Intelligent Design

Originally posted by ushomefree
As I previously stated, I stand corrected regarding my statement pertaining to Steven Hawking; as for Albert Einstein, in stating, "God does not play dice with the universe," implies "design!"

Originally posted by ushomefree
Science relentlessly pursues "cause" and "effect" phenomena; it is rather slippery of you--or a scientist--to claim that causes can "only" be accountable to natural processes, especially since no naturalistic scientific theory addressing the origin of life--or the universe--exists; the "cause" is an utter mystery! In light of this fact--and other factors--scientists are considering alternate options, namely, "supernatural" causes. And you are completely off base to invalidate such lines of reason.

Originally posted by ushomefree
And if you read further, you would have been acquainted in how Spinoza defined God in this Ethica! Spinoza stated:

"By God I mean a being absolutely infinite--that is, a substance consisting in infinite attributes, of which each expresses eternal and infinite essentiality." Proposition XV of the Ethica stated: "Whatever is, is in God, and without God nothing can be, or be conceived."

Digesting the entirity of the text, Spinoza states that the "substance," is a "being!"

Originally posted by ushomefree
Are you advocating that the theory of General Relativity--proposed by Albert Einstein--is no longer valid?

Quantum electrodynamics functions in regard to "pre-established/existing" laws of physics and matter; that is precisely the reason why theories of this caliber are tangible to study!

General relativity breaks down at the quantum level.

Energyless creation of electron-positron pairs (something) can occur in a vacuum (from nothing).

Originally posted by ushomefree
The scientific community--as a whole--does not reject Intelligent Design theory; hence the abundance of literature available for study (authored by scientists themselves). Please refrain from being ridiculous.

Produce one peer-reviewed article from a reputable journal with evidence supporting (i.e. proof positive) the existence of an intelligent agent. If there's an abundance of literature that shouldn't be hard.

Originally posted by xmarksthespot
... Did you even read what I wrote? I'm responding to you against my better judgment anyway, so if you're not actually going to read then I'm not going to write....

Please keep going... I am reading what you have to say, and I am sure that other people are reading it, also. 😄

Originally posted by xmarksthespot
Energyless creation of electron-positron pairs (something) can occur in a vacuum (from nothing).

Bodies of mass, energy, space, and time--as predicted (and confirmed) by the theory of General Relativity--began a finite time ago "simaltaneously." Remove any factor from the equation--"energy" for instance--and the universe (and all life) will perish. How you ignore this fact (and propose theories of "energyless creation"😉 is beyond me.

Originally posted by xmarksthespot
During the Dover trial, cdesign proponentsists produced a bibliography of articles. When examined none of them supported intelligent design or proposed alternative to natural selection. In the same vein under oath they said there were no publications supporting intelligent design.

Produce one peer-reviewed article from a reputable journal with evidence supporting (i.e. proof positive) the existence of an intelligent agent. If there's an abundance of literature that shouldn't be hard.

The majority of citizens in the United States are uneducated on Intelligent Design (ID), not to mention Darwinian evolution; and state government officials and jury members are not exempt! In how the court trials concluded, it is no surprise. As with all new scientific theories that press the social norm envelope, the majority must be ready--informed--for change!

Moreover, thanks to the the media blowing the situation out of proportion, what was once a scientific one, became a political one; people actually think that Intelligent Design is being lead by a group of Christian cult leaders! It's crazy!!

In time, Intelligent Design will be taught in high school curriculum, and it will all start once people begin to understand what Intelligent Design and Darwinian evolution entail.

ushomefree Energy cannot be created or destroyed. So, your claim that Energy will be destroyed is wrong.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
ushomefree Energy cannot be created or destroyed. So, your claim that Energy will be destroyed is wrong.

actually i belive at the subatomic level it can be created or destroyed

Originally posted by ushomefree

Moreover, thanks to the the media blowing the situation out of proportion, what was once a scientific one, became a political one; people actually think that Intelligent Design is being lead by a group of Christian cult leaders! It's crazy!!

In time, Intelligent Design will be taught in high school curriculum, and it will all start once people begin to understand what Intelligent Design and Darwinian evolution entail.

1 it is, dont delude yourself.

2. it will never be taught in schools, at least not in the u.s.a. heres why. separation of church and state. even if they claim the creater is non-denominational, they will view it as christian propaganda. have fun trying to get that to happen

Originally posted by ushomefree
The anthropic principle can be loosely defined as "conditions observed within the universe that allow life-forms to exist." Moreover, these conditions sustain the universe itself! To date, astronomers have discovered 200+ conditions that must be met for life-forms (and the universe) to exist; in this post, four will be presented. Please read carefully.

1. The gravitational coupling constant—i.e., the force of gravity, determines what kinds of stars are possible in the universe. If the gravitational force were slightly stronger, star formation would proceed more efficiently and all Stars would be more massive than our sun by at least 1.4 times. These large stars are important in that they alone manufacture elements heavier than iron, and they alone disperse elements heavier than beryllium to the interstellar medium. Such elements are essential for the formation of planets as well as of living things in any form. However, these Stars burn too rapidly and too unevenly to maintain life-supporting conditions on surrounding planets. Stars as small as our sun are necessary for that.

On the other hand, if the gravitational force were slightly weaker, all stars would have less than 0.8 times the mass of the sun. Though such stars burn long and evenly enough to maintain life-supporting planets, no heavy elements essential for building such planets or life would exist.

2. The strong nuclear force coupling constant holds together the particles in the nucleus of an atom. If the strong nuclear force were slightly weaker, multi-proton nuclei would not hold together. Hydrogen would be the only element in the universe.

If this force were slightly stronger, not only would hydrogen be rare in the universe, but the supply of the various life-essential elements heavier than iron (elements resulting from the fission of very heavy elements) would be insufficient. Either way, life would be impossible.

3. The weak nuclear force coupling constant affects the behavior of leptons. Leptons form a whole class of elementary particles (e.g. neutrinos, electrons, and photons) that do not participate in strong nuclear reactions. The most familiar weak interaction effect is radioactivity, in particular, the beta decay reaction:

neutron --> proton + electron + neutrino

The availability of neutrons as the universe cools through temperatures appropriate for nuclear fusion determines the amount of helium produced during the first few minutes of the big bang. If the weak nuclear force coupling constant were slightly larger, neutrons would decay more readily, and therefore would be less available. Hence, little or no helium would be produced from the big bang. Without the necessary helium, heavy elements sufficient for the constructing of life would not be made by the nuclear furnaces inside stars. On the other hand, if this constant were slightly smaller, the big bang would burn most or all of the hydrogen into helium, with a subsequent over-abundance of heavy elements made by stars, and again life would not be possible.

A second, possibly more delicate, balance occurs for supernovae. It appears that an outward surge of neutrinos determines whether or not a supernova is able to eject its heavy elements into outer space. If the weak nuclear force coupling constant were slightly larger, neutrinos would pass through a supernova's envelop without disturbing it. Hence, the heavy elements produced by the supernova would remain in the core. If the constant were slightly smaller, the neutrinos would not be capable of blowing away the envelop. Again, the heavy elements essential for life would remain trapped forever within the cores of supernovae.

4. The electromagnetic coupling constant binds electrons to protons in atoms. The characteristics of the orbits of electrons about atoms determines to what degree atoms will bond together to form molecules. If the electromagnetic coupling constant were slightly smaller, no electrons would be held in orbits about nuclei. If it were slightly larger, an atom could not "share" an electron orbit with other atoms. Either way, molecules, and hence life, would be impossible.

With all in mind, we have the luxury of stating, "Wow... what a coincidence!" But most astronomers find that assumption weak.

"There is for me powerful evidence that there is something going on behind it all.... It seems as though somebody has fine-tuned nature’s numbers to make the Universe.... The impression of design is overwhelming." (Paul Davies, Astrophysicist)

"A common sense interpretation of the facts suggests that a superintellect has monkeyed with physics, as well as with chemistry and biology, and that there are no blind forces worth speaking about in nature. The numbers one calculates from the facts seem to me so overwhelming as to put this conclusion almost beyond question." (Fred Hoyle, Astrophysicist)

[Note: All examples provided are excerpts from the article entitled, "Design and the Anthropic Principle," authored by Astronomer Hugh Ross. URL: www.reasons.org/resources/apologetics/design.shtml.]

😆

The thing is you silly believers in the anthropic principle assumes that ONLY ONE kind of life, ours, is possible in every configuration of possible universes. This is a carbon-centric, human-centric etc., in short, biased way of looking at life. You guys lack imagination.

"The force laws (gravity, electromagnetic, electroweak, and strong) as exist in the Standard Model are represented as spontaneously broken symmetries, that is, symmetries that are broken randomly and without cause or design. In a more apt example, consider what happens when a ferromagnet cools below a certain critical temperature called the Curie point. The iron undergoes a change of phase and a magnetic field suddenly appears that points in a specific, though RANDOM, direction, breaking the original symmetry in which no direction was singled out ahead of time, none predictable by any known theory.

The forces of nature are akin to the magnetic field of a ferromagnet. The "direction" they point to after symmetry breaking was not determined ahead of time. The nature of the forces themselves was not pre-specified. They just happened to freeze out the way they did. .

Now theists may argue that I am simply assuming the absence of divine causation and not proving it. I am not claiming to prove that such causation does not exist. Rather I am simply demonstrating that, based on current scientific knowledge, NONE IS NECESSARY."

http://www.stephenjaygould.org/ctrl/stenger_intel.html

Originally posted by chickenlover98
actually i belive at the subatomic level it can be created or destroyed

Can you find any article on that?

I believe that there is only one possibility of energy being lost, and that is in a microscopic black hole that evaporates. However, this is greatly disputed in the scientific community.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
Can you find any article on that?

I believe that there is only one possibility of energy being lost, and that is in a microscopic black hole that evaporates. However, this is greatly disputed in the scientific community.

Originally posted by ushomefree
Moreover, thanks to the the media blowing the situation out of proportion, what was once a scientific one, became a political one; people actually think that Intelligent Design is being lead by a group of Christian cult leaders! It's crazy!!

In time, Intelligent Design will be taught in high school curriculum, and it will all start once people begin to understand what Intelligent Design and Darwinian evolution entail.

I.D. is religiously based, "Creationism" as becoming less and less viable, as science and technology (and logic) advance, these people 'hack-job'd' evolution and mixed in God, all the while hiding it under the guise of "an intelligence." How can you call it science, when it completely lacks objectivity? "A watch is too complex to have formed by itself, so the eye being complex couldn't have either", lame.

People do understand what Darwinian Evolution suggests and people do understand Intelligent Design suggests, which is the reason people of sound mind laugh at I.D.

Did you know that in the 1987 (and onward) edition of 'Of Pandas & People', a leading I.D. book, they substituted the word "creationist" for "cdesign proponents?" Trying to be sneaky they were; all they are is hacks though.

Originally posted by ushomefree
Bodies of mass, energy, space, and time--as predicted (and confirmed) by the theory of General Relativity--began a finite time ago "simaltaneously." Remove any factor from the equation--"energy" for instance--and the universe (and all life) will perish. How you ignore this fact (and propose theories of "energyless creation"😉 is beyond me.

General relativity doesn't apply at the quantum level, general relativity does not apply to the singularity from which the Universe expanded.

Originally posted by ushomefree
The majority of citizens in the United States are uneducated on Intelligent Design (ID), not to mention Darwinian evolution; and state government officials and jury members are not exempt! In how the court trials concluded, it is no surprise. As with all new scientific theories that press the social norm envelope, the majority must be ready--informed--for change!

Moreover, thanks to the the media blowing the situation out of proportion, what was once a scientific one, became a political one; people actually think that Intelligent Design is being lead by a group of Christian cult leaders! It's crazy!!

In time, Intelligent Design will be taught in high school curriculum, and it will all start once people begin to understand what Intelligent Design and Darwinian evolution entail.

Bardock's video is sufficient to educate anyone on ID, it is an argument from ignorance - an untestable logical fallacy. It does not comply with scientific method. It is not science. And it will never be taught in science classes because anyone can see it's not science.

Rawr.

Co-signs everything x has written in this thread.

👆

A croney boy? 😉

Look how our bodies are made. God can't be that intelligent.

The simplest reason why Intelligent Design will never be a scientific theory: I does not generate any new hypothesis for research.

Once ID is accepted, thats it, we have answered everything. There is no experiment you can run under the auspices of ID, no hypothesis to test, no real science to do.

That is nonsense of course. Because there's still a lot to figure out how everything works. Science uses evolution only to EXPLAIN with hindsight how it came to be. Science still does research on the workings of molecules, energy, atoms etc. to find out how it works and how it can be manipulated. Evolution only explains to a certain extent but only after the research has been done. And even then the explanations seem contrived, just to fit the evolution theory, because that is the way to go.

How did Indiana Jones say it: Archaeology (or science in general) is the search for FACT, not truth. If it's truth you want, go down the hall to the Philosophy class.

ID is merely a new attempt to explain. If it works as an explanation, and in my mind it's way too small and way too premature to use it as such, than scientific findings can be explained that way as well. But scientific work is still slugging it out in labs, testing etc. , in other words FACT FINDING. And since scientific research has to be done according to certain rules (which have NOTHING to do with either evolution or ID), it doesn't matter where you come from.

I'm never gonna understand ID's hypothesis for the origin of species.

It's rather simple. ID-ers think there must be an intelligence behind the way life, matter etc. is arranged on a molecluar level. Other than everything came into being by pure chance and coincidence. Some people just have trouble to believe that all life as we know it came from an accidental living cell that accidentally truned into the millions of species and plants that swarm the planet Earth. And using arguments from molecular research they find some clues to how it seems there is a certain design behind it.

Originally posted by queeq
It's rather simple. ID-ers think there must be an intelligence behind the way life, matter etc. is arranged on a molecluar level. Other than everything came into being by pure chance and coincidence.

Well, whether there is an intelligent force behind origin of life or not is of no consequence to Evolution. Rather, I simply don't get how new species arise in the ID model for life. In evolution it's Macro-Evolution, while in ID it's what exactly?

Originally posted by queeq
It's rather simple. ID-ers think there must be an intelligence behind the way life, matter etc. is arranged on a molecluar level. Other than everything came into being by pure chance and coincidence. Some people just have trouble to believe that all life as we know it came from from an accidental living cell that accidentally truned into the millions of species and plants that swarm the planet Earth. And using arguments from molecular research they find some clues to how it seems tehre is a certain design behind it.

I find it strange that people seem to think it must be one or the other. The universe can exist without chance or an intelligence.