|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
Member (Idle past 6112 days) Posts: 382 From: Westminster,CO, USA Joined: |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Intelligent Design explains many follies | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
John 10:10 Member (Idle past 3026 days) Posts: 766 From: Mt Juliet / TN / USA Joined: |
Scientists can believe that a mass the size of a pebble expanded exponentially over and over to become an intricately complicated universe ( 404: Page Not Found - The Globe and Mail),
but they cannot believe that Intelligent Design, i.e., a Creator God caused this. Very strange indeed !!! ......................................................... NASA images offer details about design of the universeProbe 'confirms suspicions' of events after Big Bang, UBC professor says PETTI FONG VANCOUVER -- You may be reassured to know, as physicist Mark Halpern of the University of British Columbia has just learned, that the universe is behaving exactly as it should. New images from a NASA space probe that Prof. Halpern and scientists from throughout the United States designed and launched five years ago, have provided evidence of what happened 13.7 billion years ago. Prof. Halpern looked back in time to capture the split second when a mass the size of a pebble expanded exponentially over and over to become the universe, after the Big Bang. And he saw what he expected to see. "The simplest version of this fairy tale that is our universe is now dramatically more secure," Prof. Halpern said. "What surprised me is how incredibly well the simple picture fits. It seems we understand a lot about the universe that until now has been just about guesses. Things are the way we believed they should be." Cosmic microwave background radiation is the radiant heat left over from the Big Bang and first observed in 1965 by astronomers. From the properties of the radiation, scientists can learn the physical conditions of the universe at its beginning stages. Images released yesterday detected the earliest light seen yet from the Big Bang afterglow, providing new evidence that the universe grew suddenly in less than a trillionth of a second. The current picture shows blue and green cool spots, yellow and red hot spots and white slashes to indicate polarization, which tell scientists how material was moving in the beginning when the universe formed. The information pinpoints when the first stars formed and provides new details about events that transpired in the first trillionth of a second. It's from quantum fluctuations that stars, planets and the galaxies formed. Mike Nolta, a postdoctoral fellow at the Canadian Institute for Theoretical Astrophysics in Toronto, said the images are a relic left over from the beginning of the universe. "There was an expectation we would see what we're seeing. It basically confirms our suspicions," he said yesterday. For the past three years, the satellite has continuously observed the cosmic background radiation that lingers from the universe's sudden forceful beginnings billions of years ago from a distance of 1.6 million kilometres away from Earth. From their observations, scientists were able to report the age of the universe as 13.7 billion years, give or take a few hundred million, and the age of the universe when stars first began to shine, 400 million years later, again with the cushion room of a few million either way. Prof. Halpern and 12 other U.S. scientists around began the project, but it has since expanded to include a group of 20 physicists who continuously monitor and analyze the patterns and signals received. Over the past three years, scientists have been able to identify that just 4 per cent of the universe is composed of ordinary familiar atoms. Researchers have still not been able to identify 22 per cent of the universe, which they call "dark matter." "It's not atoms, so it remains a mystery. It's some other stuff that doesn't give off light. We know it doesn't bump into other matter, but it gives us something to think about," Prof. Halpern said. A remaining 74 per cent of the universe is another mysterious substance called dark energy. Each new piece of the puzzle in determining the origins of the universe is done for pure curiosity, according to Prof. Halpern. "It's not going to help us understand weather patterns or other things like that," he said. But reassuringly, the latest images indicate the universe will last even longer than scientists predicted. Also, its expansion is accelerating, rather than slowing down. "I used to say the universe will last forever and people would say, 'How do you know that?' " Prof. Halpern said. "Now I can say it will last at least many tens of billions of years and the universe we know will last forever or at least as long as forever means."
Editted out HUGE line of periods to fix page width - The Queen This message has been edited by John 10:10, 03-17-2006 11:53 AM This message has been edited by AdminAsgara, 03-17-2006 01:45 PM The evil one comes to steal, kill and destroy; but I Jesus have come that you might have eternal Life and have eternal Life more abundantly - John 10:10
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
John 10:10 Member (Idle past 3026 days) Posts: 766 From: Mt Juliet / TN / USA Joined: |
ramoss writes,
"Very strange that you dismiss something because you don't agree with it based on a newspaper article, yet don't bother to look at the evidence. That is the I.D. movement in a nutshell." I don't disagree with the newspaper article at all! As a matter of fact, I believe the creation of the heavens and the earth started from something much smaller than a pebble. I believe the universe started from NOTHING, and came into existance as a result of God speaking the universe into existance. The one who lives in denial is the one who can believe an intricately complex universe can exist without a Creator. Blessings The evil one comes to steal, kill and destroy; but I Jesus have come that you might have eternal Life and have eternal Life more abundantly - John 10:10
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
John 10:10 Member (Idle past 3026 days) Posts: 766 From: Mt Juliet / TN / USA Joined: |
You may call it my statement of faith if you like, but it's really my statement of fact.
Show me one intricately complex man made thing that exists without man first designing and then constructing his design. The same truth principle applies to the intricately complex universe, and even to man himself. The evil one comes to steal, kill and destroy; but I Jesus have come that you might have eternal Life and have eternal Life more abundantly - John 10:10
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
John 10:10 Member (Idle past 3026 days) Posts: 766 From: Mt Juliet / TN / USA Joined: |
OK, show me one intricately complex "man made thing", not a pic of some nature scene, that exists without man first designing and then constructing his design.
Is this a fair question to ask on the science side of the forum? True science is supposed to be the study and proof of cause and effect. If one cannot prove the theory actually produces the effect from the start to the finish, how can evolution be called science? The evil one comes to steal, kill and destroy; but I Jesus have come that you might have eternal Life and have eternal Life more abundantly - John 10:10
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
John 10:10 Member (Idle past 3026 days) Posts: 766 From: Mt Juliet / TN / USA Joined: |
I was simply pointing out that intricately complex man made things must have been first designed by man's creativity, then put together by man's ability to build what he has has designed.
The same principle applies to inorganic matter, organic matter, and the universe. To believe that intricately complex inorganic matter, organic matter, and the universe came to be without ID is true folly. The evil one comes to steal, kill and destroy; but I Jesus have come that you might have eternal Life and have eternal Life more abundantly - John 10:10
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
John 10:10 Member (Idle past 3026 days) Posts: 766 From: Mt Juliet / TN / USA Joined: |
The best biological organisms can do is adapt and mutate. If that's your idea of how biological organisms have designed themselves, that's your choice to believe. But it's a very bad choice and is not true science at all.
I'm sad to hear that you don't have a scientific answer for how the universe and inorganic matter came to be. I would have thought sophisticated thinkers would have it all figured out by now. It's still folly to believe that intricately complex inorganic matter, organic matter, and the universe came to be without ID, no matter what us simple people of faith believe. The evil one comes to steal, kill and destroy; but I Jesus have come that you might have eternal Life and have eternal Life more abundantly - John 10:10
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
John 10:10 Member (Idle past 3026 days) Posts: 766 From: Mt Juliet / TN / USA Joined: |
Since I am just a simpleton man of faith in amongst many sophisticated thinkers, I must confess I can't compete with your intelligence, but I will offer a few observations;
(1) Some here seem to know precisely how the universe and inorganic matter can to be. Please enlighten those who do not. (2) Please forgive me for being an embarrassment to the Christians here in the Science Forums. I thought true science is the study and proof of cause and effect, not theory of how things came to be. (3) It seems only ID believers are required to provide proof of ID, not those who believe otherwise. All ID has ever asked for is to be mentioned as a "possible cause" of why we exist along with the other "theories" of how we came to be. (4) We who believe in ID understand that we cannot provide the ID proof any more than those who believe in something else can provide their proof. All we can do is provide the logical argument that intricately complex inorganic matter, organic matter, and the universe "must" have ID. If that is not sufficient proof, then let's just agree to disagree on what is proof. (5) What is complexity? One dictionary definition is this: A group of individual structures known or believed to be anatomically, embryologically, or physiologically related. (6) What is my understanding of the role of DNA in reproduction of organisms? I believe all the design details of whatever creature will be reproduced when male and female join together is inherent in the joint male sperm DNA and female egg DNA. I believe the design in each DNA tells every reproducing cell what kind of cell it is and where it fits into the creature that is being reproduced. If that's not complexity, I don't know what complexity is. The evil one comes to steal, kill and destroy; but I Jesus have come that you might have eternal Life and have eternal Life more abundantly - John 10:10
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
John 10:10 Member (Idle past 3026 days) Posts: 766 From: Mt Juliet / TN / USA Joined: |
(1) Discreet Label wrote,
"How is to believe that organisms reproduce is unscientific." There is a big difference between studing organisms that reproduce when they are able to do so, and determining how organisms became able to reproduce in the first place. The former is science, the latter is not. (2) Christopher writes, "As far as i know, it is only Biblical literalists who claim to know precisely how the universe and inorganic matter came to be." Reverend DG claimed in post # 66 that "we do have answers." This was in reference to my posts # 63 where I said it's "folly to believe that intricately complex inorganic matter, organic matter, and the universe came to be without ID." Many would like to hear the answer how intricately complex inorganic matter and the universe came to be without ID. (3) Is there any comparison in complexity between a natural stone arch that developed over time by wind, rain, floods, etc; and the complexity of the matter that makes up the stone arch? (4) No, DNA does not copy itself perfectly all the time. That's why there are imperfections as organisms reproduce. To rest one's case on adaptation and imperfections as the reasons how organisms evolve is pure folly. (5) Bits and pieces of how organisms adapt and mutate is not scientific evidence that organisms can actually transform themselves from a spark of life to a living organism, and then on to millions and millions of living organisms. (6) How did ID come to be then? Scientifically, one starts with the knowledge that "design" exists. Then one considers the possibilities of how "design" exists. Evolution is the answer for evolutionists. ID is the answer for people of faith. It's as simple and as difficult as that. Blessings The evil one comes to steal, kill and destroy; but I Jesus have come that you might have eternal Life and have eternal Life more abundantly - John 10:10
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
John 10:10 Member (Idle past 3026 days) Posts: 766 From: Mt Juliet / TN / USA Joined: |
Thanks for giving me a fair shake concerning what I've said. You're the first one to do so with deprecating what I've said.
You have written, "Is an old city, like, say London, an intricately complex man-made thing? I'd say it is. But has it been designed? Hardly, it seems. A city like London is an almost organic, living thing that has taken centuries to grow into what it is now. No single human being is responsible for its plan, no one person designed it the way it is. Some aspects of it could be called really stupid, from a design point-of-view. Yet, it is very complex and unmistakably man-made. Is this the kind of example you were after?" No, this is not the kind of example I'm looking. There is a difference between matter evolving deterministically, and matter that exists evolving over time and space. Cities do evolve over time and space. Some are designed very well, and some are not. The fact that cities exist is proof that man's involvment participated in the process. How well they were designed and built is not the issue. The evil one comes to steal, kill and destroy; but I Jesus have come that you might have eternal Life and have eternal Life more abundantly - John 10:10
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
John 10:10 Member (Idle past 3026 days) Posts: 766 From: Mt Juliet / TN / USA Joined: |
I too do not deny that the universe has evolved since the beginning point in time. In believing this, I believe there was a beginning to our universe. I do not believe in multiple beginnings or that the universe has always existed. Most scientists now believe there was a beginning to our universe.
The main point of ID is this: How did we get from the beginning of the universe to where we are now? Those who want to look at very small pieces of the big picture and draw conclusions that these very small pieces give confirming proof to their theories is truly implausible. I have no objection whatsoever to evolution being taught in science classrooms as "theory," but I strongly object to evolution being taught as "fact" in science classrooms, which is now the case in most science classrooms. ID is the most plausible reason how we got from the beginning of the universe to where we are now. If evolution was taught as "theory only" in science classrooms, ID would not be asking for equal time to present an alternate reason how we came to exist. The evil one comes to steal, kill and destroy; but I Jesus have come that you might have eternal Life and have eternal Life more abundantly - John 10:10
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
John 10:10 Member (Idle past 3026 days) Posts: 766 From: Mt Juliet / TN / USA Joined: |
(1) Sidelined wrote,
"We need to invoke the ID hypothesis to explain where that intelligent designer came from since we cannot say that such complexity simply happened." On this point I disagree completely. Reality tells us that intracately complex matter exists, both organic and inorganic. If one looks at why intracately complex matter exists from a non-ID viewpoint, then one still has to stop at where the matter came from in the first place that somehow deterministically changes/evolves over time into all manner of intracately complex structures. The same is true for those of us who believe ID is the most plausible explanation behind all that exists. We stop at where the matter came from because the Intelligent Designer declares He has eternally existed. (2) Ramoss wrote, "You say that ID is the most plausible explanation. How do we test this?" We can't test ID as the most plausible explanation of why intracately complex design exists any more than others can "completely test" that it does not. Complete proof testing works both ways, not just for those who believe in ID. (3) Parasomnium wrote, "John 10:10 writes:There is a difference between matter evolving deterministically, and matter that exists evolving over time and space. Could you explain what you mean?" What I mean by matter evolving deterministically is this: How did all the smallest parts of organic and inorganic matter determine how they would be built into intracately complex atoms, compounds, and living structures? Matter that exists evolves over time due to wind, rain, floods, volcanic erruptions, decay, pressure, heat, earthquakes, etc. Man's creative involvement with matter can build things, albeit imperfectly, for man's good or for man's evil. For those who do not believe in ID, cities simply declare man was/is here. For those who believe in ID, intracately complex structures that man uses declare that ID is here. The evil one comes to steal, kill and destroy; but I Jesus have come that you might have eternal Life and have eternal Life more abundantly - John 10:10
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
John 10:10 Member (Idle past 3026 days) Posts: 766 From: Mt Juliet / TN / USA Joined: |
(1) Ramoss wrote,
"Give me an experiment. Show me how ID will make a prediction about that experiment will fall out." Those of us who know the Intelligent Designer do this every day through the power of prayer. (2) NosyNed wrote, "There is considerable work going on to try to determine how things started." Let us all know when you/they have it all figured out and can prove it. Inquiring minds want to know. "If the designer is God then it is an utterly non-scientific approach and doesn't belong in a science classroom." Neither do the non-ID theories that cannot be completely proven. That's what ID is all about! The science classroom should be reserved only for those things that can be observed and completely proven. (3) Crashfrog wrote, "It (matter) may not have come from anywhere ........""The matter we observe in our portion of the universe may ........" Let us all know when the "mays" become "facts." "They did not determine that themselves; the laws of physics determine how matter interacts and is organized." Who then determined the laws of nuclear physics that placed protons, neutrons, electrons, ect. in their unique atomic order, combined them into compound elements, and finally made some of them into organic living matter? (4) ReverendDG wrote, "This is why ID is and never will be considered science, if the designer is a god we can not test how he did it." Same answer as (2). This message has been edited by John 10:10, 03-21-2006 04:50 PM The evil one comes to steal, kill and destroy; but I Jesus have come that you might have eternal Life and have eternal Life more abundantly - John 10:10
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
John 10:10 Member (Idle past 3026 days) Posts: 766 From: Mt Juliet / TN / USA Joined: |
Maybe you missed my answer.
See post # 84. see Message 84 This message has been edited by AdminJar, 03-21-2006 03:59 PM The evil one comes to steal, kill and destroy; but I Jesus have come that you might have eternal Life and have eternal Life more abundantly - John 10:10
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
John 10:10 Member (Idle past 3026 days) Posts: 766 From: Mt Juliet / TN / USA Joined: |
(1) ReverendDG wrote,
"So what does ID explain?" ID simply explains as a plausible reason why intracately complex design exists in mirco organic matter, micro inorganic matter, and in the macro universe at large. Those who believe in ID cannot prove this any more than those who do not believe in ID can completely prove something other than ID is the cause behind our existance. (2) Ramoss wrote, "You mean, things like evolution." Yes, evolution should not be taught in the science classroom because it can never be completely proven, as can other elements of scientific study such as nuclear physics, the laws of thermodynamics, electrical engineering, how creatures function and reproduce, how plants function and reproduce, etc. The science classroom should stick to the study of how things that exist function, not to "theories" of how things came to exist. (3) Schrafinator wrote, "Please define it (imperfections) for me?" Imperfections are simply mutations. Mutations rarely result in the betterment of the creature, let alone give a plausible explanation of how creatures can evolve from one creature to another to another to ......... "Do you suggest that we should avoid teaching children about electrons in science class?" No, I do not! Same answer as (2). The evil one comes to steal, kill and destroy; but I Jesus have come that you might have eternal Life and have eternal Life more abundantly - John 10:10
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
John 10:10 Member (Idle past 3026 days) Posts: 766 From: Mt Juliet / TN / USA Joined: |
I don't know of "any" instances where mutations have resulted in the betterment of a creature, let alone how multiple mutations result in the betterment of creatures who select other mutation partners.
Maybe you can provide some proof? The evil one comes to steal, kill and destroy; but I Jesus have come that you might have eternal Life and have eternal Life more abundantly - John 10:10
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024