Where do the laws of physics come from?
![[M]adman's profile photo](https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/a/default-user=s40-c)
[M]adman
Anyone know their origin?
--
It is all about the truth with:
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
·.¸Adman¸.·
^^^^^^^^^^^
wf3h
not yet.
but we know they exist because SCIENCE...NOT creationism discovered
them
creationists are still grappling with the fact things fall down.
after 2000 years they dont even know the basics
creationism is useless
Erwin Moller
> Anyone know their origin?
>
>
No. Not yet. Maybe never.
Hard to say.
Maybe you can look them up in your Bible for us?
It should be somewhere between
- The four corners of the world
and
- God ordering some guy to kill his kid.
Erwin Moller
--
"There are two ways of constructing a software design: One way is to
make it so simple that there are obviously no deficiencies, and the
other way is to make it so complicated that there are no obvious
deficiencies. The first method is far more difficult."
-- C.A.R. Hoare
roki...@cox.net
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Creationism
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Old_Earth_creationism
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Young_Earth_creationism
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Modern_geocentrism
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flat_Earth_Society
For the anti-science creationists it is more like misrepresenting the
basics.
Ron Okimoto
Friar Broccoli
> Anyone know their origin?
The "laws" are human descriptions of the properties of
matter/energy and space/time. Those descriptions are at
least a bit less than perfectly correct.
If you are asking where do the properties themselves come
from, then no one knows the answer.
warr...@gmail.com
expression of Platonic Forms, Logicism, Empiricism, Formalism,
Intuitionism, Constructivism or even Fictionalism. Even God would be
subject to Platonic Forms. To ask for an origin is a rather strange
question, you could deconstruct the laws and find the basic
metaphysical axioms behind them but origins wouldn't be nessary.
Burkhard
I'm originally from Wiesbaden
John S. Wilkins
http://space.mit.edu/home/tegmark/toe_frames.html
--
John S. Wilkins, Philosophy, University of Sydney
scienceblogs.com/evolvingthoughts
But al be that he was a philosophre,
Yet hadde he but litel gold in cofre
Iain
Ilas
699170...@z19g2000vbz.googlegroups.com:
> On Apr 7, 11:10 am, "[M]adman" <g...@hotmail.et> wrote:
>> Anyone know their origin?
>
> No.
You know what that means though? Evolution isn't true and the Bible is 100%
accurate in every regard. Whew! This science thing is easy.
Ye Old One
enriched this group when s/he wrote:
>
>
>
>Anyone know their origin?
They are inherent properties of the universe.
--
Bob.
Mitchell Coffey
> <warre...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > Why would they need to have an origin? They could very well be an
> > expression of Platonic Forms, Logicism, Empiricism, Formalism,
> > Intuitionism, Constructivism or even Fictionalism. Even God would be
> > subject to Platonic Forms. To ask for an origin is a rather strange
> > question, you could deconstruct the laws and find the basic
> > metaphysical axioms behind them but origins wouldn't be nessary.
>
> http://space.mit.edu/home/tegmark/toe_frames.html
Well, it always did seem a bit odd that abstract math stuff - circles,
etc.- was perfectly formed, yet never directly experienced, while
stuff with the look and feel of reality turns out to be but pale,
deformed reflections of that seeming ethereal stuff. I'm not
competent to have an opinion, but I would like to be informed when
it's all sorted out.
I might suggest this Tegmark fellow have a go at an empirically
testing his work, by stopping a random sample of innumerate slave boys
on the street and seeing if with a little prodding they can scratch a
Euclidean proof in the dirt with a stick. Worth trying.
Mitchell
Mitchell Coffey
> Anyone know their origin?
Same place God came from.
Mitchell Coffey
John S. Wilkins
Oh, he does, and more, but I don't think he's necessarily correct; it's
just a cute way to approach it.
Bill
> On Apr 7, 6:10 am, "[M]adman" <g...@hotmail.et> wrote:
>
> > Anyone know their origin?
>
> > --
> > It is all about the truth with:
> > ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> > ·.¸Adman¸.·
> > ^^^^^^^^^^^
>
> not yet.
>
> them
Hows that, sorry, I can't hear you.
Bill
Stephen Hawking says "God created the integers".
Bill
<Since_humans_read_this_I_am_spammed_too_m...@spamyourself.com> wrote:
> [M]adman schreef:
>
> > Anyone know their origin?
>
> No. Not yet. Maybe never.
> Hard to say.
>
> Maybe you can look them up in your Bible for us?
Sure, no problem.
Isaiah 55:8-9
Dana Tweedy
> Anyone know their origin?
The laws of physics are properties of matter,energy and space/time.
Their origin was in the "Big Bang".
DJT
Bill
> On Tue, 7 Apr 2009 05:10:29 -0500, "[M]adman" <g...@hotmail.et>
> enriched this group when s/he wrote:
>
>
>
> >Anyone know their origin?
>
> They are inherent properties of the universe.
>
> --
> Bob.
LOOOOOOOOOL
Question:
Where do babies come from?
Reply: from "Ye Old One"
"They are inherent properties of babies"
Go figure what this means.
Burkhard
No, Leopold Kronecker did
[M]adman
> [M]adman schreef:
>> Anyone know their origin?
>>
>>
>
> No. Not yet. Maybe never.
> Hard to say.
>
> Maybe you can look them up in your Bible for us?
> It should be somewhere between
> - The four corners of the world
> and
> - God ordering some guy to kill his kid.
>
> Erwin Moller
Silly person.
In the begining God created the hevens and the earth
That includes the laws of physics
wf3h
and even newton couldn't find a way to put supernaturalistic
creationism in his own equations. they're entirely natural
thanks. i already knew that....proving ONCE AGAIN....creationism is
useless
so useless even NEWTON couldnt find a way to make it work
[M]adman
Spinny, ya have to spell it out for them.
"8 "My thoughts are nothing like your thoughts," says the Lord.
"And my ways are far beyond anything you could imagine.
9 For just as the heavens are higher than the earth,
so my ways are higher than your ways
and my thoughts higher than your thoughts."
But they silll might not get it
[M]adman
NEXT he will say they are inherent properties of the parents! bwahahahah!!!
Erwin Moller
Then why did you start this thread?
Appearantly you knew the answer all along: God-did-it.
What does your precious book say about attention disorder?
Gregory A Greenman
>
>
>
> Anyone know their [the laws of physics] origin?
The Code of Hammurabi, not the bible.
--
Greg
http://www.spencerbooksellers.com
newsguy -at- spencersoft -dot- com
Iain
> In the begining God created the hevens and the earth
>
> That includes the laws of physics
And what made God?
What's that? God doesn't need to be created?
Ok, two can play at that game.
Maybe the laws of physics didn't need to be created.
Your turn.
--Iain
Robert Weldon
>
> - Show quoted text -
No, they inherit properties from their parents.
Dwib
> Anyone know their origin?
Very simply...
the laws of physics come from studying the world around us.
Dwib
wf3h
and the laws of evolution.
thanks. we already knew that
Nomen Publicus
Why not just cut-n-paste the relevant verses. Either that or give the
edition of your bible you are using.
The KJV says this...
8: For my thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways my ways,
saith the LORD.
9: For as the heavens are higher than the earth, so are my ways higher than
your ways, and my thoughts than your thoughts.
I don't see the Laws of Motion mentioned, however from context god seems to
be saying that he will always know more than humans and humans can never
know gods thoughts. Doesn't that rather shoot down the the idea that human
morals are based on gods morals as we cannot know the true morals of god.
BTW appeal to authority is pointless when attempting to convert atheists.
--
Don't pray in my school, and I won't think in your church
wf3h
>
> - Show quoted text -
then let god think his thoughts and stop trying to push them off as
science
it hasnt worked in 2000 years. it's about time he retired.
Paul J Gans
>>
>>
>>
>>Anyone know their origin?
Possibly. We just don't know. We, unlike Madman, do not
know everything.
--
--- Paul J. Gans
heekster
Stop crying lile a lil bitch.
heekster
Stop crying lile a lil bitch.
heekster
Stop crying lile a lil bitch.
heekster
wrote:
And spinny's personal Kronecker Delta function spikes at the value,
"moron".
'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank
> Anyone know their origin?
I usually don't bother with the attention-whore's posts, but this is
actually a quite good question:
Where do "the laws of phsyics" come from?
From us. They are constructs of human mind.
The universe doesn't have any "laws of physics" -- there are no cosmic
cops who enforce any "natural laws". Nature just does what it does.
We are the ones who categorize it into mathematical "laws". It is a
function of that apparent human drive to interpret chaos into some
sort of understandable order.
================================================
Lenny Flank
"There are no loose threads in the web of life"
Editor, Red and Black Publishers
http://www.RedandBlackPublishers.com
'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank
I see Spinny and the Attention Whore are still BFF's.
How about Ray? Is he allowed in the clubhouse yet?
Bob Casanova
talk.origins, posted by "[M]adman" <gr...@hotmail.et>:
>Anyone know their origin?
Nope. Why do you ask?
--
Bob C.
"Evidence confirming an observation is
evidence that the observation is wrong."
- McNameless
Bob Casanova
appeared in talk.origins, posted by Bill
<spint...@hotmail.com>:
Yeah, it's a segment of a longer quote with about as much to
do with God as did Einstein's quote about dice. But the
integers aren't laws of physics, so what's your point?
'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank
But . . . . . . .
If, as the IDiots keep telling us over and over and over again, there
is ONLY ONE WAY that this perfectly-tuned perfectly formed universe
can work, all of the universal constant MUST BE EXACT and CAN'T HAVE
BEEN ANYTHING DIFFERENT, and if everything was SO FINELY-TUNED that it
COULDN'T BE ANY OTHER WAY ----- then god had no choice in the matter.
He was just as constrained by the laws of physics as everything else
in the universe was.
If any IDiot disagrees, please then by all means go ahead and
demonstrate that the whole "the perfectly finely-tuned universe
indicates a designer!!!!!!!" argument is bullshit, and that any other
number of entirely different laws of physics would have worked just as
well.
(A pity, by the way, that Madman and Spinny are probably both too
stoopid to understand this argument -- well, Spinny is too stoopid,
and Madman is just trolling and doesn't really care. It might
actually be interesting to see how a creationist would try to argue
around it.)
wal...@easystreet.net
>
> - Show quoted text -
Why did he create the known set of physical laws and not some others?
Why doesn't he change them from time to time, or add new ones and
retire others? Why does a god need physical laws at all - couldn't an
omnipotent god just make things exist or behave any old way by him/
herself?
And why did this god make all the extra stuff - galaxies, the space
between them, etc., if he was only interested in us? We don't need
all that extra stuff to survive or worship this god, so why make it?
Why do things have to move? Couldn't he have made Earth stationary and
have it work just as well? Did he sit down and calculate all this
stuff, decide that light would travel at one speed while sound travels
at a different speed? Wouldn't it make more sense for them to travel
at the same speed? And why did he have to make suns to provide light
- couldn't he have just lit the whole thing by fiat? Is there a
concept of day and night in the godly realm? How about up and down,
left and right? And why put his prize creatures - us - in danger from
things like volcanoes and asteroids, things that can wipe us out
whether we're good or bad?
You're not making much sense at all.
MLW
Bill
> Then why did you start this thread?
> Appearantly you knew the answer all along: God-did-it.
>
> What does your precious book say about attention disorder?
Easy Deut 6:5-7
Bill
> On Apr 7, 5:22 pm, "[M]adman" <g...@hotmail.et> wrote:
>
> > In the begining God created the hevens and the earth
>
> > That includes the laws of physics
>
> And what made God?
>
> What's that? God doesn't need to be created?
"Ye Old One" would say;
"that's a property of being God".
Bill
> Bill <spintro...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >> > Anyone know their origin?
>
> >> No. Not yet. Maybe never.
> >> Hard to say.
>
> >> Maybe you can look them up in your Bible for us?
>
> > Sure, no problem.
>
> > Isaiah 55:8-9
>
> Why not just cut-n-paste the relevant verses. Either that or give the
> edition of your bible you are using.
>
> The KJV says this...
>
> 8: For my thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways my ways,
> saith the LORD.
> 9: For as the heavens are higher than the earth, so are my ways higher than
> your ways, and my thoughts than your thoughts.
>
> I don't see the Laws of Motion mentioned, however from context god seems to
> be saying that he will always know more than humans and humans can never
> know gods thoughts. Doesn't that rather shoot down the the idea that human
> morals are based on gods morals as we cannot know the true morals of god.
>
> BTW appeal to authority is pointless when attempting to convert atheists.
BTW appeal to a physics book is pointless if I want to do botany.
Why would you ask a religious text for an equation?
I don't ask "'where does it mention the mass of quarks', in 'Origin
of the species;'".
Only an Idiot would attempt such a rediculous question.
>
> --
> Don't pray in my school, and I won't think in your church- Hide quoted text -
Bill
> On Apr 7, 12:22 pm, "[M]adman" <g...@hotmail.et> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > Erwin Moller wrote:
> > > [M]adman schreef:
> > >> Anyone know their origin?
>
> > > No. Not yet. Maybe never.
> > > Hard to say.
>
> > > Maybe you can look them up in your Bible for us?
> > > It should be somewhere between
> > > - The four corners of the world
> > > and
> > > - God ordering some guy to kill his kid.
>
> > > Erwin Moller
>
> > Silly person.
>
> > In the begining God created the hevens and the earth
>
> > That includes the laws of physics-
>
> But . . . . . . .
>
> If, as the IDiots keep telling us over and over and over again, there
> is ONLY ONE WAY that this perfectly-tuned perfectly formed universe
> can work,
For the benefit of the argument you think you have below.
Noone said there is "only one" way, *a* universe can work.
If you note before, I mentioned a few, where atoms fly apart, or are
crushed together.
There are probably universes which have collapsed quickly, some never
got past a BB,
some have expanded to nothing by now,
some have no galaxies, some have no stars, some have stars no
planets,
some have planets no water. Etc, Etc, Etc,
And obviously wherever God lives is obviously hospitable for life.
What humans do note, is this universe is tuned to support human life.
> all of the universal constant MUST BE EXACT and CAN'T HAVE
> BEEN ANYTHING DIFFERENT, and if everything was SO FINELY-TUNED that it
> COULDN'T BE ANY OTHER WAY ----- then god had no choice in the matter.
> He was just as constrained by the laws of physics as everything else
> in the universe was.
That's a stupid argument.
Thats like saying;
"NASA was constrained by the use of ceramics on the space shuttle,
therefore NASA didn't design the shuttle, and *if* they did, their not
very bright"
I call that;
"the pessimistic whiny bitchin nonsensical argument".
Tell me, are you stood on a box in London, or somert?.
> If any IDiot disagrees, please then by all means go ahead and
> demonstrate that the whole "the perfectly finely-tuned universe
> indicates a designer!!!!!!!" argument is bullshit,
You don't have an argument.
You need coherent logic for that, and nothing you said is consistent.
> ================================================
> Lenny Flank
> "I just tightened Lenny's loose screw"
.
wf3h
> On Apr 7, 8:42 pm, Nomen Publicus <zzas...@buffy.sighup.org.uk> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > Bill <spintro...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > >> > Anyone know their origin?
>
> > >> No. Not yet. Maybe never.
> > >> Hard to say.
>
> > >> Maybe you can look them up in your Bible for us?
>
> > > Sure, no problem.
>
> > > Isaiah 55:8-9
>
> > Why not just cut-n-paste the relevant verses. Either that or give the
> > edition of your bible you are using.
>
> > The KJV says this...
>
> > 8: For my thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways my ways,
> > saith the LORD.
> > 9: For as the heavens are higher than the earth, so are my ways higher than
> > your ways, and my thoughts than your thoughts.
>
> > I don't see the Laws of Motion mentioned, however from context god seems to
> > be saying that he will always know more than humans and humans can never
> > know gods thoughts. Doesn't that rather shoot down the the idea that human
> > morals are based on gods morals as we cannot know the true morals of god.
>
> > BTW appeal to authority is pointless when attempting to convert atheists.
>
> BTW appeal to a physics book is pointless if I want to do botany.
>
> Why would you ask a religious text for an equation?
because creationists say they're there....they're wrong, of course....
>
> I don't ask "'where does it mention the mass of quarks', in 'Origin
> of the species;'".
>
> Only an Idiot would attempt such a rediculous question.
and yet creationists say the supernatural explains the world. it's you
guys who screwed up your view of nature. that's one reason it's ALWAYS
been wrong. always
>
>
wf3h
> On Apr 7, 11:47 pm, "'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank" <lfl...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> >
> > If, as the IDiots keep telling us over and over and over again, there
> > is ONLY ONE WAY that this perfectly-tuned perfectly formed universe
> > can work,
>
> For the benefit of the argument you think you have below.
>
> Noone said there is "only one" way, *a* universe can work.
>
> If you note before, I mentioned a few, where atoms fly apart, or are
> crushed together.
>
> There are probably universes which have collapsed quickly, some never
> got past a BB,
> some have expanded to nothing by now,
> some have no galaxies, some have no stars, some have stars no
> planets,
> some have planets no water. Etc, Etc, Etc,
and what's ironic is that creationism failed...completely failed...to
tell us about our OWN universe, let alone OTHER universes.
creationism, based on the supernatural, was unable to understand how
the laws of physics worked to develop this universe. for 2000 years we
lived in ignorance while creationists pratttled on about supernatural
processes in nature
and they were wrong.
wf3h
he has a property that contradicts a property that everything else is
REQUIRED to have?
you guys have no logic
Bill
"Everything else" isn't God.
It was a Joke about "Ye Old Ones" answer to the question
"where do the laws of the universe come from".
> you guys have no logic
You believe the universe is both *infinite* & *finite*.
Only possible by Geometry discovered 150 or so years ago.
How could you possibly imagine, let alone catagorically state that
something
cannot have no beginning?
As for your argument that Creationists didn't alow the possibility of
other universes.
John 3:12.
Fiery
And man, how finely tuned this cup on my table is to the water it
contains. If the shape was ever so slightly off, it surely wouldn't
have fit inside so perfectly. Nothing short of wondrous.
Desertphile
wrote:
> Anyone know their origin?
Idiot.
--
http://desertphile.org
Desertphile's Desert Soliloquy. WARNING: view with plenty of water
"Why aren't resurrections from the dead noteworthy?" -- Jim Rutz
[M]adman
THAT would be YOU
[M]adman
So many of then lack the ability to correlate information (A) to situation
(B)
It is a perception problem and a form of brain damage.
I did a theory on this not long ago.
'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank
Like I said, Spinny is too stoopid to understand my argument.
Not unexpected. But then, nobody carers what Spinny has to say
anyway, since Spinny is an insignficant little nothing of a nobody.
(shrug)
I'd prefer to ask one of the bigshots at DI who, unlike Spinny, are
SUPPOSED to know what they are talking about. Alas, since they've all
fled in terror after their thrashing in Dover, and now refuse to
venture out of their sheltered cloisters, I will never get the chance
to ask them.
Puppet_Sock
Actually, skipping lightly over the faux pas of putting the
question in the subject and then acting like you had
included it in your post (a minor bit of bad netiquette)
and assuming you don't intend the answer "scientists
produced them somehow," it's an interesting question.
There are no convincing answers as yet. However, there
are glimpses of possibilities.
The general notion of how the laws of physics arise is
through some path of spontaneous symmetry breaking
from some more complicated system with a larger set
of symmetries. How *that* system arises is not yet known.
One possibility is uniqueness. To give you a "cartoon"
version of how that *might* work (as I said, there are no
convincing answers as yet) follow on. It *could* be that
no other set of physical laws allow a self consistent
set of behaviours that is not pathological in some way.
This is one reason people got so interested in string
theory, since it was briefly believed that only one set
of symmetries and one dimension of space time could
allow for the chiral anomaly to cancel. This hope has
since been dashed since there are now a very large
number of symmetries and possible vacuums that
allow the anomaly to cancel.
But that's the notion. It may be that there is only one
way for the universe to "fit together" and not have things
going wonky. Oh, and still look like what we see.
Why we think this way is a *long* LONG LOOOONG
discussion. If you are really interested I can suggest
several dozen books at varying levels of technical difficulty.
One place to look is here.
http://www.phys.uu.nl/~thooft/theorist.html
Socks
Puppet_Sock
> Bill wrote:
> > On Apr 7, 12:09 pm, Erwin Moller
> >> [M]adman schreef:
>
> >>> Anyone know their origin?
>
> >> No. Not yet. Maybe never.
> >> Hard to say.
>
> >> Maybe you can look them up in your Bible for us?
>
>
> > Isaiah 55:8-9
>
>
> "8 "My thoughts are nothing like your thoughts," says the Lord.
> "And my ways are far beyond anything you could imagine.
> 9 For just as the heavens are higher than the earth,
> so my ways are higher than your ways
> and my thoughts higher than your thoughts."
>
> But they silll might not get it
Oh, I get it all right. "Godditit." Or, by it's technical name
in philosophy, Occasionalism.
Socks
Rolf
> On Apr 7, 12:22 pm, "[M]adman" <g...@hotmail.et> wrote:
>> Erwin Moller wrote:
>>> [M]adman schreef:
>>>> Anyone know their origin?
>>
>>> No. Not yet. Maybe never.
>>> Hard to say.
>>
>>> Maybe you can look them up in your Bible for us?
>>> - The four corners of the world
>>> and
>>> - God ordering some guy to kill his kid.
>>
>>> Erwin Moller
>>
>> Silly person.
>>
>> In the begining God created the hevens and the earth
>>
>> That includes the laws of physics-
>
"The laws of nature that we care about ... emerge through collective
self-organization and really do not require knowledge of their component
parts to be comprehended or exploited.: (John B. Laughlin)
> and the laws of evolution.
follows from that(?)
>
> thanks. we already knew that
Ye Old One
enriched this group when s/he wrote:
>On Apr 7, 3:31 pm, Ye Old One <use...@mcsuk.net> wrote:
>> On Tue, 7 Apr 2009 05:10:29 -0500, "[M]adman" <g...@hotmail.et>
>> enriched this group when s/he wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> >Anyone know their origin?
>>
>> They are inherent properties of the universe.
>>
>> --
>> Bob.
>
>LOOOOOOOOOL
>
>
>Question:
>
>Where do babies come from?
>
>Reply: from "Ye Old One"
>
>
>"They are inherent properties of babies"
No, babies are inherent properties of reproduction.
>
>
>
>
>Go figure what this means.
Your stupidity is showing, as usual.
--
Bob.
Ye Old One
enriched this group when s/he wrote:
>On Apr 7, 11:10 am, "[M]adman" <g...@hotmail.et> wrote:
>> Anyone know their origin?
>>
>> --
>> It is all about the truth with:
>> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>> ·.¸Adman¸.·
>> ^^^^^^^^^^^
>
>Stephen Hawking says "God created the integers".
There you go again, exposing your stupidity.
--
Bob.
Erwin Moller
> On Apr 7, 9:22 am, "[M]adman" <g...@hotmail.et> wrote:
>> Erwin Moller wrote:
>>> [M]adman schreef:
>>>> Anyone know their origin?
>>> No. Not yet. Maybe never.
>>> Hard to say.
>>> Maybe you can look them up in your Bible for us?
>>> It should be somewhere between
>>> - The four corners of the world
>>> and
>>> - God ordering some guy to kill his kid.
>>> Erwin Moller
>> Silly person.
>>
>> In the begining God created the hevens and the earth
>>
>> That includes the laws of physics- Hide quoted text -
>>
>> - Show quoted text -
>
> Why did he create the known set of physical laws and not some others?
> Why doesn't he change them from time to time, or add new ones and
> retire others? Why does a god need physical laws at all - couldn't an
> omnipotent god just make things exist or behave any old way by him/
> herself?
You are asking this question to people who claim the reason a nematode
has a 75% genetical similarity with a human is ..... BECAUSE of
efficiency reasons for God. ;-)
Lazy God.
Oh, that was Madman who wrote that.
Well, Spintronic/Bill, Madman, all the same to me.
No critical thinking capabilities, no eargerness to learn, no future.
Regards,
Erwin Moller
--
"There are two ways of constructing a software design: One way is to
make it so simple that there are obviously no deficiencies, and the
other way is to make it so complicated that there are no obvious
deficiencies. The first method is far more difficult."
-- C.A.R. Hoare
wf3h
> On Apr 8, 1:35 am, wf3h <w...@vsswireless.net> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Apr 7, 7:41 pm, Bill <spintro...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Apr 7, 7:11 pm, Iain <iain_inks...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > On Apr 7, 5:22 pm, "[M]adman" <g...@hotmail.et> wrote:
>
> > > > > In the begining God created the hevens and the earth
>
> > > > > That includes the laws of physics
>
> > > > And what made God?
>
> > > > What's that? God doesn't need to be created?
>
> > > "Ye Old One" would say;
>
> > > "that's a property of being God".
>
> > he has a property that contradicts a property that everything else is
> > REQUIRED to have?
>
> "Everything else" isn't God.
then how do you know this 'god' has a property that nothing else has
AND which you say everything else is REQUIRED to have?
that's a contradiction.
>
> It was a Joke about "Ye Old Ones" answer to the question
everything in creationism is a joke. it's a complete failure.
> "where do the laws of the universe come from".
>
> > you guys have no logic
>
> You believe the universe is both *infinite* & *finite*.
> Only possible by Geometry discovered 150 or so years ago.
by scientists. not creationism.
> >
> As for your argument that Creationists didn't alow the possibility of
> other universes.
>
creationists can invent whatever delusions their febrile brains can
conjure.
the one thing they have NEVER come up with is a logical view of
nature.
Bill
> On Apr 7, 9:02 pm, Bill <spintro...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > You believe the universe is both *infinite* & *finite*.
> > Only possible by Geometry discovered 150 or so years ago.
>
> by scientists. not creationism.
You'r an idiot.
Ignore my argument, I ignore yours.
wf3h
i haven't ignored your argument at all. you've simply been unable to
respond
i asked for a simple proof that F=MA is creationist. go head. prove
it.
otherwise creationism is useless.
Bill
I asked where "The origin of species" mentions "quarks".
By the same logic.
Darwinism is useless.
Martin Hutton
<lfl...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Apr 7, 6:10 am, "[M]adman" <g...@hotmail.et> wrote:
>
>> Anyone know their origin?
>
>
> I usually don't bother with the attention-whore's posts, but this is
> actually a quite good question:
>
> Where do "the laws of phsyics" come from?
>
> From us. They are constructs of human mind.
>
> The universe doesn't have any "laws of physics" -- there are no cosmic
> cops who enforce any "natural laws". Nature just does what it does.
> We are the ones who categorize it into mathematical "laws". It is a
> function of that apparent human drive to interpret chaos into some
> sort of understandable order.
>
Good answer to a "reasonable" attention-whore question!
I was going to reply in a similar vein but both you and
Dwib beat me to it.
--
Martin
Bill254
> On Tue, 07 Apr 2009 18:37:43 -0400, 'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank
> > The universe doesn't have any "laws of physics" -- there are no cosmic
> > cops who enforce any "natural laws". Nature just does what it does.
> > We are the ones who categorize it into mathematical "laws". It is a
> > function of that apparent human drive to interpret chaos into some
> > sort of understandable order.
>
> Good answer to a "reasonable" attention-whore question!
>
> I was going to reply in a similar vein but both you and
> Dwib beat me to it.
Ha. OMG.
There are no laws? Really?.
Try jumping off your balcony.
Then come back and tell me there are no laws, or no
enforcements.
wf3h
creationists themselves say there are no laws of nature.
just ask 'em what law of nature is responsible for creating new
species....
DUH!!!
Bill254
>
> - Show quoted text -
"Apples" again?
Tell you what try 3+3 = ?
You might get "oranges".
Bill254
> DUH!!!-
No tell you what, try 4+4 = ?
I'm craving for a "bannana".
wf3h
IOW you have no answer. thanks. after reading about the 2000 year
history of creationist failures, i knew that.
you guys EVER gonna try something different?
Pandeism Fish
> It is all about the truth with:
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> ·.¸Adman¸.·
> ^^^^^^^^^^^
Pandeism explains that the laws of physics were set forth about 13.5
billion years ago, when the Deus became the Universe.... there is, as
pandeists will readily acknowledge, no hard evidence for or against
this proposition, other than the presumption that because there are
many models of the Universe which are incapable of producing
intelligent life, it is fortuitous that the only Universe we actually
know to exist is in fact capable of producing intelligent life....
Ye Old One
enriched this group when s/he wrote:
No, as everyone will tell you, that is 100% you Mudbrain.
--
Bob.
Ye Old One
enriched this group when s/he wrote:
>On Apr 7, 7:11 pm, Iain <iain_inks...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> On Apr 7, 5:22 pm, "[M]adman" <g...@hotmail.et> wrote:
>>
>> > In the begining God created the hevens and the earth
>>
>> > That includes the laws of physics
>>
>> And what made God?
>>
>> What's that? God doesn't need to be created?
>
>"Ye Old One" would say;
>
> "that's a property of being God".
But gods are the invention of man.
--
Bob.
'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank
>
> > On Tue, 07 Apr 2009 18:37:43 -0400, 'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank
> > > The universe doesn't have any "laws of physics" -- there are no cosmic
> > > cops who enforce any "natural laws". Nature just does what it does.
> > > We are the ones who categorize it into mathematical "laws". It is a
> > > function of that apparent human drive to interpret chaos into some
> > > sort of understandable order.
>
> > Good answer to a "reasonable" attention-whore question!
>
> > I was going to reply in a similar vein but both you and
> > Dwib beat me to it.
>
> Ha. OMG.
>
> There are no laws? Really?.
Yes. really.
>
> Try jumping off your balcony.
>
> Then come back and tell me there are no laws, or no
> enforcements.
Throw a pair of dice, then tell me what laws produced that result.
Better yet, watch an atomic nucleus decay, then tell me what laws
produced that decay.
Not terribly bright, are you Spinny.
By the way, how many different names did you plan on using . . . . . ?
Plan on talking to yourself again?
'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank
> I'm craving for a "bannana".
Talk to your BFF Madman about that.
Poke, poke, poke.
wf3h
>
> - Show quoted text -
and creationists just make it up as they go along
vampires, goblins, the tooth fairy...all in the menagerie of
creationism
2000 years of uselessness
wf3h
evolution is science
science is based on naturalism
creationism is based on supernaturalism which has always been wrong.
unlike evolution, creationism DOES make claims about cosmology...
you're just as illiterate about your OWN beliefs are you are about
concepts of science
weeping jesus on the cross...do i have to explain your OWN beliefs to
you???!!!
Paul J Gans
It's got a more vulgar name on the street.
--
--- Paul J. Gans
[M]adman
> On Apr 7, 6:10 am, "[M]adman" <g...@hotmail.et> wrote:
>> Anyone know their origin?
>
That's right buckoo.
Stuart
> It is all about the truth with:
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> ·.¸Adman¸.·
> ^^^^^^^^^^^
Yes. Physicists.
However, variational principles come from God.
Stuart
Matt Silberstein
So do I.
--
Matt Silberstein
Do something today about the Darfur Genocide
http://www.beawitness.org
http://www.darfurgenocide.org
http://www.savedarfur.org
"Darfur: A Genocide We can Stop"
warr...@gmail.com
> Erwin Moller wrote:
> > [M]adman schreef:
> >> Anyone know their origin?
>
> > No. Not yet. Maybe never.
> > Hard to say.
>
> > Maybe you can look them up in your Bible for us?
> > - The four corners of the world
> > and
> > - God ordering some guy to kill his kid.
>
> > Erwin Moller
>
> Silly person.
>
>
>
> - Show quoted text -
Godel's incompleteness therom:
For any formal recursively enumerable (i.e., effectively generated)
theory T including basic arithmetical truths and also certain truths
about formal provability, T includes a statement of its own
consistency if and only if T is inconsistent.
Which is to say that any theory cannot define it's own axioms. God is
subject to basic essential and eternal ideas akin to that of Platonic
Forms. So what where is the need for God since the laws of physics can
be derived directly from the same Platonic Forms that even God is
subject to.
wf3h
god of the gaps...creationist argument # 73.
and creatoinism doesnt even know why rocks fall off a cliff. yet they
say they know the secrets of the universe
Ye Old One
enriched this group when s/he wrote:
>On 8 Apr, 11:29, wf3h <w...@vsswireless.net> wrote:
>> On Apr 7, 9:02 pm, Bill <spintro...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>
>
>> > You believe the universe is both *infinite* & *finite*.
>> > Only possible by Geometry discovered 150 or so years ago.
>>
>> by scientists. not creationism.
>
>
>You'r an idiot.
You're illiterate.
>
>Ignore my argument, I ignore yours.
We always ignore yours, mainly because you never have any.
--
Bob.
Bill254
> On Apr 8, 1:22 pm, Bill254 <spintro...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > I'm craving for a "bannana".
>
> Talk to your BFF Madman about that.
>
> Poke, poke, poke.
I was hopin to get one off you chimps.
> ================================================
> Lenny Flank
> "no loose screws in his head. They fell out long ago."
.
Bill254
> On Apr 8, 12:38 pm, Bill254 <spintro...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > > On Tue, 07 Apr 2009 18:37:43 -0400, 'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank
> > > > The universe doesn't have any "laws of physics" -- there are no cosmic
> > > > cops who enforce any "natural laws". Nature just does what it does.
> > > > We are the ones who categorize it into mathematical "laws". It is a
> > > > function of that apparent human drive to interpret chaos into some
> > > > sort of understandable order.
>
> > > Good answer to a "reasonable" attention-whore question!
>
> > > I was going to reply in a similar vein but both you and
> > > Dwib beat me to it.
>
> > Ha. OMG.
>
> > There are no laws? Really?.
>
> Yes. really.
>
> > Try jumping off your balcony.
>
> > Then come back and tell me there are no laws, or no
> > enforcements.
>
> Throw a pair of dice, then tell me what laws produced that result.
Laws of Probability.
> Better yet, watch an atomic nucleus decay, then tell me what laws
> produced that decay.
It's impossible to *watch* a quantum event.
But, Just so we are *perfectly* clear.
********************************
There is no "law of heredity".
********************************
No problem. I can live with that.
> Not terribly bright, are you Spinny.
Brighter than you.
> ================================================
> "Lenny Flank, He was a loose Cannon. Till he blew a hole in his web"
.
'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank
> On 8 Apr, 23:41, "'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank" <lfl...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > On Apr 8, 1:22 pm, Bill254 <spintro...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > I'm craving for a "bannana".
>
> > Talk to your BFF Madman about that.
>
> > Poke, poke, poke.
>
> I was hopin to get one off you chimps.
Pffft. THAT is the best you can come up with, Spinny?
No wonder nobody wants to play with you anymore.
Try again, Spin. Put some effort into it this time.
'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank
My daddy can beat up your daddy. So there.
What law produced that quantum event, again . . . . . . ?
Poke poke poke.
Bob Casanova
talk.origins, posted by "[M]adman" <gr...@hotmail.et>:
So? Exactly what do you imagine our lack of definite
knowledge implies?
--
Bob C.
"Evidence confirming an observation is
evidence that the observation is wrong."
- McNameless
Martin Hutton
Laws are a construct of those who find a relationship
between three or more properties of the universe (or
parts thereof).
There's no enforcement because the universe continues
to do what it's always done.
--
Martin
Ye Old One
<lfl...@yahoo.com> enriched this group when s/he wrote:
>On Apr 9, 11:50 am, Bill254 <spintro...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> On 8 Apr, 23:41, "'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank" <lfl...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>> > On Apr 8, 1:22 pm, Bill254 <spintro...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> > > I'm craving for a "bannana".
>>
>> > Talk to your BFF Madman about that.
>>
>> > Poke, poke, poke.
>>
>> I was hopin to get one off you chimps.
>
>
>Pffft. THAT is the best you can come up with, Spinny?
Of course it is.
>
>No wonder nobody wants to play with you anymore.
>
>Try again, Spin. Put some effort into it this time.
He did, he worked VERY hard to get that good.
>
There is a book that I read one "The magic of thinking big". It
promoted the idea that if you think big enough then your failures are
successes by other peoples standards.
I think Spincronic (and a lot of other creationists) read the "Magic
of thinking small" and as a result they set new standards in failure.
--
Bob.
Ye Old One
<spint...@hotmail.com> enriched this group when s/he wrote:
>On 8 Apr, 23:40, "'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank" <lfl...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> On Apr 8, 12:38 pm, Bill254 <spintro...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>> > > On Tue, 07 Apr 2009 18:37:43 -0400, 'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank
>> > > > The universe doesn't have any "laws of physics" -- there are no cosmic
>> > > > cops who enforce any "natural laws". Nature just does what it does.
>> > > > We are the ones who categorize it into mathematical "laws". It is a
>> > > > function of that apparent human drive to interpret chaos into some
>> > > > sort of understandable order.
>>
>> > > Good answer to a "reasonable" attention-whore question!
>>
>> > > I was going to reply in a similar vein but both you and
>> > > Dwib beat me to it.
>>
>> > Ha. OMG.
>>
>> > There are no laws? Really?.
>>
>> Yes. really.
>>
>> > Try jumping off your balcony.
>>
>> > Then come back and tell me there are no laws, or no
>> > enforcements.
>>
>> Throw a pair of dice, then tell me what laws produced that result.
>
>Laws of Probability.
>
>
>> Better yet, watch an atomic nucleus decay, then tell me what laws
>> produced that decay.
>
>It's impossible to *watch* a quantum event.
It is possible to watch an atomic nucleus decay.
>
>
>But, Just so we are *perfectly* clear.
>
>
>********************************
>There is no "law of heredity".
>********************************
Strange, I thought that was understood even before Darwin.
>
>No problem. I can live with that.
>
>
>
>
>> Not terribly bright, are you Spinny.
>
>
>Brighter than you.
No, little trollslob, you are just about the dimmest person currently
posting to TO. Even dimmer than Mudbrain and that is really saying
something.
>
--
Bob.
Damaeus
wf3h <wf...@vsswireless.net> posted:
> not yet.
>
> but we know they exist because SCIENCE...NOT creationism discovered
> them
Science did not discover the laws of physics. The laws of physics already
existed. People just came along who figured out how to explain things and
experiment to prove these things, and they called it science. Science did
not discover them.
Damaeus
Damaeus
"[M]adman" <gr...@hotmail.et> posted:
> Spinny, ya have to spell it out for them.
>
> "8 "My thoughts are nothing like your thoughts," says the Lord.
> "And my ways are far beyond anything you could imagine.
> 9 For just as the heavens are higher than the earth,
> so my ways are higher than your ways
> and my thoughts higher than your thoughts."
>
> But they silll might not get it
I don't see how that prevents creationism from being explained and
understood unless there truly are humans who can only think like apes. I
mean, maybe it's possible that some people like wf3h and Ye Old One are
simply unable to comprehend the idea of a creator, and so they insist it
is impossible. It could be a genetic trait. What do you think?
It seems like some organism that can come up with what appears to be
intentionally obtuse posts to refute ideas about creationism that /do/
make sense would be suffering from perceptual deficits.
But then that also means that there would be those on Earth able to
comprehend creator ideas, and some who cannot. That feeds in to one
hypothesis I have that we are a race of both devolving gods who have
become mortal humans, and evolving apes who have become mortal humans.
Those who came from apes are the ugly ones, while those who are more
aesthetically pleasing came from the god-end of the spectrum -- all for
the betterment of the race as a whole, though.
Damaeus
Damaeus
wf3h <wf...@vsswireless.net> posted:
> then let god think his thoughts and stop trying to push them off as
> science
>
> it hasnt worked in 2000 years. it's about time he retired.
And your mistake is in thinking it started 2000 years ago.
Damaeus
Damaeus
Nomen Publicus <zza...@buffy.sighup.org.uk> posted:
> Why not just cut-n-paste the relevant verses. Either that or give the
> edition of your bible you are using.
>
> The KJV says this...
>
> 8: For my thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways my ways,
> saith the LORD.
> 9: For as the heavens are higher than the earth, so are my ways higher than
> your ways, and my thoughts than your thoughts.
>
> I don't see the Laws of Motion mentioned, however from context god seems to
> be saying that he will always know more than humans and humans can never
> know gods thoughts.
It's written in present-tense, though. Jesus says in other parts of the
Bible that one day man will do greater things than he has done. That
would indicate that over time, we would come to know more, though whether
this "Lord" would always know more isn't really clear. I can see good
reasons for an equalization, so we can all be pals instead of having any
form of lordship.
> Doesn't that rather shoot down the the idea that human morals are
> based on gods morals as we cannot know the true morals of god.
It means that the ways of "the Lord" are built in to creation and cannot
be escaped, neither is it necessary to understand its ways to exist in the
universe in peace. The Lord, being one with creation, is the king by
default and can't help that any more than anything else. But being
integrated in creation, he'd be the only one capable of being the king,
and would have influence over the kings of earth without having to have
direct, bodily contact.
The nice part is that we are not annihilated now, so obviously the entity
described in the verse is not evil.
Damaeus
Damaeus
wf3h <wf...@vsswireless.net> posted:
> and creationists just make it up as they go along
>
> vampires, goblins, the tooth fairy...all in the menagerie of
> creationism
No. You just threw those characters in because it helps you discredit
creationism. No creationism I know of includes vampires, goblins or tooth
fairies.
> 2000 years of uselessness
Ignorance. At least be knowledgeable about the things you try to
discredit.
Damaeus
Damaeus
wf3h <wf...@vsswireless.net> posted:
> and yet creationists say the supernatural explains the world.
I just claim that the creator catalyst makes sure that humans, for the
most part, move toward a genetic design. It's a creator blueprint that
caused humans to end up looking like we do, not just random chance. Our
bodies have a design that is meant to look appealing and encourage
procreation and games.
Damaeus