Toward an Intelligent Design Science

[Tormod]

Tormod: Science is about knowledge and learning - and making errors. Who cares if you want to call it a belief system or not? That doesn't change anything, now, does it?

 

James: Sure it does. It takes mechanical materialists out of the driver's seat. I do not think that science is a lot of truths. I do think that mechanical materialism is not science.

 

So you conclude that mechanical materialism is not a science. I agree. you conclude that science is not a lot of truths. I agree.

 

I fail to see the problem. Mechanical materialism simply is not an interesting world view.

 

As for the rest, read my prior post.

[Buffy]

Whoo, gettin' dizzy here. There's are some fundamental problems with this discussion going forward. The entire post back to me consisted of ignoring the quotes you replicated and repeated over and over:

I object to anyone declaring as fact that which they cannot prove.

...and then you proceed to demand proof for things that have been well proven. There certainly are things that have not been proven like string theory, but you keep using the existence of theories without evidence to invalidate all theories, and you do this by simply going back to your "belief" that "mechanical materialism" (which is an epithet used only by intelligent design people, and has no common usage in science).

 

Then because we don't repeat the entire body of *well proven* scientific results on the things that are proven you keep repeating:

Please do not then claim it has anything to do with solving the problems of life and intelligence.

Science does solve these problems quite well in a lot of cases. Where it doesn't we're working on it. Funny here you drop your issue of "causes" which in science is not relevant.

 

And when faced with facts like the time experiment, you use some fancy mumbo jumbo to try to say that these tests don't prove anything:

 

You avoid explaining why this experiment proves that time slows. You think you are in the superior position, but you do not support what you say. You insist that I should disprove your unproven positions. The clocks slowed down. That is what is learned. The clocks are not time. The clocks are matter interacting with matter. You do not know the cause of their interaction. You do not know why that cause should slow. You certainly do not know that time is that cause. Time was not contained in a vessel traveling along with the clock. It was not experimented on. We cannot handle time.

Its a common technique among intelligent design arguments to simply try to tire everyone out by saying "you haven't proved it," when there are piles of books showing the proof. Conversely, intelligent design claims that atempt to refute empirical evidence like this one that "Clocks are not time" are complete non-sequiter: clocks measure time, if you do not accept that measurement is a valid mechanism for providing empirical proof of anything, then no matter how much proof we show you, you will simply deny any of this evidence is valid. How do you know that that tree is a tree? You can see it, feel it, but you can still deny its existence because sight and touch are "matter interacting with matter?" Whoa.

 

Now your whole purpose here is still to try to 1) put a scientific veneer on your claims to give them legitimacy, and 2) to claim that all science is inadequate unless it shows the ultimate causes of intelligence. Now if you won't accept what the scientific method is, then it isn't science, its philosophy and metaphysics, which science doesn't deal with. Your claim that unless it does deal with metaphysics then it should all be considered invalid, is dumbfounding. Your only point seems to be that no science should be bothered with unless it illuminates the issue of "causes of intelligence."

That is why I am calling your idea of science for what it is. It is a belief system. It is not empirical.

At this point you're just denying the fact that there is a well-established and growing body of knowledge going back thousands of years called the Scientific Method. It is the standard canard of intelligent design and creationist beliefs, and it is justified solely by claiming that the process of testing hypotheses does not "prove" anything. We can't really have a discussion on any of this unless we come to an agreement on a definition of reality. If all measurements are invalid, you're right: there is no science. But your claim that measurements are invalid are based on no evidence you have presented, only a self-serving manipulation of a scientific statement.

 

You can keep asking us to provide proof, but if you won't accept the libraries full of proof that exist, there's no point in wasting our wind here.

 

You may twist this anyway you wish, but in the end you will have to establish that you are correct by explaining how mechanical properties can be the cause of life and intelligence. Your problem begins even before this point. You cannot even prove your mechanical properties.

Go to the science section of the library. Thousands of books to choose from that talk about mechanical properties. Try Galileo. Try Newton. They're filled with explanations of mechanical properties. On "causes of intelligence" again, there are lots of threads here that discuss it. To summarize, the scientific evidence shows that life evolves to take random mutations and those that are beneficial are passed on successfully to successive generations. The evidence is based on the scientific method, which you both claim as your justification of truth and derisivly deny when it conflicts with your beliefs.

I am challenging the viability of mechanical materialism as a theory. Are you or are you not defending it? If you are defending it then please proceed to do so.

I don't know. "mechanical materialism" is an intelligent design term used to denigrate the scientific method, but I'm not really sure what it means. We here are defending the scientific method, but unfortunately you are not able to work within its definitions of hypothesis, testing and measurement. Its okay not to believe that this process is relevant, but that does not make it a "belief system"

Oh well.

You'll find no argument with the notion that intelligence causes things to happen. Unfortunately, in Formal Logic:

A implies B

is not equivalent to

B implies A

Which is the fundamental premise of "intelligent design": "Since intelligence causes things to happen, if things happen, there must be intelligence behind it." I know you "believe" this is true, but it does not pass formal logic which is a foundation of the scientific method. Sorry!

Of course it is logical. I know you believe it is not, but your conclusion is incorrect.

Again, formal logic is a principal element of the scientific method, and you can't claim to be talking about science if you don't understand it. What you are claiming here is that:

All apples are red therefore all red things are apples.

There is nothing we can say here, other than if this is your definition of logic, any and all claims can be "believed" to be true, and there is no truth. Thus there's no point in providing you proof. But I guess that's your point:

Your theories are only ideas about the kinds of causes in which you would like to believe. Believe in them freely, but do not claim they are fact. And, please do not claim that they represent the real properties of this universe.

 

You do not appreciate the significance of achieving unity. That is fine. Disunity is certainly in evidence in physics theory. You may be satisfied with this piecemeal approach, but I am not.

Nice that you want to acheive unity. Its sad that you don't recognize that many scientific theories are intended to do just that.

 

My position is that you do not get to declare your theories to be facts. You do not know what is cause.

I don't know how many times we can repeat this: a lot of the time, we don't care about the cause. Newton had no idea what "caused" gravity, but that did not prevent his theory for accurately predicting the movements of the planets perfectly up to the point where we were able to see discrepancies, which Einstein then added to in order to explain the discrepancies. That's science!

 

But you come back to your completely undefended assertion:

We see what our intelligence lets us see through a process of interpreting information. Intelligence comes first and conclusions come second. Explain the cause of intelligence.

Which basically is saying: "unless you prove that I'm wrong that an outside intelligent force is causing all things to happen, all science is bunk." If you want to have a metaphysical discussion, fine, but don't call it science. Its not. If you want to argue about evolution, do it in an evolution thread: This section of the site is for philosophy of science, and while you completely deny all of the commonly accepted and proven principles of the scientific method, this is the place for this discussion, and we hope we've been some help in describing both for you and others, the meaning of science.

 

Please come back when you have something to say about your own or other sources of evidence that outside intelligence is necessary to explain physical phenomena. We haven't seen it yet....

 

Cheers,

Buffy

[bumab]

James- are you arguing against the scientific method or materialism? The scientific process cannot "prove" anything, it merely finds evidence. So to claim that evidence collected by the scientific process does not prove anything is a non-argument. Of course it doesn't, it's not supposed to.

 

Mechanical materialism, as I understand it, is still alive and well in the scientific community. It's the belief that nothing outside of the mechanical workings of our universe exist. Thus, there is really no meaning, because we are all a bunch of Newtonian (or Einstienian, or whatever) billiard balls acting according to a few fundamental equations. No free will, no intellegence, no nothing. That's certainly debatable. BUT, that's not the scientific process. I would guess many people would consider it a philisophical extension of the process, but I think that's irresponsible. One shouldn't extend an idea past it's limits and call it science.

 

But your argument is not clear... Evidence for intellegent design? Short of God's signature on the dark side of the moon, I don't think you'll find empiracal evidence. Now that could be because God wanted an entirely self-sustaining universe. Or that he doesn't exist. Neither of those questions can be answered by science. I have my opinions (the former), but it's not based on material evidence- obviously, because that wouldn't make sense.

 

Do you have EVIDENCE for intellegent design? While that would be exciting, I'll be nice and not ask for the proof you are demanding from the other side. Got to be fair.

[sanctus]

welcome James and thanks for reviving the philosophy of science forum! :)

 

Just to "destroy your argument" about science claiming to be truth. We agree that Einstein was one of the greatest scientists. Do you know aht he said when he presented his special realativity? He said "here is a better approximation of reality than with Newton's laws". No scientists claim that science is truth, it's only an approximation of reality.

 

About time: time is defined by a mecanical process (1sec = 9 192 631 770 periods of the radiation between the hyperfine levels of the fondamental state of 133Cs), so any mechanical clock that mesures time can detrmine time, as something mecanical can mesure something mecanical.

 

Tell me, why would science need the first cause of all? If the hypothesis are enough to approximate very well reality, where is the need of cause? I agree, you can't claim the hypothesis are truth, but that's why it's hypothesis! Reading your first post I thought I see your problem, but now I don't anymore.

[James Putnam]

First of all, I have no idea why "mechanical materialism" is interesting except as an historical artefact. I am not a scientist (I am a musician). Other than that, what I believe has little to do with your philosophy. If you're curious about what my ideas about things are then read some of my posts elsewhere at Hypography.

 

 

 

The first sentence is an untestable hypothesis. The second is a testable hypothesis, and is supported by the theory of evolution. Your statement implies that my daughters' intelligence (it would be nice to see your definition of "intelligence", James) are not dependant on who their parents are, where they live, or what kind of daycare they get. Well, I fail to subscribe to such an undocumented view.

 

 

 

"Caused by" is an interesting choice of words. I think intelligence is not something that exists by design. I do not think the world is mechanical - I do think that world view pretty much died out after Einstein.

 

 

 

I think intelligence is uncaused by another intelligence. I think intelligence is as much an evolutionary result as having arms and toes. I think intelligence may as well evolve other places in the universe, in the same way that stars and galaxies evolve in similar ways. There is not prior intelligence behind it. Nor is human intelligence unique on Earth, although our level of self awareness might be. I don't know.

 

 

 

This is what you read into it, apparently. I offer no defense against biased opinion. There is no dogma in my statement, it is my own personal interpretation of the term "cosmology", based on reading a lot of books and interviewing several cosmologists and physicists.

 

I would say that dogma here would be to claim that "cosmology is the uncovering of the hidden truths in the universe". I do not subscribe to such an idea. For me it is about understanding.

 

I am not responsible for how the sciences have been organized, nor have I any quarrels with it. It is the result of thousands of years of academic progression.

 

 

 

My beliefs should not matter to you. But why should I defend a term which describes a world view which no longer is supported by modern physics? Seems utterly silly to me.

 

 

 

It does depend on whether you have decided what answers you want, or whether you are looking for the answers science currently offers. You should find plenty of posts on cosmology and the origins of the universe, but I suspect you are looking for answers in religion, which I will assume you can find elsewhere.

 

But I promise you one thing: There is not a single answer to be found at this site, only attempts at understanding. Science does not have a monopoly on knowledge and understanding.

 

 

 

This is an interesting way to pose a question. It's the same as asking: "We are standing in a circus tent. What are your theories on how it operates?"

 

I have many theories on how the universe operates. I may even think there are many universes. I build my ideas on observable evidence of how galaxies form, how stars die, how the universe is expanding, how atoms interact, how subatomic particles behave, how matter has incredible destructive power, how dead organisms turn into fossilized fuel (which has turned my country into a wealthy one), how species evolve. I have an extremely basic understanding of the theories of Einstein and more recent philosophers/scientists, an amateurish grasp on what modern cosmology involves and what arguments cosmologists, astronomers, and physicists use to explain their observations. And so on. Put all this together and it might form a theory of how the universe operates. Yet I do not - ever - claim that this is "the Truth", nor can I provide answers. That is not my task in life.

 

Your project is not scientific. It defies science. It does not stand up to the scientific method. It is based on assumptions which needs to be verified (by you, than by others).

 

You need to provide us with a set of testable hypothesis which we can experiment with. If you have nothing of the sort, you have no scientific project but perhaps the basic building blocks of a theological philosophy.

 

Thormod,

 

I am still having problemwith replies. In the test forum i was using the edit button. I thought I had learned the procedure, but when I returned to the forum I found that the edit button had disappeared from the posts that followed my last post.

 

James

[C1ay]

Intelligent Design Science is an oxymoron. Intelligent design requires a leap of faith so it is actually religion, not science.

[James Putnam]

Whoo, gettin' dizzy here. There's are some fundamental problems with this discussion going forward. The entire post back to me consisted of ignoring the quotes you replicated and repeated over and over:

...and then you proceed to demand proof for things that have been well proven. There certainly are things that have not been proven like string theory, but you keep using the existence of theories without evidence to invalidate all theories, and you do this by simply going back to your "belief" that "mechanical materialism" (which is an epithet used only by intelligent design people, and has no common usage in science).

 

Then because we don't repeat the entire body of *well proven* scientific results on the things that are proven you keep repeating:Science does solve these problems quite well in a lot of cases. Where it doesn't we're working on it. Funny here you drop your issue of "causes" which in science is not relevant.

 

And when faced with facts like the time experiment, you use some fancy mumbo jumbo to try to say that these tests don't prove anything:

 

 

Its a common technique among intelligent design arguments to simply try to tire everyone out by saying "you haven't proved it," when there are piles of books showing the proof. Conversely, intelligent design claims that atempt to refute empirical evidence like this one that "Clocks are not time" are complete non-sequiter: clocks measure time, if you do not accept that measurement is a valid mechanism for providing empirical proof of anything, then no matter how much proof we show you, you will simply deny any of this evidence is valid. How do you know that that tree is a tree? You can see it, feel it, but you can still deny its existence because sight and touch are "matter interacting with matter?" Whoa.

 

Now your whole purpose here is still to try to 1) put a scientific veneer on your claims to give them legitimacy, and 2) to claim that all science is inadequate unless it shows the ultimate causes of intelligence. Now if you won't accept what the scientific method is, then it isn't science, its philosophy and metaphysics, which science doesn't deal with. Your claim that unless it does deal with metaphysics then it should all be considered invalid, is dumbfounding. Your only point seems to be that no science should be bothered with unless it illuminates the issue of "causes of intelligence."

At this point you're just denying the fact that there is a well-established and growing body of knowledge going back thousands of years called the Scientific Method. It is the standard canard of intelligent design and creationist beliefs, and it is justified solely by claiming that the process of testing hypotheses does not "prove" anything. We can't really have a discussion on any of this unless we come to an agreement on a definition of reality. If all measurements are invalid, you're right: there is no science. But your claim that measurements are invalid are based on no evidence you have presented, only a self-serving manipulation of a scientific statement.

 

You can keep asking us to provide proof, but if you won't accept the libraries full of proof that exist, there's no point in wasting our wind here.

 

Go to the science section of the library. Thousands of books to choose from that talk about mechanical properties. Try Galileo. Try Newton. They're filled with explanations of mechanical properties. On "causes of intelligence" again, there are lots of threads here that discuss it. To summarize, the scientific evidence shows that life evolves to take random mutations and those that are beneficial are passed on successfully to successive generations. The evidence is based on the scientific method, which you both claim as your justification of truth and derisivly deny when it conflicts with your beliefs.

I don't know. "mechanical materialism" is an intelligent design term used to denigrate the scientific method, but I'm not really sure what it means. We here are defending the scientific method, but unfortunately you are not able to work within its definitions of hypothesis, testing and measurement. Its okay not to believe that this process is relevant, but that does not make it a "belief system"

 

Again, formal logic is a principal element of the scientific method, and you can't claim to be talking about science if you don't understand it. What you are claiming here is that:

All apples are red therefore all red things are apples.

There is nothing we can say here, other than if this is your definition of logic, any and all claims can be "believed" to be true, and there is no truth. Thus there's no point in providing you proof. But I guess that's your point:

Nice that you want to acheive unity. Its sad that you don't recognize that many scientific theories are intended to do just that.

 

I don't know how many times we can repeat this: a lot of the time, we don't care about the cause. Newton had no idea what "caused" gravity, but that did not prevent his theory for accurately predicting the movements of the planets perfectly up to the point where we were able to see discrepancies, which Einstein then added to in order to explain the discrepancies. That's science!

 

But you come back to your completely undefended assertion:

Which basically is saying: "unless you prove that I'm wrong that an outside intelligent force is causing all things to happen, all science is bunk." If you want to have a metaphysical discussion, fine, but don't call it science. Its not. If you want to argue about evolution, do it in an evolution thread: This section of the site is for philosophy of science, and while you completely deny all of the commonly accepted and proven principles of the scientific method, this is the place for this discussion, and we hope we've been some help in describing both for you and others, the meaning of science.

 

Please come back when you have something to say about your own or other sources of evidence that outside intelligence is necessary to explain physical phenomena. We haven't seen it yet....

 

Cheers,

Buffy

 

Ok buffy. I got the impression that you wished to defend mechanical materialism. I can see that impression was wrong. I chose the forum that I believed was correct. If the powers that be feel that this thread belongs somewhere else, then they can move it.

 

My regards,

 

james,

[James Putnam]

Hi bumab,

 

James- are you arguing against the scientific method or materialism? The scientific process cannot "prove" anything, it merely finds evidence. So to claim that evidence collected by the scientific process does not prove anything is a non-argument. Of course it doesn't, it's not supposed to.[/Quote]

 

I am arguing against mechanical materialism. I am challenging those who would argue that the operation of the universe is the result of mechanical properties.

 

Mechanical materialism, as I understand it, is still alive and well in the scientific community. It's the belief that nothing outside of the mechanical workings of our universe exist. Thus, there is really no meaning, because we are all a bunch of Newtonian (or Einstienian, or whatever) billiard balls acting according to a few fundamental equations. No free will, no intellegence, no nothing. That's certainly debatable. BUT, that's not the scientific process. I would guess many people would consider it a philisophical extension of the process, but I think that's irresponsible. One shouldn't extend an idea past it's limits and call it science.

 

But your argument is not clear... Evidence for intellegent design? Short of God's signature on the dark side of the moon, I don't think you'll find empiracal evidence. Now that could be because God wanted an entirely self-sustaining universe. Or that he doesn't exist. Neither of those questions can be answered by science. I have my opinions (the former), but it's not based on material evidence- obviously, because that wouldn't make sense.

 

Do you have EVIDENCE for intellegent design? While that would be exciting, I'll be nice and not ask for the proof you are demanding from the other side. Got to be fair.

 

My position is that life and intellligence resulted from the properties of the universe. I do not interject any miracles at any point past the beginning of the universe. I do not have a religious point of view about this. I have stated my position that insofar as human logic is concerned intelligence is uncaused. For those who believe there is a cause, I ask them to offer it. I do think that scientific evidence for intelligent design exists. However, the impression of the nature of the universe having been established by theoretical physics as being mechanical is so firmly entrenched that it is necessary to expose physics theory for the imaginary science that it is. I am currently entertaining any challenges by supporters of physics theory and challenges by supporters of a mechanical origin for intelligence. First I dispose of the theoretical facade of theoretical physics that passes as scientific knowledge about the nature of the universe. The mechanical materialists argue as if they deserve the high ground. I am leveling the playing field.

 

James

[Buffy]

Ok buffy. I got the impression that you wished to defend mechanical materialism. I can see that impression was wrong. I chose the forum that I believed was correct. If the powers that be feel that this thread belongs somewhere else, then they can move it..

Uh, as stated in what you just quoted and as repeated by Tormod, we don't know what mechanical materialism really is. If what you mean is that you do not believe that the scientific method is valid, then this is the proper forum for that topic. Please don't change it if that's what you would like to discuss. All we are saying is that you seem to wish to use the term "causes of intelligence" as an argument that Evolution is not valid, then its probably better to divide that part of your discussion into that forum. These are generally considered separate topics, and its easier to manage if they are separate. On the other hand if your primary argument is that all scientific theories are false because the scientific method is false, just stay here first and explain why you think its false using some sort of evidence. It would definitely help to try to use generally accepted terms and if you find you are unable to do so, please explain them. I cannot defend, indeed I may not want to defend what you call "mechanical materialism" since I don't know what it is, you have not defined it, and if its anything like what I've heard vaguely referred to by intelligent design proponents, its simply a rewording of the epithet "godless humanism."

 

Cheers,

Buffy

[James Putnam]

Thormod,

 

I am greatly hampered in making replies when the edit button is missing. I will stop posting again for a while and return the the test forum. I need to know why the edit button is sometimes missing or what I can do in the absence of it.

 

James

[James Putnam]

Uh, as stated in what you just quoted and as repeated by Tormod, we don't know what mechanical materialism really is. If what you mean is that you do not believe that the scientific method is valid, then this is the proper forum for that topic. Please don't change it if that's what you would like to discuss. All we are saying is that you seem to wish to use the term "causes of intelligence" as an argument that Evolution is not valid, then its probably better to divide that part of your discussion into that forum. These are generally considered separate topics, and its easier to manage if they are separate. On the other hand if your primary argument is that all scientific theories are false because the scientific method is false, just stay here first and explain why you think its false using some sort of evidence. It would definitely help to try to use generally accepted terms and if you find you are unable to do so, please explain them. I cannot defend, indeed I may not want to defend what you call "mechanical materialism" since I don't know what it is, you have not defined it, and if its anything like what I've heard vaguely referred to by intelligent design proponents, its simply a rewording of the epithet "godless humanism."

 

Cheers,

Buffy

 

Ok. I am getting the impression there is no forum for discussing the operation of the universe.

 

James

[Queso]

Ok. I am getting the impression there is no forum for discussing the operation of the universe.

 

Well, that's strange. It seems it's all around you, from this forum, to the entire earth.

One big giant forum of discussion, or opinions, and arguments. Filled with several ways of communication, but I suppose this is off topic. G'night.

wowzers, I'm tired. :)

[bumab]

...I am arguing against mechanical materialism. I am challenging those who would argue that the operation of the universe is the result of mechanical properties...

 

ok...

 

 

I do think that scientific evidence for intelligent design exists. However, the impression of the nature of the universe having been established by theoretical physics as being mechanical is so firmly entrenched that it is necessary to expose physics theory for the imaginary science that it is.

 

Forgive me if I'm wrong, just trying to clarify things. Are you saying that intellegence makes intellegent design self-evident? Is that the evidence you're getting at? I'd agree- the scienctific process doesn't deal well with self-evident things... Which makes those things hard to show evidence for in a scientific manner :)

[James Putnam]

Well, that's strange. It seems it's all around you, from this forum, to the entire earth.

One big giant forum of discussion, or opinions, and arguments. Filled with several ways of communication, but I suppose this is off topic. G'night.

wowzers, I'm tired. :)

 

I meant here at Hypography Forums. I am active in other web locations. I also have a successful website. I need to know whether or not the operation of the universe can be discussed here from a unified point of view. If the operation of the universe must be diced up into different forums here, that is what I need to know. I do not wish to cut into pieces that which operates as a unit. Unity is the goal. Separation is an obstacle to this goal.

 

James

[James Putnam]

ok...

 

 

 

 

Forgive me if I'm wrong, just trying to clarify things. Are you saying that intellegence makes intellegent design self-evident? Is that the evidence you're getting at? I'd agree- the scienctific process doesn't deal well with self-evident things... Which makes those things hard to show evidence for in a scientific manner :)

 

I am saying the discussion of the cause of intelligence is the key to exposing mechanical materialism for the false science it is. However, when I say I believe there is evidence for intelligent design, I mean physical evidence.

 

James

[Queso]

Share with me some physical evidence you think exists, i'm extremely curious.

[Buffy]

I am arguing against mechanical materialism. I am challenging those who would argue that the operation of the universe is the result of mechanical properties.

 

My position is that life and intellligence resulted from the properties of the universe. I do not interject any miracles at any point past the beginning of the universe.

Okay, lemme try this: if the properties of the universe were fixed at the beginning, when there was nothing but a big plasma ball, and there was no intervention by a creator since that point in time (you have said exactly this in these quoted sentances), then according to logic the intelligence would have had to evolve from this mass of undifferentiated plasma, and by mechanical means no less. If this is what you actually mean, then you're arguing against your own premises, or you are arguing a hypothesis that the elements of life and intelligence (dna, neural networks, etc) were somehow encoded in that plasma of the big bang, which could be a testable hypothesis. Can you explain how this would be encoded?

For those who believe there is a cause, I ask them to offer it.

I know you're sick of us repeating this, but please listen carefully: We do not care if there is a "cause" for "life and intelligence" it is not relevant to whether the scientific method works or whether evolution works to explain how life and intelligence have evolved from that plasma using mechanical means, no less.

I do think that scientific evidence for intelligent design exists. However, the impression of the nature of the universe having been established by theoretical physics as being mechanical is so firmly entrenched that it is necessary to expose physics theory for the imaginary science that it is. I am currently entertaining any challenges by supporters of physics theory and challenges by supporters of a mechanical origin for intelligence. First I dispose of the theoretical facade of theoretical physics that passes as scientific knowledge about the nature of the universe. The mechanical materialists argue as if they deserve the high ground. I am leveling the playing field.

All you've said here is that 1) You believe intelligent design exists, but you won't describe what it is offer any evidence, but that 2) you need to claim that all "theoretical" physics (where you are using the term in the creationist sense only) is all false. No one is deserving of the high ground: all must be defended, *including you*.

 

Now I've just read your "proof" that E=mc2 is wrong on your web site, and other than your claim that all measurements are invalid, and that because the theories you refer to did not explicitly refer to "anything beyond the local frame of reference"--and without saying why they are *not* valid beyond the local frame of reference--that they cannot be used as evidence which is a statement that no one familiar with the scientific method would agree with. You have not proved anything. We really would like it if you would. It would prove that teleportation and faster than light travel is possible, which *most* of the people on this forum would love to see! But proof is not provided by simply saying something is wrong and showing some irrelevant first year calculus manipulations of Einsteins equation. You've got to try harder. We'd really like you to!

 

Cheers,

Buffy