree on how they can here let alone have the ability for over 4 billion of us on earth to cooperate on what exactly?
What are we cooperating for, is suppose to be survival of the fittest?
Nelson

UK

#91 Dec 3, 2012
Bob of Quantum-Faith wrote:
<quoted text><quoted text>
Aaaaand we have ANOTHER difference between science and religion.
Science is based on curiosity: how? and by what method? and such.
It encourages such questions and more: every time a Major Question gets a pretty good answer, we discover "behind" the answer....even MORE questions!
Which encourages another round of "how's that again?" and "how did THAT happen?" and so on.
Now, contrast this with most religions who actively suppress questions such as "why did god do such and such?" which, most times is "answered" with the suppression statement, "it's a mystery of god" or the parallel one, "it's the will of god".
Both of these non-answers tend to quash a questioner's curiosity. For the REAL meaning behind them is:
"we don't have a frikkin' clue AND STOP ASKING"
..........
Is it any wonder why so many questioners, over the centuries, turned to science instead?
I think the theory of evolution is good for one only reason and that is why I support it: it gives us/scientist the excuse to keep searching and in the process we have discovered quite a lot of things that has benefited humanity, otherwise is just the most stupid, rubbish stuff anyone could ever believe.

...just because you can study plants and tell us how they grows does not mean is not God that created it...

...just saying if truly God created plants, being a scientist and studying and explaining how plants grow does not mean He didn't create them, does it?

While, I don't have any prove of that, maybe the intelligent design movement are trying to supply us with some evidence that He might have created the whole thing rather than some mindless, purposeless, accidental process.
Observer

Carrollton, TX

#92 Dec 3, 2012
TedHOhio wrote:
Does Intelligent Design Seek to Undo Modern Science?
Yes, but no one has caused more damage to science than the cult of Charles Darwin.

“Nihil curo de ista tua stulta ”

Since: May 08

Orlando

#93 Dec 3, 2012
Observer wrote:
<quoted text>Yes, but no one has caused more damage to science than the cult of Charles Darwin.
Explain please, Shube.

I mean "Observer".
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#94 Dec 5, 2012
Nelson wrote:
While, I don't have any prove of that, maybe the intelligent design movement are trying to supply us with some evidence that He might have created the whole thing rather than some mindless, purposeless, accidental process.
If only they were...

:-/
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#95 Dec 5, 2012
Observer wrote:
<quoted text>Yes, but no one has caused more damage to science than the cult of Charles Darwin.
Ah shaddap Shoob.

“I am evolving as fast as I can”

Since: Jan 08

Brooklyn, in Dayton OH now

#96 Jan 7, 2013
Observer wrote:
<quoted text>Yes, but no one has caused more damage to science than the cult of Charles Darwin.
And yet you have never been able to quantify the damage you claim Darwin's thoery has done. Why is that?

You are just jealous because no one takes you seriously.

Tell me when this thread is updated: (Registration is not required)

Add to my Tracker Send me an email

First Prev
of 5
Next Last

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Evolution Debate Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
Should evolution be taught in high school? (Feb '08) 1 hr TedHOhio 172,529
Evolution vs. Creation (Jul '11) 1 hr inbred Genius 115,251
It's the Darwin crowd that lacks the facts in e... (Mar '09) 1 hr DanFromSmithville 136,276
Genetic 'Adam' and 'Eve' Uncovered - live science (Sep '13) 3 hr susanblange 321
Evolution Theory Facing Crisis 6 hr TedHOhio 209
Science News (Sep '13) Aug 28 positronium 2,848
The Satanic Character of Social Darwinism Aug 27 Zog Has-fallen 343
•••
Enter and win $5000
•••

Evolution Debate People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE

•••