(January 15, 2019 at 6:45 am)T0 Th3 M4X Wrote:

(January 15, 2019 at 6:37 am)Peebo-Thuhlu Wrote: So, now it would seem that M4X doesn't accept the infromaton the professional Astronomers have?

Strange.

Not at work.

I accept what you can show empirically.  So far it's a lot of me asking, and a lot of you "not showing" the supposed item.  If you'll blindly believe something, then that's your choice.  No reason for me to assume you're correct, or even incorrect, until you've got something more than just people telling you to believe something.

But...

That's not even close to the discussiion M4X.

People have been saying that Astronomers have been seeing certain things when they look out into the sky with their various telescopes.

What their telescopes show is the empirical evidence.

The galaxies swirling around in whirlpool like circles faster than gravity can allow.

That's what people here are talking about. That's emprical.

Get yourself the right telescopic set up and go watch the night sky for yourself.

So... you disagree with the Astronomers then, M4X?

Not at work.

(January 15, 2019 at 6:50 am)Peebo-Thuhlu Wrote:

(January 15, 2019 at 6:45 am)T0 Th3 M4X Wrote: I accept what you can show empirically.  So far it's a lot of me asking, and a lot of you "not showing" the supposed item.  If you'll blindly believe something, then that's your choice.  No reason for me to assume you're correct, or even incorrect, until you've got something more than just people telling you to believe something.

But...

That's not even close to the discussiion M4X.

People have been saying that Astronomers have been seeing certain things when they look out into the sky with their various telescopes.

What their telescopes show is the empirical evidence.

The galaxies swirling around in whirlpool like circles faster than gravity can allow.

That's what people here are talking about. That's emprical.

Get yourself the right telescopic set up and go watch the night sky for yourself.

So... you disagree with the Astronomers then, M4X?

Not at work.

"People have been saying..."

I don't care what "people have been saying."  I care whether you can show me the authentic item or not.

If someone says pink unicorns exist, or even a billion people say they exist, I'll believe them as soon as they show me a single pink unicorn.  Until then it's jut a "people have been saying" scenario.  People say a lot of things and end up being wrong.  That's why we use the scientific method for establishing things empirically using inductive reasoning.  That way claims can be tested and proofed repeatedly.  Right now you want me to believe something that not even you have established to yourself through inductive reason, and can't present to me as such, so why should I believe you just because  "you have been saying" that other "people have been saying?"  It's not saying you're "right" or "wrong", but rather your idea is inconclusive to me, as you've been ask many times to provide it, yet you and the other proponents who "have been saying" keep dropping goose eggs when asked.

(January 15, 2019 at 6:08 am)T0 Th3 M4X Wrote:

(January 15, 2019 at 4:02 am)pocaracas Wrote: Come on, M4X, don't get distracted!

Keep up the good talk:






About dark matter... well... gravitational effects have been observed where no matter can be observed to produce them. So, if we can't see it, it's because it's dark.
Go outside, pick up some dirt, let the sun set in a moonless night and look at the dirt on your hand. That's dark matter. It produces no light for it to be observed.

In the case of cosmic dark matter, the thing is a bit more complicated, because it seems to emit no radiation at all, while your dirt will emit some IR from temperature, and some other spectroscopic emission lines from natural radioactive isotopes. Dark matter emits nothing of the sort, but is well masked within the background microwave emission.

Sounds convenient when you can know something is there without saying you actually observed it, but rather cite something that may or may not indicate it to try and prove it.  To suggests it accounts for 85-95 percent of the matter in the universe is nothing but fantasy and sensationalism.   But you know, it's an "excuse" why the original Big Bang prediction was a bust.  Couldn't account for all the gaps, splits, pockets, etc... in CMB, so make up something to account for it that can't be disproven due to the inability to observe it directly.  Not drinking the Kool-Aid on this one.

Whatever happened to the conversation about intelligence?

Anyway, yes "Dark Matter" is a placeholder name until more info about the thing comes through.
So far, it is only known that there is something producing large scale influence on the trajectories of galaxies... apparently through gravity, so matter is the best description we have for it (because mass is the thing that produces gravity, you know?). We can't see any light coming from it, so dark also fits. And that's it.

(January 15, 2019 at 7:13 am)pocaracas Wrote:

(January 15, 2019 at 6:08 am)T0 Th3 M4X Wrote: Sounds convenient when you can know something is there without saying you actually observed it, but rather cite something that may or may not indicate it to try and prove it.  To suggests it accounts for 85-95 percent of the matter in the universe is nothing but fantasy and sensationalism.   But you know, it's an "excuse" why the original Big Bang prediction was a bust.  Couldn't account for all the gaps, splits, pockets, etc... in CMB, so make up something to account for it that can't be disproven due to the inability to observe it directly.  Not drinking the Kool-Aid on this one.

Whatever happened to the conversation about intelligence?

Anyway, yes "Dark Matter" is a placeholder name until more info about the thing comes through.
So far, it is only known that there is something producing large scale influence on the trajectories of galaxies... apparently through gravity, so matter is the best description we have for it (because mass is the thing that produces gravity, you know?). We can't see any light coming from it, so dark also fits. And that's it.

And that is a fair statement.

(January 15, 2019 at 7:25 am)T0 Th3 M4X Wrote:

(January 15, 2019 at 7:13 am)pocaracas Wrote: Whatever happened to the conversation about intelligence?

Anyway, yes "Dark Matter" is a placeholder name until more info about the thing comes through.
So far, it is only known that there is something producing large scale influence on the trajectories of galaxies... apparently through gravity, so matter is the best description we have for it (because mass is the thing that produces gravity, you know?). We can't see any light coming from it, so dark also fits. And that's it.

And that is a fair statement.

Good.
Now, the observed effect is compatible with this dark matter being quite a lot. Some people did the math and came up with that 90%+ number that others have mentioned here.

(January 10, 2019 at 11:26 pm)CDF47 Wrote:

(January 10, 2019 at 7:09 pm)Jörmungandr Wrote: Calling the information functional doesn't change anything, and function is an interpretation, not an objective fact.  The fact of the matter is that chemicals behave according to natural law, whether that's a drop of water or a life form, it's just chemicals doing what chemicals do.  If you want to call that functional, then knock yourself out, but then everything in existence has functional information and you've mooted your argument.  But even if one were to accept function as a real characteristic, you still have the problem that it has already been shown that such functional information can arise through undirected processes (see my most recent video), which means that the possession of functional information in and of itself does not indicate that it could not have arisen through natural means.  So you're still lacking reason or evidence for your claim that DNA could not arise through natural means because the possession of functional information is no bar to natural processes.  For my part, I consider function to be a constructed attribute, and not an objective one, that can be quantified by objective measures.  If you feel otherwise, then you need to explain how we determine, objectively, that something contains 'functional' information.  As a practical matter, function has taken the place of specification in design arguments because specification could not be defined.  Function, as an objective property, is no more capable of being defined.  It's just a vague, "I'll know it when I see it," subjective criterion.

So, now you have three problems:
1) No evidence or reason why functional information cannot arise through natural processes;
2) No objective definition of function or functional information; and,
3) An inability to quantify this mythical dimension of information.

Your problems are multiplying.

No, you can't just write off the information being functional like that.  When you see a manufacturing plant you know and infer it is designed.  Well we found a manufacturing plant in the construct of proteins!

I didn't just write off functional information. I even granted it ex hypothesi in one instance. What you have done, however, is simply write off my objections without providing any reasons for doing so. That doesn't work. So you still face the obstacles I mentioned and you still haven't provided reasons or evidence for your position that functional information, if there is such a thing, cannot arise through natural processes. As we've seen, clearly it can. So your objection is that certain functional information can arise through natural processes, but not other functional information. You haven't given the slightest evidence or reasons for this being true. And I could care less what you infer when you look at a manufacturing plant unless your inference is based upon sound reasoning about objective properties. Your belief that the machinery in the cell is a manufacturing plant is wrong in multiple respects. First, it's not literally a manufacturing plant, but rather, to some people, it is analogous to a manufacturing plant. In some ways it is, in some ways it isn't. In the sense that both rely on natural processes to achieve their ends, it is. In the sense that it is designed, that's the question at issue, and you can't simply rely upon certain similarities between it and a manufacturing plant to necessarily imply other properties that an actual manufacturing plant possesses. That doesn't work as a matter of logic. As a matter of persuasion, Hume stated the relevant rule regarding analogies that, inasmuch as the cases are similar, the argument has force, but inasmuch as the case analogized departs from that to which it is analogized, its argumentative force is weakened, to the point that, if the cases are grossly dissimilar, the argument has no force at all. The similarities between the processes in the cell and those in a manufacturing plant are sufficiently dissimilar that your argument that there is "[something like] a manufacturing plant" in the cell has no force at all, and is dismissed. Second, we know a manufacturing plant, or ones like it, are designed because of the similarity to other ones of its kind. We don't have other similar systems to the cell that we know are designed, so we can't make the same inference in the case of the cell because the foundation of that inference, a similarity to things known to be designed, doesn't exist. Beyond that you would have to demonstrate that we can know objectively that a manufacturing plant is designed if we have no similar cases. This you haven't done and likely cannot do, so likening it to a manufacturing plant doesn't help you as we have no way of determining that a manufacturing plant is designed which we could then apply to the cell. So the manufacturing plant analogy fails in multiple ways.

So, I'm still waiting on some reasons or evidence for your belief, and so far, despite patient interrogation over many days, you've provided none. I would be well justified in concluding that you have no reasons or evidence for your views. If you do, then provide them. And I suggest you reread my prior response because what you claim is not true, I didn't in any sense just write off functional information. First, because I didn't dismiss the concept completely. Second, because I gave reasons why the idea of functional information is problematic. You need to confront those reasons instead of simply claiming that I dismissed functional information without justification as you have done. I did not do any such thing.

(January 15, 2019 at 9:46 am)pocaracas Wrote:

(January 15, 2019 at 7:25 am)T0 Th3 M4X Wrote: And that is a fair statement.

Good.
Now, the observed effect is compatible with this dark matter being quite a lot. Some people did the math and came up with that 90%+ number that others have mentioned here.

When I believe something, I try to do it without my bias or the bias of others.  When I can achieve that, then I nod my head up and down.  If there is bias, then I move my head left to right, shrug my shoulders, and say "I dunno."  It's not that I don't accept the possibility of said, it's that I don't accept it as the only possible conclusion.  Or course that is what "I" choose as my standard for understanding the world around me.  If others have a different standard, then that is their choice and not trying to tell them they have to believe otherwise.

(January 15, 2019 at 11:44 am)T0 Th3 M4X Wrote:

(January 15, 2019 at 9:46 am)pocaracas Wrote: Good.
Now, the observed effect is compatible with this dark matter being quite a lot. Some people did the math and came up with that 90%+ number that others have mentioned here.

When I believe something, I try to do it without my bias or the bias of others.  When I can achieve that, then I nod my head up and down.  If there is bias, then I move my head left to right, shrug my shoulders, and say "I dunno."  It's not that I don't accept the possibility of said, it's that I don't accept it as the only possible conclusion.  Or course that is what "I" choose as my standard for understanding the world around me.  If others have a different standard, then that is their choice and not trying to tell them they have to believe otherwise.

Would you like to do the maths yourself?
Or would you be happy with reading how it's done in a book or a published scientific paper?

(January 14, 2019 at 4:14 pm)T0 Th3 M4X Wrote:   .... Either put up or shut up if you claim something exists.

Thread title:

Quote:DNA Proves Existence of a Designer

...but u wont fucking shut up, troll, will ya?

(January 15, 2019 at 11:58 am)pocaracas Wrote:

(January 15, 2019 at 11:44 am)T0 Th3 M4X Wrote: When I believe something, I try to do it without my bias or the bias of others.  When I can achieve that, then I nod my head up and down.  If there is bias, then I move my head left to right, shrug my shoulders, and say "I dunno."  It's not that I don't accept the possibility of said, it's that I don't accept it as the only possible conclusion.  Or course that is what "I" choose as my standard for understanding the world around me.  If others have a different standard, then that is their choice and not trying to tell them they have to believe otherwise.

Would you like to do the maths yourself?
Or would you be happy with reading how it's done in a book or a published scientific paper?

I've read numerous scientific papers on it in the past, and I'm happy to read scientific papers on it today.  The thing is, it's not just one theory anymore.  It's multiple theories that keep changing.   That's the problem with human bias.  You'll get an increasing number of people saying they have a better explanation.  Quite honestly, I appreciate the beauty of personal opinion/bias, but I don't have time to visit everybody's personal take on something.   There are many things out there more relevant to my own life, so that's what I try to focus more of my precious time on.

I'm happy to consider the math you're suggesting, but please provide something that is conclusive if you choose to do so.  So far I've gotten two different numbers. 85 percent and 95 percent.  A 10 percent disparity in the universe's matter is quite a disparity.  Also, please keep in mind that I'm not a mathematician.  In college I took statistics and classes related to research methods, and as such I understand those aspect of applied mathematics.  If the math gets too complex, I may have to defer to a professional who can analyze it more readily.

---

(January 15, 2019 at 12:55 pm)Deesse23 Wrote:

(January 14, 2019 at 4:14 pm)T0 Th3 M4X Wrote:   .... Either put up or shut up if you claim something exists.

Thread title:

Quote:DNA Proves Existence of a Designer

...but u wont fucking shut up, troll, will ya?

I've provided my position on said.  I'm happy to discuss it further on a point-by-point basis, but no reason to go back and share unless you have a reason I should do so.  I would think it would be "trolling" if I were redundant in sharing my position when it has already been established. 

So do you have a specific question or are you in reality the one who is trolling and needs to shut up due to not not offering up anything of value, or do you simply not understand what it means to troll?