NationStates Jolt Archive

Just a general sort of randomly placed question towards those in the know about astrophysics:

The big bang was a singularity of infinite density which 'exploded' (for want of a better word) to form matter (after all the matter-antimatter annihilations and such), sort of, right?

Well, a black hole is a point of infinite density. What's to stop a black hole becoming a universe? :confused:

Observation doesn't present evidence of life being 'too ordered'.

Therefore, any 'theory' you construct to explain 'too much order' is based on a false assumption - so the 'theory' would be unscientific.

How do you justify 'too much order' statement? The ONLY real way to justify such a statement, is in comparison to ANOTHER mechanism that seems more 'probable'.

The 'more probable' system that ID requires is the interference of 'god'.

Thus - your 'theory' is unscientific on two separate levels... long before we come to whether or not you can falsify it.

The comparison to the other mechanism is that life either would not have occurred or assuming it did occur would have remained very simple. Certainly, an argument could be made for simpler organisms being more efficient. They are smaller (thus more can exist), have shorter lifespans and thus evolve more quickly, less impact on the environment, etc. The biggest argument that more complex organisms are more efficient is that they exist.

Scientific method -
1. Observation and description of a phenomenon or group of phenomena.
2. Formulation of an hypothesis to explain the phenomena. In physics, the hypothesis often takes the form of a causal mechanism or a mathematical relation.
3. Use of the hypothesis to predict the existence of other phenomena, or to predict quantitatively the results of new observations.
4. Performance of experimental tests of the predictions by several independent experimenters and properly performed experiments.

And I'll point out it's not my 'theory'. I don't actually believe ID will stand up to testing.

Again, since no seems to see what I'm suggesting and since people keeping mixing creation in with ID, I'll point out that I think creation is wholly unscientific. However, I do believe that ID follows scientific method, however tenuous that the connection to scientific method might be. A bunch of scientist made an observation and then posited a theory that explained that observation. The observation and the theory is yet to be falsified. Bam! Scientific theory.


You know it usually takes a few repititions for people to pay attention to an arguement they dont like so i'll try saying it this time.

It doesnt matter if you beleive ID is a scientific theory because its not. First of all its not a theory. It has no evidence and therefore it is a hypothesis, which is a fancy word for a guess. Second it actually is unfalsifiable because it assumes an omnipotent creator, so any experiment carried out can be affected by this creator and therefore will be useless at falsifying it.

The 'primeval atom' or singularity preceded the universe because the universe came from it. It was the first event and from it came the universe. Unless you posit the universe came from itself. Do you? I'd also like to point out that singularity here is just another word for 'thing' because it has no real definable characteristics other than the universe came from it.

Actually, as I understand the theory, there *are* characteristics posited. For instance, the singularity was supposed to be infinite mass confined into an infinitely small space (hence, the "explosion".)


As to your third argument, who mentioned God being involved in the Big Bang? I didn't. I'm not attacking the premise of the primeval atom or singularity. I'm suggesting that it's acceptable only because no intelligence is assigned to the sigularity. In fact, to be fair, it does not in any way dispute the idea of intelligence either.

It is acceptable because it is a theory which was derived from the evidence, and has since been backed up by further evidence. The fact that it posits no God is not what makes it acceptable in that respect - it is the fact that it posits nothing whatsoever about a God.

Again, since no seems to see what I'm suggesting and since people keeping mixing creation in with ID, I'll point out that I think creation is wholly unscientific. However, I do believe that ID follows scientific method, however tenuous that the connection to scientific method might be. A bunch of scientist made an observation and then posited a theory that explained that observation. The observation and the theory is yet to be falsified. Bam! Scientific theory.

As has been explained before, what they have is a hypothesis, not a theory. To be a theory, it would have to have been tested and stood up relatively well to testing over time. Meanwhile, it is not even a scientific hypothesis, as it is non-falsifiable. It is wonderful that you think it will be disproven, but the idea of an intelligent creator is completely impossible to disprove.

Then, a bunch of creationist idiots clung to this theory, bastardized it and tried to get it into schools. Schools should only accept agnostic scientific theories by the seperation of church and state and, thus, should not allow ID to be taught.

Actually, I think ID should be used in schools, as well as Creationism. Both should be used as examples of bad science - which is exactly what they are.

Meanwhile, you ignore the fact that ID was proposed by a bunch of Creationists who simply couldn't get Creationism into the schools.

As far as what I believe, I believe in a supreme being and that this supreme being intended for us to have faith. If that supreme being would or could ever be proven then it would be knowledge and not faith. Therefore, I think that supreme being intended for there to be no clear footprints establishing his/her/its existence. Following that, I think ID is absolutely going to be disproven, but I'm willing to wait for that to occur.

The problem is that ID cannot be disproven. The main tenet of ID is that there is an intelligent creator who designed all of creation. There is no way to disprove that.

And I'll point out it's not my 'theory'. I don't actually believe ID will stand up to testing.

It cannot be considered a theory *until* it has stood up to testing.

It cannot be considered a theory *until* it has stood up to testing.
Correct ... still a hypothisis

You know it usually takes a few repititions for people to pay attention to an arguement they dont like so i'll try saying it this time.

It doesnt matter if you beleive ID is a scientific theory because its not. First of all its not a theory. It has no evidence and therefore it is a hypothesis, which is a fancy word for a guess. Second it actually is unfalsifiable because it assumes an omnipotent creator, so any experiment carried out can be affected by this creator and therefore will be useless at falsifying it.

Yes, I've noticed that which is why you keep ignoring when I say that it is falsifiable and you've never proven it isn't. If one can show that a closed system including life that is evolving into more complex organisms is increasing in entropy then there is no need for supernatural (existing outside of the universe) interference, and thus no need for an intelligent design theory.

Now you dispute that it's a theory, since I showed it adheres to scientific method. Before it was a 'lay' theory and just not a scientific theory because it didn't adhere to scientific method. Make up your mind.

Mirriam-Webster:

Theory -
6 a : a hypothesis assumed for the sake of argument or investigation b : an unproved assumption : CONJECTURE c : a body of theorems presenting a concise systematic view of a subject <theory of equations>

A hypothesis is a theory. It will remain a theory until it is disproven. Conjecture in this case referring to a proposition before it has proved or disproved.

It cannot be considered a theory *until* it has stood up to testing.

Einstein's 'Hidden Variable' THEORY as it is often referred to in scientific texts never stood up to testing, in fact, when a test was divised relating to it, it failed testing. It's still a theory, just a disproven theory.

Einstein's 'Hidden Variable' THEORY as it is often referred to in scientific texts never stood up to testing, in fact, when a test was divised relating to it, it failed testing. It's still a theory, just a disproven theory.
Then it was a mislable because it was never tested even within the realm of math

Hell just look at the broad swath of "LAWS" which is an incorect lable ... they are still THEORIES

Yes, I've noticed that which is why you keep ignoring when I say that it is falsifiable and you've never proven it isn't. If one can show that a closed system including life that is evolving into more complex organisms is increasing in entropy then there is no need for supernatural (existing outside of the universe) interference, and thus no need for an intelligent design theory.

Actually, I have shown you numerous times why it isn't falsifiable. First of all, the main tenet of ID has nothing to do with a closed or an open system. The main tenet is that there *has* to be an intelligent creator. As such, to disprove the idea, you would have to disprove the existence of such a creator - something which cannot be done.

Meanwhile, there is no *need* for an ID theory even if the universe is decreasing in entropy. If ID were scientific, they wouldn't say (as you state they do, even though what you state is not the actual "theory") "Look! Entropy is actually decreasing! Guess there's a God!", but would say "Entropy appears to actually be decreasing in the Universe. As such, the 2nd Law either has to be wrong, or there is an outside source of energy." It is specifically stating that such an outside source has to be an intelligent creator that makes the hypothesis unscientific.



It is a hypothesis, but not a scientific one. A lay-theory is essentially the same thing as a hypothesis.

Meanwhile, you have yet to show that the actual idea of ID (rather than your made-up one) actually follows the scientific method. In fact, it has been made quite clear to you that even your made-up version doesn't follow it.

[quote=jocabia]Mirriam-Webster:

Theory -
6 a : a hypothesis assumed for the sake of argument or investigation b : an unproved assumption : CONJECTURE c : a body of theorems presenting a concise systematic view of a subject <theory of equations>

Yes, this is the definition of a lay-theory.

Einstein's 'Hidden Variable' THEORY as it is often referred to in scientific texts never stood up to testing, in fact, when a test was divised relating to it, it failed testing. It's still a theory, just a disproven theory.

(a) I never said that words don't get misused. The leakiness of language is a big problem in these discussion.

(b) It is my understanding that the "hidden variable" idea was part of a larger theory.

(a) I never said that words don't get misused. The leakiness of language is a big problem in these discussion.

(b) It is my understanding that the "hidden variable" idea was part of a larger theory.
Hehehe we covered a lot of the same things lol

how productive is it to only ask for criticism from those that agree with the theory? are you looking for more ammunition for defending a shotty theory?

Just a general sort of randomly placed question towards those in the know about astrophysics:

The big bang was a singularity of infinite density which 'exploded' (for want of a better word) to form matter (after all the matter-antimatter annihilations and such), sort of, right?

Well, a black hole is a point of infinite density. What's to stop a black hole becoming a universe? :confused:Some theories have (or had) the possibility that the matter falling into the Black Hole 'spews out' as a new universe in a bubble of space-time on the other side...

I don't think those theories are current, though there is the interesting... calculation..? ...that beyond the Event Horizon the roles of at least one Space dimension and Time get reversed (travel towards the 'centre' is inexorable, time effectively becomes traversable in lieu) and with the time dimension being the 'imaginary' complement of a normal 'space' one (factored by sqrt(-1), that is) under normal circumstances that you might imagine that the singularity and the Event Horizon are effectively two 'ends' of the new time-dimension passing through a strange hybrid of space-time... (Rather than our normal cartesian coordinate system, it 'looks', if we could see within the EH, as if the polar coordinates of "angle around, angle up and distince in" plus "time" become "space1, space2, time" and "space3". It's possible that although space1 and space2 are polar, and space 3 was originally imaginary, that simple functions of these semi-polar coordinates could be interpreted as cartesian by 'inihabitants' of the mini-universe, but much as we cannot determine the 'prime axes' of our own 3D space and have to make it up, there'd be no distinction possibly within the Hole universe space... Really quite intruiging, anyway... :))
...I think that one's a bit far-fetched, but some of the maths adds up. Not sure about all of it, though... ;)


Apart from anything else, Hawking's (prior and revised) theories about such singularities and their surroundings don't tend to support the ideas (as I interpret them, though I'm hardly qualified to express professional views on the subject) but then who says he's right?

i must say that, as a Christian, i am ashamed of whoever has been doing what u r complaining about. i do have scientific backing, although not a whole lot, but none of it has anything to do with "this is just way to complicated to be an accident". mostly this evidence consists of holes in darwinian theory, but there is some other evidence too. for now, all i feel like telling u, as i'm pressed for time, is that there is a species of beetle and a tissue in the human body which, according to darwinian theory should not exist. humans have a second nervous cord connecting their brain to the rest of their body, and it is not located inside the spinal column. it is never used, except when someone breaks their neck and the main, spinal cord is cut off, in which case the secondary cord takes over all involuntary function, such as breathing, heart beat, etc. without this cord, no para- or quadra- palegics would be able to live, and yet until recently, anyone who suffered such a crippling wound would die anyways, and so the cord wass useless. if darwin is correct, this cord should not exist, because it served no purpose. the beetle, which i don't have time to get into, has several elements used to creat an explosion, which all must be created at once, if one comes before the other, or even PART of one comes before the whole of that one, the beetle will explode and, hopefully, die. another impossibillity. that's all the time i have, hope i haven't unduly pissed anyone off, as i have a habit of doing. God bless.

Just a general sort of randomly placed question towards those in the know about astrophysics:

The big bang was a singularity of infinite density which 'exploded' (for want of a better word) to form matter (after all the matter-antimatter annihilations and such), sort of, right?

Well, a black hole is a point of infinite density. What's to stop a black hole becoming a universe? :confused:
please note that a black hole is not a point of infinite density, only of immense density. if u study them, u will read that "larger black holes are less dense than smaller ones". as such, black holes merely have infinite, or nearly infinite, mass, not density.

i must say that, as a Christian, i am ashamed of whoever has been doing what u r complaining about. i do have scientific backing, although not a whole lot, but none of it has anything to do with "this is just way to complicated to be an accident". mostly this evidence consists of holes in darwinian theory, but there is some other evidence too. for now, all i feel like telling u, as i'm pressed for time, is that there is a species of beetle and a tissue in the human body which, according to darwinian theory should not exist. humans have a second nervous cord connecting their brain to the rest of their body, and it is not located inside the spinal column. it is never used, except when someone breaks their neck and the main, spinal cord is cut off, in which case the secondary cord takes over all involuntary function, such as breathing, heart beat, etc. without this cord, no para- or quadra- palegics would be able to live, and yet until recently, anyone who suffered such a crippling wound would die anyways, and so the cord wass useless. if darwin is correct, this cord should not exist, because it served no purpose. the beetle, which i don't have time to get into, has several elements used to creat an explosion, which all must be created at once, if one comes before the other, or even PART of one comes before the whole of that one, the beetle will explode and, hopefully, die. another impossibillity. that's all the time i have, hope i haven't unduly pissed anyone off, as i have a habit of doing. God bless.

Then you dont have scientific backing ... disproving darwin (which is NOT CURRENT EVOLUTIONARY THEORY) Would (if you could do it) PROVE NOTHING EXCEPT THAT DARWIN WAS WRONG

(sorry for the shouting)
Reminds me of this

ARGUMENT FROM CREATION
(1) If evolution is false, then creationism is true, and therefore God exists.
(2) Evolution can't be true, since I lack the mental capacity to understand it; moreover, to accept its truth would cause me to be uncomfortable
(3) Therefore, God exists.

Actually, I have shown you numerous times why it isn't falsifiable. First of all, the main tenet of ID has nothing to do with a closed or an open system. The main tenet is that there *has* to be an intelligent creator. As such, to disprove the idea, you would have to disprove the existence of such a creator - something which cannot be done.

Meanwhile, there is no *need* for an ID theory even if the universe is decreasing in entropy. If ID were scientific, they wouldn't say (as you state they do, even though what you state is not the actual "theory") "Look! Entropy is actually decreasing! Guess there's a God!", but would say "Entropy appears to actually be decreasing in the Universe. As such, the 2nd Law either has to be wrong, or there is an outside source of energy." It is specifically stating that such an outside source has to be an intelligent creator that makes the hypothesis unscientific.

It is a hypothesis, but not a scientific one. A lay-theory is essentially the same thing as a hypothesis.

Meanwhile, you have yet to show that the actual idea of ID (rather than your made-up one) actually follows the scientific method. In fact, it has been made quite clear to you that even your made-up version doesn't follow it.

Yes, this is the definition of a lay-theory.

So you've shown that the theory isn't provable. Good job! Like a million other theories. It can be supported or falsified though.

Let's try a similar theory. Someone brought me water at lunch. I hypothesize I didn't see the person who brought it to me so I postulate that person who brought it to me was shorter than the table so I could not see them deposit my water on the table. You don't have to prove there are no people shorter than the table. In fact, the fact that people shorter than the table exist has no bearing on whether a person shorter than the table brought my water. You need only show that the person who brought me the water was not shorter than the table or that, in fact, no water was brought to me at all.

The main posit of the theory is that the creators of ID believed there must be an external (outside the universe) source for evolution to move toward more complex creatures and they called the source intelligent. Prove there is no source or that the source is not intelligent and you have falsified the theory. And that is what the theory was originally before it was bastardized by creationists. The theory says that speciation that represents a move toward more complex creatures can not be explained by natural processes and, therefore, must have had a supernatural, intelligent influence.

You're not demonstrating the difference between a 'lay' theory and a scientific theory. A scientific theory must be falsifiable and must have been formed using scientific method. That's it. You are demonstrating the difference between any scientific theory and an accepted scientific theory (one widely used or believed by the scientific community).

i must say that, as a Christian, i am ashamed of whoever has been doing what u r complaining about. i do have scientific backing, although not a whole lot, but none of it has anything to do with "this is just way to complicated to be an accident". mostly this evidence consists of holes in darwinian theory, but there is some other evidence too. for now, all i feel like telling u, as i'm pressed for time, is that there is a species of beetle and a tissue in the human body which, according to darwinian theory should not exist. humans have a second nervous cord connecting their brain to the rest of their body, and it is not located inside the spinal column. it is never used, except when someone breaks their neck and the main, spinal cord is cut off, in which case the secondary cord takes over all involuntary function, such as breathing, heart beat, etc. without this cord, no para- or quadra- palegics would be able to live, and yet until recently, anyone who suffered such a crippling wound would die anyways, and so the cord wass useless. if darwin is correct, this cord should not exist, because it served no purpose. the beetle, which i don't have time to get into, has several elements used to creat an explosion, which all must be created at once, if one comes before the other, or even PART of one comes before the whole of that one, the beetle will explode and, hopefully, die. another impossibillity. that's all the time i have, hope i haven't unduly pissed anyone off, as i have a habit of doing. God bless.

Oh, no, not the ridiculous beetle theory. First, it is not true that all parts had to develop at the same time. They could have slowly developed over time with simpler mechanism that slowly became more complex. Actually, that's exactly what happened.

The cord should only not exist if it was never used at any time as humans developed. The fact it is not used today, or that the spleen isn't, et al, does not mean it shouldn't exist, just that you can't explain why it exists at this time.

please note that a black hole is not a point of infinite density, only of immense density. if u study them, u will read that "larger black holes are less dense than smaller ones". as such, black holes merely have infinite, or nearly infinite, mass, not density.
Ah. It must be that the English A-level system is dumbed down then. That definitely says 'infinite density due to zero volume.

And also, how is red shifting of most star absorption spectra explained without the big bang? I'd be interested to know.

i do have scientific backing, although not a whole lot, but none of it has anything to do with "this is just way to complicated to be an accident".

Then you are not espousing the ID "theory."

mostly this evidence consists of holes in darwinian theory, but there is some other evidence too.

Problems with one theory are not evidence of another. I could propose a "theory" that the world was created by pink elephants from deep space. Pointing out the unresolved portions of evolutionary theory would not support that in the least.

humans have a second nervous cord connecting their brain to the rest of their body, and it is not located inside the spinal column. it is never used, except when someone breaks their neck and the main, spinal cord is cut off, in which case the secondary cord takes over all involuntary function, such as breathing, heart beat, etc. without this cord, no para- or quadra- palegics would be able to live, and yet until recently, anyone who suffered such a crippling wound would die anyways, and so the cord wass useless. if darwin is correct, this cord should not exist, because it served no purpose.

(a) Please provide a source for this, as I have been studying biology for years and never heard of it.

(b) You demonstrate a complete misunderstanding of evolutionary theory. The theory does not state that every mutation which is kept must have a purpose - natural selection wouldn't even work at that point. It states that mutations which make it harder for a creature to survive and reproduce will be selected out and that mutations that make it easier will be selected for. Mutations which do neither may very well get passed on, and if they are needed at some point, they will be selected for.

the beetle, which i don't have time to get into, has several elements used to creat an explosion, which all must be created at once, if one comes before the other, or even PART of one comes before the whole of that one, the beetle will explode and, hopefully, die. another impossibillity. that's all the time i have, hope i haven't unduly pissed anyone off, as i have a habit of doing. God bless.

Again, this is a complete misunderstanding of the theory. There is absolutely no reason to believe that all of the mutations in the bombadier beetle happened all at once.

So you've shown that the theory isn't provable. Good job! Like a million other theories. It can be supported or falsified though.

I really think you are being obtuse on purpose. I said nothing about "provable", as no scientific theory is "provable." I demonstrated that ID is not disprovable because its main tenet involves an intelligent outside the rules of the universe, and thus outside of science.

Let's try a similar theory. Someone brought me water at lunch. I hypothesize I didn't see the person who brought it to me so I postulate that person who brought it to me was shorter than the table so I could not see them deposit my water on the table. You don't have to prove there are no people shorter than the table. In fact, the fact that people shorter than the table exist has no bearing on whether a person shorter than the table brought my water. You need only show that the person who brought me the water was not shorter than the table or that, in fact, no water was brought to me at all.

Now, pretend that you didn't say short person, but said "God". If I pointed out that no water was brought to you, you would just say "Well, it was God who didn't bring me the water."

The main posit of the theory is that the creators of ID believed there must be an external (outside the universe) source for evolution to move toward more complex creatures and they called the source intelligent.

(a) Positing something outside the universe immediately takes you outside the realm of science.

(b) Positing that the something is intelligent is an important point - because you have introduced a main part of your hypothesis that is completely unprovable.

(c) The proponents of ID actually discount evolution altogether, bringing up things that they think could not have possibly occurred by chance. It is not that they think there has to be an outside source causing creatures to become more complex, but that the complexity had to come *directly* from an intelligent creator without incremental steps.

Prove there is no source or that the source is not intelligent and you have falsified the theory.

Neither of which can be proven (or disproven).

And that is what the theory was originally before it was bastardized by creationists. The theory says that speciation that represents a move toward more complex creatures can not be explained by natural processes and, therefore, must have had a supernatural, intelligent influence.

ID has never mentioned a "move towards complexity", as its tenet explicitly states that the complexity could not have happened incrementally, but had to be immediate.

You're not demonstrating the difference between a 'lay' theory and a scientific theory. A scientific theory must be falsifiable and must have been formed using scientific method. That's it. You are demonstrating the difference between any scientific theory and an accepted scientific theory (one widely used or believed by the scientific community).

No, I am demonstrating the difference between a lay theory and a scientific theory. You just have a skewed understanding of the scientific method (as do most laypeople).

The cord should only not exist if it was never used at any time as humans developed. The fact it is not used today, or that the spleen isn't, et al, does not mean it shouldn't exist, just that you can't explain why it exists at this time.

THis would still be incorrect. The cord should not exist if it provides a disadvantage to the species. If it provides neither a disadvantage nor an advantage, then it may or many not exist, depending on random mutation.

Edit: Just to clarify, even a disadvantage would not necessarily mean that it would not exist, just that it would be selected out over a long time period.

The 'primeval atom' or singularity preceded the universe because the universe came from it. It was the first event and from it came the universe. Unless you posit the universe came from itself. Do you? I'd also like to point out that singularity here is just another word for 'thing' because it has no real definable characteristics other than the universe came from it.

As to your third argument, who mentioned God being involved in the Big Bang? I didn't. I'm not attacking the premise of the primeval atom or singularity. I'm suggesting that it's accepted only because no intelligence is assigned to the sigularity. In fact, to be fair, it does not in any way dispute the idea of intelligence either. However, there is no law in science that intelligence can't be assigned to explanation of some sort of supernatural (outside the universe) interference.

Again, since no seems to see what I'm suggesting and since people keeping mixing creation in with ID, I'll point out that I think creation is wholly unscientific. However, I do believe that ID follows scientific method, however tenuous that the connection to scientific method might be. A bunch of scientist made an observation and then posited a theory that explained that observation. The observation and the theory is yet to be falsified. Bam! Scientific theory.

Then, a bunch of creationist idiots clung to this theory, bastardized it and tried to get it into schools. Schools should only accept agnostic scientific theories by the seperation of church and state and, thus, should not allow ID to be taught.

As far as what I believe, I believe in a supreme being and that this supreme being intended for us to have faith. If that supreme being would or could ever be proven then it would be knowledge and not faith. Therefore, I think that supreme being intended for there to be no clear footprints establishing his/her/its existence. Following that, I think ID is absolutely going to be disproven, but I'm willing to wait for that to occur.

The 'Primeval Atom' or 'Singularity' is posited as the First Event, if you will.

Before that, the theory is that (most likely - there are several different opinions) there was nothing at all - no space, no time, no 'before'.

Thus - everything 'began' to exist as soon as the 'Primeval Atom' or 'Singularity' (very different things - I'd recommend you looked up 'Singularity' - your assertion it has 'no meaning' is either misguided, or just plain wrong) 'began' to exist.

The 'Singularity' didn't begin the universe, it was the first step in the beginning of the universe.

Personally - my preference is for a cyclical universe model - each 'new' universe created from the dying remains of the 'old' universe model.

ID requires an entity to exist, and intervene, but to remain unobservable... and that premise MUST inform any consideration of ID. Thus, any consideration of ID MUST be 'unscientific'.

The comparison to the other mechanism is that life either would not have occurred or assuming it did occur would have remained very simple. Certainly, an argument could be made for simpler organisms being more efficient. They are smaller (thus more can exist), have shorter lifespans and thus evolve more quickly, less impact on the environment, etc. The biggest argument that more complex organisms are more efficient is that they exist.



I disagree.

Yes - there are occasions on which a smaller entity is more efficient, and for many of the reasons you just listed... but efficiency doesn't just run on one or two factors.

Example: An environment where the only food source available is fruit, on high branches.

A small animal with no climbing capacity may be more efficient in some situations, but when it comes to high branches his winged/long-necked/climbing associates have a greater 'efficiency'. They do not have to wait for fruit to fall, thus they have a greater access to the food supply, thus they are more likely to reproduce successfully, and to be able to sustain young.

I disagree.

Yes - there are occasions on which a smaller entity is more efficient, and for many of the reasons you just listed... but efficiency doesn't just run on one or two factors.

Example: An environment where the only food source available is fruit, on high branches.

A small animal with no climbing capacity may be more efficient in some situations, but when it comes to high branches his winged/long-necked/climbing associates have a greater 'efficiency'. They do not have to wait for fruit to fall, thus they have a greater access to the food supply, thus they are more likely to reproduce successfully, and to be able to sustain young.

Exactly ... efficency is usualy mesured by ability to do a task or perform an operation

You have to be able to DO thus stated task otherwise you cant even start to mesure efficency

Yes, I've noticed that which is why you keep ignoring when I say that it is falsifiable and you've never proven it isn't. If one can show that a closed system including life that is evolving into more complex organisms is increasing in entropy then there is no need for supernatural (existing outside of the universe) interference, and thus no need for an intelligent design theory.

Now you dispute that it's a theory, since I showed it adheres to scientific method. Before it was a 'lay' theory and just not a scientific theory because it didn't adhere to scientific method. Make up your mind.

Mirriam-Webster:

Theory -
6 a : a hypothesis assumed for the sake of argument or investigation b : an unproved assumption : CONJECTURE c : a body of theorems presenting a concise systematic view of a subject <theory of equations>

A hypothesis is a theory. It will remain a theory until it is disproven. Conjecture in this case referring to a proposition before it has proved or disproved.

"Intelligent Design" requires an outside 'Intelligence" - hence the name.

Since such an intelligence cannot be disproved (or proved) the 'theory' is not falsifiable... thus - the model is not a 'scientific' theory.

And - quoting Mirriam-Webster won't help you. We are discussing ID in it's scientific capacity, and the scientific definition of 'Theory' is much more rigourous than the 'lay-definition' (which is what Mirriam-Webster gives).

Exactly ... efficency is usualy mesured by ability to do a task or perform an operation

You have to be able to DO thus stated task otherwise you cant even start to mesure efficency

And that is pretty much what evolution is: selection based on efficiency... in a given environment.

Our tree-climbing creature is pretty much out of luck when the drought hits and the trees die.... then the most 'efficient' beast around becomes the one that can seek shelter in some fashion, and eke a living out of that barren desert.

And our little desert-lizard is well out of luck when the big rain comes, and all the food is found in 6 inches of water...

"Intelligent Design" requires an outside 'Intelligence" - hence the name.

Since such an intelligence cannot be disproved (or proved) the 'theory' is not falsifiable... thus - the model is not a 'scientific' theory.

And - quoting Mirriam-Webster won't help you. We are discussing ID in it's scientific capacity, and the scientific definition of 'Theory' is much more rigourous than the 'lay-definition' (which is what Mirriam-Webster gives).
Yup which is why most of us make the deffinition between Scientific theory and just theory

can anyone 'prove' that there was no 'Intelligent Design' behind evolution?

after all, in today's technology, we can program computers remotely or through wireless connections. Viruses and trojans can infect and change programs without the user knowing.

can all these 'random mutations' actually be instead upgrades. New diseases to strengthen personal immunities. changes in the envrionment to improve adaptability... can you prove that these are not done on purpose or are you calling them random because you don't see the creator?

can anyone 'prove' that there was no 'Intelligent Design' behind evolution?

Science cannot "prove" anything. It can only disprove things, and only concerns itself with those ideas which can be disproven. As such, science cannot state *anything* about a possible intelligent designer.

after all, in today's technology, we can program computers remotely or through wireless connections. Viruses and trojans can infect and change programs without the user knowing.

can all these 'random mutations' actually be instead upgrades. New diseases to strengthen personal immunities. changes in the envrionment to improve adaptability... can you prove that these are not done on purpose or are you calling them random because you don't see the creator?

Of course they *can* be put there by a creator. That is not the point. Science doesn't concern itself with a creator because a creator is outside the realm of science by definition. An intelligent creator can be neither proven nor disproven. As such, a scientific definition must leave room for either possibility.

We talk about evolution and mutations in the way that we observe them. Science does not posit that there is a designer behind it all, nor does it posit that there is not. Science is completely neutral on the issue.

can anyone 'prove' that there was no 'Intelligent Design' behind evolution?

after all, in today's technology, we can program computers remotely or through wireless connections. Viruses and trojans can infect and change programs without the user knowing.

can all these 'random mutations' actually be instead upgrades. New diseases to strengthen personal immunities. changes in the envrionment to improve adaptability... can you prove that these are not done on purpose or are you calling them random because you don't see the creator?

"Evolution" as a theory, doesn't 'care' whether "God" is the inspiration behind it. Evolution is (basically) the theory that fitter entities survive better.

To imply that 'god' started that process, is to move outside of the 'theory' of evolution, outside of the scientific premise, and outside of falsifiable premises.

Thus - adding 'god' into the equation invalidates it as scientific theory...

However, the theory of evolution is a 'scientific' theory, and you are welcome to BELIEVE that 'god' created or steers that process.... it is just unscientific to make THAT assumption PART of the theory.

Science cannot "prove" anything. It can only disprove things, and only concerns itself with those ideas which can be disproven. As such, science cannot state *anything* about a possible intelligent designer.No, Science can also prove things as well. it proved that man cannot survive without oxygen, it Proved the theory that the world is round. it proved that the sun, and not the Earth is the center of the solar system. Science is not just finding the falsehoods, but also finding the truth.

Of course they *can* be put there by a creator. That is not the point. Science doesn't concern itself with a creator because a creator is outside the realm of science by definition. An intelligent creator can be neither proven nor disproven. As such, a scientific definition must leave room for either possibility.but to disguard it because it cannot be disproven (or proven for that matter) is irrisponsible of science. alot of theories are and were considered hogwash by the general community until a few brave souls defied normal standing to put them to the test. one cannot say "well it's not science so I'm ignoring it" is rather stupid... don't you think?

We talk about evolution and mutations in the way that we observe them. Science does not posit that there is a designer behind it all, nor does it posit that there is not. Science is completely neutral on the issue.
You're saying one cannot prove or disprove (yet) Intelligent Design. after all, all we are doing is trying to reverse engineer what was made.

I can accept that.

what I cannot accept is that while it cannot either be proven or disproven, you have people calling Creationist or people who believe in a divine being crazy.

True science accepts all theories, no matter how outlandish, until it is disproven (or proven) it's stil a valid theory.

No, Science can also prove things as well.

By the very definition of the scientific theory, it can do no such thing.

it proved that man cannot survive without oxygen,

No, we have disproven the idea that human beings can survive without oxygen. It may sound like mere semantics to you, but the logical differences are huge.

it Proved the theory that the world is round.

No, it disproved the idea that the world is flat. If we found new evidence tomorrow that the world is, in fact, more hexagonal, we would have to change the theory.

Science is not just finding the falsehoods, but also finding the truth.

Science is about finding truth, yes. However, the method is by disproving falsehoods, as science recognizes that nothing can ever logically be proven by these methods.

but to disguard it because it cannot be disproven (or proven for that matter) is irrisponsible of science.

Note that it is disregarded by science, not by scientists.

It cannot be disproven, so it is not in the realm of science. That doesn't necessarily make it any less true.

alot of theories are and were considered hogwash by the general community until a few brave souls defied normal standing to put them to the test. one cannot say "well it's not science so I'm ignoring it" is rather stupid... don't you think?

If anyone was saying that, I would agree. However, we are simply saying that it is not "scientific" and should not be taught in a *science class*, not that it should be discarded out of hand.

You're saying one cannot prove or disprove (yet) Intelligent Design. after all, all we are doing is trying to reverse engineer what was made.

By including the "yet", you made a fallacious statement. We cannot prove something beyond the reaches of the universe - ever. It could reveal itself to us, but we cannot actively prove it.

what I cannot accept is that while it cannot either be proven or disproven, you have people calling Creationist or people who believe in a divine being crazy.

Claiming their ideas as "science" *is* crazy. Claiming their ideas as religion is not.

True science accepts all theories, no matter how outlandish, until it is disproven (or proven) it's stil a valid theory.

Wrong. Science accepts all hypotheses until they are tested. Once tested, the conclusions drawn can become a theory. If it cannot be tested and possibly disproven, it is not a scientific hypothesis and science *cannot* do anything about it. You, like so many others, are confusing the scientific definition of the term theory with the lay definition.

"Evolution" as a theory, doesn't 'care' whether "God" is the inspiration behind it. Evolution is (basically) the theory that fitter entities survive better.

To imply that 'god' started that process, is to move outside of the 'theory' of evolution, outside of the scientific premise, and outside of falsifiable premises.

Thus - adding 'god' into the equation invalidates it as scientific theory...

However, the theory of evolution is a 'scientific' theory, and you are welcome to BELIEVE that 'god' created or steers that process.... it is just unscientific to make THAT assumption PART of the theory.as it is Unscentific to discount a theory on the grounds that it sounds silly, or cannot be proven yet.

doesn't science seek out the truth. isn't it suppose to weed out the falsehoods and leave the polished truths?

as it is Unscentific to discount a theory on the grounds that it sounds silly, or cannot be proven yet.

The existence or non-existence of a God, by definition, cannot be proven or disproven by scientific methods. As such, science can neither posit the existence nor the non-existence of any such being. It isn't being discounted fully because it cannot be proven *yet*, but is being discounted as scientific because it cannot be proven, period.

doesn't science seek out the truth. isn't it suppose to weed out the falsehoods and leave the polished truths?

Absolutely, but the realm of science is limited to the rules of *this* universe. An all powerful being which made and can break those rules, or anything which exists outside of our universe, is completely outside the realm of science. As such, it is outside the areas in which science can seek the truth.

as it is Unscentific to discount a theory on the grounds that it sounds silly, or cannot be proven yet.

doesn't science seek out the truth. isn't it suppose to weed out the falsehoods and leave the polished truths?
When did he say anything about soounding silly ... by DEFFINITION god can NOT be proven because he exists outside of the universe
its not a matter of "yet" if he exists he can never be proven
As such non provable facts can NOT be part of a SCIENTIFIC theory

We are talking deffinitions here

as it is Unscentific to discount a theory on the grounds that it sounds silly, or cannot be proven yet.

doesn't science seek out the truth. isn't it suppose to weed out the falsehoods and leave the polished truths?

That doesn't seem to make any sense?

'Truth' in science is accepted as a malleable thing... science doesn't seek to explain anything in terms of "this is how it definitely was", but in terms of "this is what the evidence suggests".

It is unscientific to add to the observable, something which cannot be falsified... be that 'god', 'unicorns' or 'goblins'.

It is not 'unscientific' to discount a theory that sounds silly, IF that theory does not meet scientific criteria.

I really think you are being obtuse on purpose. I said nothing about "provable", as no scientific theory is "provable." I demonstrated that ID is not disprovable because its main tenet involves an intelligent outside the rules of the universe, and thus outside of science.

You're right. I was. So were you. I think I made it obvious that I was doing it on purpose. Apparently, I was effective. Yay me.

Now, pretend that you didn't say short person, but said "God". If I pointed out that no water was brought to you, you would just say "Well, it was God who didn't bring me the water."

Now you're just being silly. Because some people are unreasonable about God doesn't fulfill your assertion that the theory is unfalsifiable. I'd say nice try, but it wasn't really. It made me laugh, if that helps. For the record, I would say, "God can't bring me water because this would undermine faith." I would never posit anything about God acting in the world, since I believe the world is entirely naturally explainable, by design. This does not mean I would deny anyone else the right to, nor would I deny them the right to be disproven. Hell, scientists have been coming up with theories that weren't even close for centuries.

(a) Positing something outside the universe immediately takes you outside the realm of science.

(b) Positing that the something is intelligent is an important point - because you have introduced a main part of your hypothesis that is completely unprovable.

I brought up the singularity, the primeval atom, for just that reason. It also is completely unprovable. It is not falsifiable and thus the other parts of the theory would have to be falsified to make it not necessary.

(c) The proponents of ID actually discount evolution altogether, bringing up things that they think could not have possibly occurred by chance. It is not that they think there has to be an outside source causing creatures to become more complex, but that the complexity had to come *directly* from an intelligent creator without incremental steps.

Neither of which can be proven (or disproven).

ID has never mentioned a "move towards complexity", as its tenet explicitly states that the complexity could not have happened incrementally, but had to be immediate.

You are confusing the Behe's theory (which is essentially creationism) and a theory of Intelligent Design that can be reviewed in Dembski's The Design Inference which supports evolution but suggests that the selection was not entirely natural and had intelligent input. I admit I haven't read the book, but it is what brought about the sudden interest in Intelligent Design and I have read his theory.

No, I am demonstrating the difference between a lay theory and a scientific theory. You just have a skewed understanding of the scientific method (as do most laypeople).

I'm not a layperson. I'm an engineer and I'm, in fact, published (admittedly, in rather obscure journals that only pertain to my specialty and in one generalized scientific journal in 1990 for a theory I proposed relating to aerobic low-impact exercise and aging). I've discussed exactly how I've presented scientific theory to you and that I was relating it to ID with other scientists. They think ID is crap, but they agree that it's a scientific theory. They did say that no scientist who wants to be taken seriously would ever mention God in a theory, but they don't attribute that to theories including God being unfalsifiable so much as a bias against theists. If a scientist was doing archeological and historical research to support the bible, he would be equally shunned, no matter how scientific his methods were.

No, we have disproven the idea that human beings can survive without oxygen. It may sound like mere semantics to you, but the logical differences are huge.

I realized in the car that I actually misspoke here - and no one corrected me =(

We actually have neither proven that human beings cannot survive without oxygen nor disproven that human beings can survive without oxygen. In order to do either, we would have to try every single imaginable scenario in which there is no oxygen present. What we have done is disproved several smaller hypotheses that, together, support the *theory* that human beings cannot live without oxygen. We have disproven that human beings can survive under water, where there lungs are unable to oxygenate. We have disproven that human beings can live in an environment in which they cannot get large amounts of oxygen, like too far up in the air or in a gas chamber. And so on, and so on. These experiences support the theory, but do not *prove* it, as we have not tried everything yet.

You're right. I was. So were you. I think I made it obvious that I was doing it on purpose. Apparently, I was effective. Yay me.

No, I am being entirely serious.

Now you're just being silly. Because some people are unreasonable about God doesn't fulfill your assertion that the theory is unfalsifiable. I'd say nice try, but it wasn't really. It made me laugh, if that helps. For the record, I would say, "God can't bring me water because this would undermine faith." I would never posit anything about God acting in the world, since I believe the world is entirely naturally explainable, by design. This does not mean I would deny anyone else the right to, nor would I deny them the right to be disproven. Hell, scientists have been coming up with theories that weren't even close for centuries.

By definition, science can never disprove God. Science is only concerned with the way the universe works, the rules of the universe, if you will. Anything outside of that (which an all-powerful being would, by definition, be) is outside the realm of science.

I brought up the singularity, the primeval atom, for just that reason. It also is completely unprovable. It is not falsifiable and thus the other parts of the theory would have to be falsified to make it not necessary.

Everything in science is unprovable. However, a singularity is disprovable.

You are confusing the Behe's theory (which is essentially creationism) and a theory of Intelligent Design that can be reviewed in Dembski's The Design Inference which supports evolution but suggests that the selection was not entirely natural and had intelligent input. I admit I haven't read the book, but it is what brought about the sudden interest in Intelligent Design and I have read his theory.

No, I am speaking of ID, on which I have seen speakers and read articles.

I'm not a layperson. I'm an engineer and I'm, in fact, published (admittedly, in rather obscure journals that only pertain to my specialty and in one generalized scientific journal in 1990 for a theory I proposed relating to aerobic low-impact exercise and aging).

As both an engineer and a scientist, I would dispute the idea that being an engineer makes you an expert on science.

I've discussed exactly how I've presented scientific theory to you and that I was relating it to ID with other scientists.

You have presented me with an unscientific proposal. Stating, "there must be some other source of energy" is a scientific premise. Stating, "the source of energy I propose *must* be God," is not.

They think ID is crap, but they agree that it's a scientific theory. They did say that no scientist who wants to be taken seriously would ever mention God in a theory, but they don't attribute that to theories including God being unfalsifiable so much as a bias against theists.

Sounds like you are hanging out with some awfully unprofessional scientists.

If a scientist was doing archeological and historical research to support the bible, he would be equally shunned, no matter how scientific his methods were.

If a scientist were doing archeological and historical research with the intent of supporting the Bible, his methods would be automatically unscientific, as he would have begun with his conclusion already in hand.

I'm not a layperson. I'm an engineer and I'm, in fact, published (admittedly, in rather obscure journals that only pertain to my specialty and in one generalized scientific journal in 1990 for a theory I proposed relating to aerobic low-impact exercise and aging). I've discussed exactly how I've presented scientific theory to you and that I was relating it to ID with other scientists. They think ID is crap, but they agree that it's a scientific theory. They did say that no scientist who wants to be taken seriously would ever mention God in a theory, but they don't attribute that to theories including God being unfalsifiable so much as a bias against theists. If a scientist was doing archeological and historical research to support the bible, he would be equally shunned, no matter how scientific his methods were.

If you consider that a 'scientific' theory can have non-scientific elements, then I am afraid you ARE a lay-person, no matter what you think your 'qualifications' prove to the contrary.

A scientist may dislike the idea of theology intruding on science, but the REASON why 'god' and science don't mix, is the necessity for an unfalsifiable assumption.

Anyone who told you otherwise is doing a poor service to the field of science.

Everything in science is unprovable. However, a singularity is disprovable.

No, I am speaking of ID, on which I have seen speakers and read articles.

As both an engineer and a scientist, I would dispute the idea that being an engineer makes you an expert on science.

You have presented me with an unscientific proposal. Stating, "there must be some other source of energy" is a scientific premise. Stating, "the source of energy I propose *must* be God," is not.

Sounds like you are hanging out with some awfully unprofessional scientists.

If a scientist were doing archeological and historical research with the intent of supporting the Bible, his methods would be automatically unscientific, as he would have begun with his conclusion already in hand.

You called God unprovable and, therefore, unscientific. I used your word. If you don't like the word, don't use it. You can not disprove the existence of the singularity, you can only disprove the rest of the theory. Same with ID.

Behe is responsible for that beetle crap and for directly disputing evolution. ID theory does not require that evolution be completely wrong, but only incomplete. You can't decide to force a theory to include some of the theories that are similar just to make it ridiculous. I told you specifically what I was referring to, referring to any other similar theory is silly.

Scientists often look for evidence that supports theories. They often create expiriments they believe will dispel some argument against their theories. Basically, the expiriment will be to show that some exception to a theory does no exist, like the theories to dispel the "Hidden Variable", the exception to QM. The experiments for the hidden variable began with the end in mind, they were designed specifically to show there was no hidden variable. To suggest otherwise, is simply fallacious.

Ignoring evidence or results because it does not fit with your hypothesis is unscientific, but expecting results is normal.

Looking for evidence in the fossil record of a flood that affected the whole world at the same time is not unscientific as we can't really establish a negative we can't really look for evidence it didn't occur. As someone said to me at lunch today. I can throw every reindeer I can find off a roof and watch them go splat but that doesn't prove that reindeers can't fly, it only shows that those reindeer didn't. They could have been able to fly and just didn't choose to or I might not have found a flying reindeer yet or maybe flying reindeer no longer exist.

Actually, intelligent design also does not mention God. God is a specific deity. Intelligent design posits an intelligent source. That's all. Continually spouting that an intelligent source is unscientific will not make it so. The entire theory is what I told you. Show me that it's not falsifiable or that it violates scientific method or admit that you can't. It's simple. I've shown you specifically how it adheres to scientific method and how it is falsifiable. You disputed this by saying everything from "wah, that's not the theory" to no, I have to prove there's no God or the theory stands. Neither of those are true. Try addressing what I've presented instead of what you wish I was presenting. Don't lump me in with those creation idiots. Don't try to tell me an unfalsifiable element in a theory is not allowed unless you can show how a singularity at the beginning of the universe if falsifiable. Don't try to change what I say. Don't use what other people have said to support what I'm arguing for. Address me. Deal with what I've presented. Or admit you can't.

If you consider that a 'scientific' theory can have non-scientific elements, then I am afraid you ARE a lay-person, no matter what you think your 'qualifications' prove to the contrary.

A scientist may dislike the idea of theology intruding on science, but the REASON why 'god' and science don't mix, is the necessity for an unfalsifiable assumption.

Anyone who told you otherwise is doing a poor service to the field of science.

Fine present an experiment where you falsify the existence of a singularity at the start of the Big Bang and I'll concede. Now remember according to both of you falsifying the Big Bang itself isn't enough. There can be no unfalsifiable element.

Fine present an experiment where you falsify the existence of a singularity at the start of the Big Bang and I'll concede. Now remember according to both of you falsifying the Big Bang itself isn't enough. There can be no unfalsifiable element.
Easy enough: Find evidence that suggests that the big bang did not come from a single centralized source, but instead the universe popped into being (randomly) and has been expanding ever since, every point in every direction but slowly pushing out against eachother to create the appearance of expansion.

Easy enough: Find evidence that suggests that the big bang did not come from a single centralized source, but instead the universe popped into being (randomly) and has been expanding ever since, every point in every direction but slowly pushing out against eachother to create the appearance of expansion.

A centralized source does not require a singularity. Therefore, you are dealing with another aspect of the theory and the specific singularity. Try again.

A centralized source does not require a singularity. Therefore, you are dealing with another aspect of the theory and the specific singularity. Try again.
A noncentralized source would disprove the hypothesis of one single singularity. Try again.

As both an engineer and a scientist, I would dispute the idea that being an engineer makes you an expert on science.


By the way, what kind of scientist are you?

A noncentralized source would disprove the hypothesis of one single singularity. Try again.

Doesn't matter. Falsifying the Big Bang theory would do that that too, but it doesn't address the singularity itself it just eliminates the need for such a singularity.

Doesn't matter. Falsifying the Big Bang theory would do that that too, but it doesn't address the singularity itself it just eliminates the need for such a singularity.
Which makes the big bang theory falsifyable. Isn't that the point of this entire dicussion?

Which makes the big bang theory falsifyable. Isn't that the point of this entire dicussion?

Um, no. I showed that ID is falsifiable. They have a problem with a single aspect of the theory not being falsifiable. I said falsify the theory you don't need the "Intelligent source". That's not good enough for them, so I gave them the same burden with Big Bang.

Which makes the big bang theory falsifyable. Isn't that the point of this entire dicussion?I thought it was the concept of Intelligent Design behind life on Earth.

Um, no. I showed that ID is falsifiable. They have a problem with a single aspect of the theory not being falsifiable. I said falsify the theory you don't need the "Intelligent source". That's not good enough for them, so I gave them the same burden with Big Bang.which aspect is not being Falsifiable?

and for Scientific Methods, don't you need proof?

You called God unprovable and, therefore, unscientific. I used your word. If you don't like the word, don't use it. You can not disprove the existence of the singularity, you can only disprove the rest of the theory. Same with ID.

Actually, I specifically stated that God is neither provable nor disprovable.

Meanwhile, it is possible to disprove that singularities exist. It is not possible to prove that God, or an intelligent creator, does not exist.

ID theory does not require that evolution be completely wrong, but only incomplete.

Hell, evolution requries that evolution be incomplete, as all scientific theories are.

You can't decide to force a theory to include some of the theories that are similar just to make it ridiculous. I told you specifically what I was referring to, referring to any other similar theory is silly.

I wasn't forcing anything - I was stating what the idea of ID states. You have brought up another idea, which I have also shown to be based on premises which cannot be disproven.

Scientists often look for evidence that supports theories. They often create expiriments they believe will dispel some argument against their theories. Basically, the expiriment will be to show that some exception to a theory does no exist, like the theories to dispel the "Hidden Variable", the exception to QM. The experiments for the hidden variable began with the end in mind, they were designed specifically to show there was no hidden variable. To suggest otherwise, is simply fallacious.

Experiments are always designed to disprove a hypothesis. That is not the same as saying, "I am going to prove that there was a big flood. Let me search for evidence that backs me up."

Looking for evidence in the fossil record of a flood that affected the whole world at the same time is not unscientific as we can't really establish a negative we can't really look for evidence it didn't occur.

However, a lack of evidence that it didn't occur backs up the idea that there was no flood. Those who go out looking to "prove" the Bible are unwilling to admit it when they have found no evidence to back up their idea and, instead, keep insisting, "But there is evidence out there. I just know it, I'm going to find it!"

As someone said to me at lunch today. I can throw every reindeer I can find off a roof and watch them go splat but that doesn't prove that reindeers can't fly, it only shows that those reindeer didn't. They could have been able to fly and just didn't choose to or I might not have found a flying reindeer yet or maybe flying reindeer no longer exist.

Yes, but you are not still saying "Reindeer can fly! I know it and I'll prove it!!"

Actually, intelligent design also does not mention God. God is a specific deity. Intelligent design posits an intelligent source. That's all.

I use "God" to refer to an all-powerful being which created the universe - so it is the same thing.

Continually spouting that an intelligent source is unscientific will not make it so. The entire theory is what I told you. Show me that it's not falsifiable or that it violates scientific method or admit that you can't.

I have shown you this several times. It isn't my fault that you refuse to see it. By definition, an intelligent creator lies outside that which we can measure. As such, it is outside the realm of science.

It's simple. I've shown you specifically how it adheres to scientific method and how it is falsifiable.

No, you have shown me how parts of it are falsifiable, not how the main tenet - that there is an intelligent creator - is falsifiable. Remember that scientific theories change with new evidence. It may be possible to disprove the idea that there is decreasing entropy in the universe, but that would *change* a theory such as ID, not end it. Those who proclaim an intelligent being in their "science" would simply incorporate that and still say, "Well, it is still complex, so a designer had to be involved."

You disputed this by saying everything from "wah, that's not the theory" to no, I have to prove there's no God or the theory stands.

THe unscientific part of the theory still stands, whether you disprove all the rest or not. That is precisely why it is unscientific.

Try addressing what I've presented instead of what you wish I was presenting.

I have, repeatedly.

Don't try to tell me an unfalsifiable element in a theory is not allowed unless you can show how a singularity at the beginning of the universe if falsifiable.

There are two points to make here:

(a) The very definition of a singularity was derived from the evidence, while the idea of an intelligent creator is (1) derived from religion and (2) completely unecessary to the idea behind ID as you have described it.

(b) The physics behind a singularity are falsifiable. The existence of an intelligent creator is not.

By the way, what kind of scientist are you?

I am a bioengineer working in a stem cell biology lab, so I suppose you would say I am a stem cell biologist. =)

Um, no. I showed that ID is falsifiable. They have a problem with a single aspect of the theory not being falsifiable. I said falsify the theory you don't need the "Intelligent source". That's not good enough for them, so I gave them the same burden with Big Bang.

You also ignore the fact that to have the theory as you presented it, an intelligent source is already unecessary and completely devoid of evidence (considering that there can be none). It would be like me adding in an invisible hand to the theory of gravity - unnecessary.

I thought it was the concept of Intelligent Design behind life on Earth.

Actually, no, it is a particular idea of such which claims that current theories are incorrect.

The idea that there was an intelligent designer is completely outside the realm of science, and is neither here nor there.

I am a bioengineer working in a stem cell biology lab, so I suppose you would say I am a stem cell biologist. =)

Well, while I've done a great deal of research in the past, my current work mostly centers around printing money (read: money is the driving factor for what I do). I work for an engineering firm but for the last six months calling me a business man would be a bit more apt. Now I have to fulfill my need for expanding my knowledge and exploring theory in my free time. The money's good so I shouldn't complain, right?

I'm not sure what you're asking us all to disprove.

The history/development of the Big Bang Theory goes, as far as I know, as follows.

The initial impetus for some sort of theory were the equations of general relativity, confirmed elsewhere. According to general relativity, a static universe was impossible - it had to be either expanding or contracting.

Einstein tried to mess with the equations and put in a "fudge factor" to make the universe static; but soon after, observations of galactic reshifts pretty conclusively confirmed that the the universe was, in fact expanding, since all galaxies seemed to be moving away from us proportionally to their distance from us.

(Potential exception - if for some reason light passing through "empty space" is somehow redshifted, this would mean that galactic redshifts roughly proportional to distance do not imply that galaxies are receding. However, as far as we know so far, light passes through empty space unchanged; if future experiments show that empty space in fact ever so slightly redshifts light passing through it, then that would most likely call for most likely scrapping or at the very least significantly revising Big Bang theory.)

That left several possibilities.

1) Matter is constantly being created and is expanding out, with no "beginning" necessary. The universe could look roughly the same no matter how far back you look, if matter was slowly being created and forming into galaxies and expanding out. (Steady-state theory)

2) The universe has been expanding for as long as it has existed - this would mean that at the beginning of time, the universe had some size, which is constantly expanding.

3) The universe had been contracting, and then changed direction and is now expanding.

4) Other exotic options I can't think of right now; I'm sure there are some.

The steady-state theory was disproven by the observation that as you look further away (i.e. looking at events that happened further back in time), the universe looks different, meaning that it is in fact changing markedly over time. This didn't conclusively disprove it, since of course it is possible for the hypothetical matter-generation to result in a change over time, but it significantly undercut it - it began to seem more and more like an ad hoc assumption.

Options 2 and 3 both have the same structure - they differ in what happened "before" the expansion. Option 2 would claim that the expansion is all there was, there was no "before," while option 3 would posit that there isn't a need for such a "beginning," there could have been contraction before then.

From then on, the modus operandum was pretty simple - use general relativity to "trace back in time" the universe and see from where it could have gotten to where it is now.

For example, looking at the motion of the galaxies, scientists showed that it was impossible for the galaxies to have simply flown close to each other; calculating where they came from, they seem to come from the same point ("point" as far as galaxies go - close enough so that they could not have been separate if passing so close to each other.)

The observations of the Cosmic Background Radiation pushed the start of the expansion even further back - they were a significant prediction of Big Bang Theory.

The more we look and the more we figure out things about what the universe was like when it was that small - we can find an age, for example, we can calculate what would have happened at a certain size and how long ago that would have been, what the universe was like at some other size and when that was. It's got supporting evidence down to a certain small size (and thus time in the past)- don't know what that size is off the top of my head.

The "singularity" that you seem to be calling an "assumption of the Big Bang theory" is an extrapolation of that last bit into the past. We don't know how accurate that extrapolation is, since nobody has really any clue how the universe would have worked at that point - it would have been small enough for quantum effects to significantly matter, and yet massive enough and moving quickly enough for relativity to make a difference. We know for sure that none of the theories we have would work in that situation - relativity and QM are incompatible, but yet both would need to be applied there. Just like we really don't know what happens at the center of a black hole, we don't really know what happened at that first instant, if there was a "first" instant and not just the continuation of some previous cycle.

So yes, after that point we're not really sure whether it went down to a true singularity as opposed to just "almost-a-singularity", or whether it did some of the screwy things that String Theory would predict/allow, or something else.

However, from the cosmic background radiation and from the motion of the galaxies and from general relativity, we can be fairly sure that at one point the universe was in fact very very small.

That's the current status of the Big Bang theory, or at least the parts that we are fairly certain about, which have followed from experiment and observation.

Which part of that is unsupported by experiment? Which part of that do you want to elaborate more on?

(Also - are there some parts of that which I have wrong? I'm not really an expert on this, though it interests me.)

I'm not sure what you're asking us all to disprove.

The history/development of the Big Bang Theory goes, as far as I know, as follows....

...

...That's the current status of the Big Bang theory, or at least the parts that we are fairly certain about, which have followed from experiment and observation.

Which part of that is unsupported by experiment? Which part of that do you want to elaborate more on?

(Also - are there some parts of that which I have wrong? I'm not really an expert on this, though it interests me.)


That's an excellent overview of Big Bang theory.

hate to butt in, but...

The concept of Intelligent Design is just a dirty little lie used by Creationists to try and justify to themselves that the Bible is correct. People seized upon the idea that a supreme being created the universe and then worked their way backwards, rather than starting with the universe as it is and then using logic to work all the way up to 'there must be a supreme being who did this."

In the words of one of my old Call of Duty clanmates, 'Hacks and lies."

Actually, I specifically stated that God is neither provable nor disprovable.

Actually you didn't.

(b) Positing that the something is intelligent is an important point - because you have introduced a main part of your hypothesis that is completely unprovable.

Again, if you don't like the term, don't use it. I just reworded what you said. If you pay attention I do it often. If you want me not to use a term, using it is a bad way to accomplish it.


Meanwhile, it is possible to disprove that singularities exist. It is not possible to prove that God, or an intelligent creator, does not exist.

Fine, suggest a way. You could show that we can't find one. You can show that it's mathematically unlikely. You can even show there is no evidence of one. But show that singularities don't exist. More particularly show that a singularity from which the universe could spring does not exist.

I wasn't forcing anything - I was stating what the idea of ID states. You have brought up another idea, which I have also shown to be based on premises which cannot be disproven.

I don't care what you think ID is. And I don't care that a lot of similar theories have been lumped in. I'm telling you what I'm talking about. So address that. Proving to me that other people are unreasonable does not make me unreasonable. Proving what they espouse is unscientific does not make the theory I suggest unscientific. So joining other "versions" of ID to what I have to say is pointless.

Experiments are always designed to disprove a hypothesis. That is not the same as saying, "I am going to prove that there was a big flood. Let me search for evidence that backs me up.".

Fine then they are looking for evidence to disprove the idea that a great flood didn't occur. Happy? Much like the reindeer experiment (assuming I expected to find flying reindeer, otherwise I'm kind of sick) was set to disprove that flying reindeer don't exist.

However, a lack of evidence that it didn't occur backs up the idea that there was no flood. Those who go out looking to "prove" the Bible are unwilling to admit it when they have found no evidence to back up their idea and, instead, keep insisting, "But there is evidence out there. I just know it, I'm going to find it!"

Because you don't like what they're doing doesn't make them unscientific. I think looking for a flood is a waste of time, but it doesn't make them unscientific, but thank you for supporting my supposition that if it has anything to do with God or Bible, you immediately dismiss whether it follows scientific method or not. The fact is a great flood can have occurred and finding evidence for one does not prove the Bible is "The Truth". It just shows there is evidence for a world-wide flood. Look for evidence of something is scientific. It's kind of the point.

Yes, but you are not still saying "Reindeer can fly! I know it and I'll prove it!!"

You're right. I wouldn't say that.



I use "God" to refer to an all-powerful being which created the universe - so it is the same thing.

Fine, as long as you define your terms. However, the theory also does not require that the intelligent source be all-powerful. It only needs one specific supernatural power. Keep in mind that if you use a term that is already used for something else you will confuse people who jump into this thread.



I have shown you this several times. It isn't my fault that you refuse to see it. By definition, an intelligent creator lies outside that which we can measure. As such, it is outside the realm of science.

When you state the Big Bang theory is outside the realm of science then I will concede this point. Until you show me that a singularity that can spawn the universe is falsifiable, at least.

No, you have shown me how parts of it are falsifiable, not how the main tenet - that there is an intelligent creator - is falsifiable. Remember that scientific theories change with new evidence. It may be possible to disprove the idea that there is decreasing entropy in the universe, but that would *change* a theory such as ID, not end it. Those who proclaim an intelligent being in their "science" would simply incorporate that and still say, "Well, it is still complex, so a designer had to be involved."THe unscientific part of the theory still stands, whether you disprove all the rest or not. That is precisely why it is unscientific.

There are two points to make here:

(a) The very definition of a singularity was derived from the evidence, while the idea of an intelligent creator is (1) derived from religion and (2) completely unecessary to the idea behind ID as you have described it.

(b) The physics behind a singularity are falsifiable. The existence of an intelligent creator is not.

The reason intelligence was ascibed to the theory is simple. Dembski believed that we should have to meet all the criteria of a theory that was proposed by, I believe, Aristotle in the you have to also show the purpose of your theory (meaning if there is a source why is it there). To explain the purpose of the supernatural force, he suggested that this force was specifically guiding evolution towards more complex creatures to bring about humans. Again, the point being that selection occured, it just wasn't natural.

Disprove the Big Bang theory and you don't prove a singularity that can spawn the universe does not exist, only there is no reason to postulate that one does, because there is no longer an observable phenomena it explains.

It is the same with the existence of "God". They came up with a phenomena that they postulate requires an intelligent source. Prove that the phenomena does not occur the way they postulate and, POOF, whether or not the intelligent source exists there is no reason postulate that it does at it doesn't explain any observable phenomena.

Hey this is to the first guy. I havn't read the other peoples or even the end of yours; i couldn't be bothered:
Quit living in the past man!
Amoebas are SO NOT simple.
And dogs? thats MICROevolution, not MACROevolution. It has nothing to do with your argument. New species dont evolve with microevolution.
In short, you are so ignorant that I strongly advise you not to put up posts about things you have no idea about.

hate to butt in, but...

The concept of Intelligent Design is just a dirty little lie used by Creationists to try and justify to themselves that the Bible is correct. People seized upon the idea that a supreme being created the universe and then worked their way backwards, rather than starting with the universe as it is and then using logic to work all the way up to 'there must be a supreme being who did this."

In the words of one of my old Call of Duty clanmates, 'Hacks and lies."
Just curious.. Which is more absurd? Starting with "seizing upon the idea that a supreme being created the universe" and "working backwards", or "starting with the universe as it is" and "using logic" to work all the way "up" to "there must be a supreme being who did this"?

And dogs? thats MICROevolution, not MACROevolution. It has nothing to do with your argument. New species dont evolve with microevolution.
In short, you are so ignorant that I strongly advise you not to put up posts about things you have no idea about.

http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB902.html

Just curious.. Which is more absurd? Starting with "seizing upon the idea that a supreme being created the universe" and "working backwards", or "starting with the universe as it is" and "using logic" to work all the way "up" to "there must be a supreme being who did this"?what is absurd is "wow... the complexity... how everything fits together... that's how we should do things... a supierior being did this... rubbish... since I can neither prove or disprove the exsistance of such a being, he dosn't exsist and thus I won't even attempt to entertain the notion of looking for such evidence."

what is absurd is "wow... the complexity... how everything fits together... that's how we should do things... a supierior being did this... rubbish... since I can neither prove or disprove the exsistance of such a being, he dosn't exsist and thus I won't even attempt to entertain the notion of looking for such evidence."

"wow" - certainly

"the complexity" - it is amazing, isn't it

"how everything fits together" - it does, doesn't it? Of course, it would do under a consistent system and it's the bits that initially appear not to fit together that interest/concern me (luckily we've got people working on that ;))

"that's how we should do things" - not sure if that's 'that's how things should be done', but see prior comment

"a superior being did this" - that's a leap of faith (excuse the pun) that I wouldn't make

"rubbish" - that's roughly what I'd think if someone insisted on the last point, though I realise that's a knee-jerk reaction [countering a misconceived certainty by a hasty counter-certainty] and I don't actually rule it out

"since I can neither prove or disprove the existence of such a being..." - correct, for reasons much gone-over before

"...he doesn't exist..." - incorrect conclusion. He may exist, but there's certainly no point assuming that he does when looking at 'how everything fits together'. Ignore the possibility, yes, but outright denial of it is nothing to do with science

"...and thus I won't even attempt to entertain the notion of looking for such evidence." - insofar as there is no known way to look for it, no known evidence that can be sought, I certainly don't think that I would ever personally dedicate myself to that task. If, however, He revealed himself to me (or arranged circumstances so that there was the practical possibility of discovering Him), that's His perogative but outside my control.

Actually you didn't.

I have stated this more than one time. If you are referring to a specific post, you may be right, but I have stated more than once that, by definition, an intelligent creator can be neither proven nor disproven.

Again, if you don't like the term, don't use it. I just reworded what you said. If you pay attention I do it often. If you want me not to use a term, using it is a bad way to accomplish it.

I think you replied to the wrong portion of my post here, because this doesn't make any sense in response to what you quoted.

Fine, suggest a way. You could show that we can't find one. You can show that it's mathematically unlikely. You can even show there is no evidence of one. But show that singularities don't exist. More particularly show that a singularity from which the universe could spring does not exist.

The very definition of a singularity comes from the physics that define it. If those physics are shown to be wrong, the theory of a singularity is shown to be wrong.

You forget that the entire idea behind the singularity was entirely derived from the evidence at hand, while the idea of an intelligent creator was derived from someone's church and they injected it into their idea.

I don't care what you think ID is. And I don't care that a lot of similar theories have been lumped in. I'm telling you what I'm talking about. So address that. Proving to me that other people are unreasonable does not make me unreasonable. Proving what they espouse is unscientific does not make the theory I suggest unscientific. So joining other "versions" of ID to what I have to say is pointless.

Perhaps, since the term ID is already taken, you should rename your theory? After all, like you said, you really shouldn't use a word that already has other meanings if you don't want to confuse people.

Fine then they are looking for evidence to disprove the idea that a great flood didn't occur. Happy?

No, because that is saying the exact same thing. You cannot set out to prove that something.

Because you don't like what they're doing doesn't make them unscientific. I think looking for a flood is a waste of time, but it doesn't make them unscientific, but thank you for supporting my supposition that if it has anything to do with God or Bible, you immediately dismiss whether it follows scientific method or not.

(a) I am a Christian, so I certainly don't dismiss anything which has to do with God or the Bible.

(b) You seem to have a fundamental problem with the scientific method here. If you set out to "prove" that a flood occurred, then you are biasing yourself. You will only look at evidence that supports your hypothesis, without looking for or considering evidence that does not. *That* is what makes it unscientific, but it is what every "scientist" who has set out to "prove" Biblical accounts has done.

You're right. I wouldn't say that.

But those who set out to prove something would.

Fine, as long as you define your terms. However, the theory also does not require that the intelligent source be all-powerful. It only needs one specific supernatural power. Keep in mind that if you use a term that is already used for something else you will confuse people who jump into this thread.

Anything which exists outside the universe and can affect the universe is, to us, all-powerful. They are outside the rules of the universe.

When you state the Big Bang theory is outside the realm of science then I will concede this point. Until you show me that a singularity that can spawn the universe is falsifiable, at least.

You are still very confused about how science works, darling. The idea of the singularity came from the evidence. Any new evidence can falsify it. The idea of an intelligent creator (by your theory anyways) did not come from evidence, but from someone attaching a random name to a source of energy.

The reason intelligence was ascibed to the theory is simple. Dembski believed that we should have to meet all the criteria of a theory that was proposed by, I believe, Aristotle in the you have to also show the purpose of your theory (meaning if there is a source why is it there).

Aristotle was a philosopher. If Dembski was not following the *scientific* definition of theory, then his theory is unscientific. Thank you so much for proving my point.

To explain the purpose of the supernatural force, he suggested that this force was specifically guiding evolution towards more complex creatures to bring about humans. Again, the point being that selection occured, it just wasn't natural.

This is in no way backed up by the only evidence you have given, the idea that entropy in the universe is decreasing, rather than increasing. In order to include something in a theory, it must be backed up by the evidence at hand, not random speculation.

Disprove the Big Bang theory and you don't prove a singularity that can spawn the universe does not exist, only there is no reason to postulate that one does, because there is no longer an observable phenomena it explains.

Yes, but there is no reason, even withing your version of ID, to postulate that an intelligent creator exists. All you have suggested is that there needs to be an outside source of energy - there no evidence whatsoever to suggest that such a source is intelligent.

It is the same with the existence of "God". They came up with a phenomena that they postulate requires an intelligent source.

A postulate which is in no way backed up by the evidence you have proposed.

Prove that the phenomena does not occur the way they postulate and, POOF, whether or not the intelligent source exists there is no reason postulate that it does at it doesn't explain any observable phenomena.

This would be really nice, if they had any evidence leading to them postulating it in the first place.

The idea of a singularity came out of the evidence. The theory was formed *from* the evidence. The only evidence you have proposed is the idea that entropy is decreasing, which is in no way evidence of an intelligence, only evidence of an outside energy source.

And dogs? thats MICROevolution, not MACROevolution. It has nothing to do with your argument. New species dont evolve with microevolution.

"Macroevolution" is simply a lot of "microevolution" over time. So yes, species *do* evolve with microevolution.

In short, you are so ignorant that I strongly advise you not to put up posts about things you have no idea about.

I would strongly advise that you practice what you preach.

Quote of Dem:

(a) Positing something outside the universe immediately takes you outside the realm of science.

(b) Positing that the something is intelligent is an important point - because you have introduced a main part of your hypothesis that is completely unprovable.

My reply: I brought up the singularity, the primeval atom, for just that reason. It also is completely unprovable. It is not falsifiable and thus the other parts of the theory would have to be falsified to make it not necessary.

Is that clear enough? Do you need dates and times or can you figure it out from here. You claimed you didn't use the word unprovable and you clearly did. I used your wording. Read the crap you write. If you don't want me to use unprovable don't use the word. Don't waste my time on semantics bullshit. It weakens your point.

I'm not a science expert, so I can't claim to debate this. However, schools can't support religion. First amendment.

Science doesn´t prove or disprove god existence

Science has nothing with god

Is curious howpeople try to use science in their own interest

And the big bang theory doesn´t prove or refuse god ( i´m astrophysic and i have study this theory and NEVER talk about god )

God is something that some believe and others no.

Can´t be prove and can´t be refused ( howcould be prove or refuse the existence of something nonimaginable in power ? )


Could you prove that we are or we aren´t just the dream of a special been that can do whatever he dream ?

we can´t prove nothing out of our universe ( our relity ) and the big trick of religion is set god out of this reality


For thous that used second termodinamic law to argue that god exist .. je je je ... it only prove you don´t understand 2 law of thermodinamic ( and i believe you don´t understand god idea )

Science doesn´t prove or disprove god existence

Science has nothing with god
While this is technically true, most the people who argue for intelligent design don't believe in a God who created some laws, set things in motion, then stopped interfereing. Science does effectively disprove the existence of their God.

I apologize but that´s not true

I don´t believe in god, but can be argued that god created science laws and the universe as it´s and we have science trying to understand god dessign

God create science too ( if you believe in god )


Science and god work in different universes

science inthis one and god in believers mind

I apologize but that´s not true

I don´t believe in god, but can be argued that god created science laws and the universe as it´s and we have science trying to understand god dessign

God create science too ( if you believe in god )


Science and god work in different universes

science inthis one and god in believers mind
You're just being silly. Whatever God somone believes in, he has to have some characteristics. The Christian God is omniscient, omnipotent, and omnibenevolent to list a few properties.

By observation we can determine some of these - for instance I know that whatever god might exist isn't in the habit of public appearances. If someone believes in a God that makes regular appearances on Oprah (and makes his presence known), then we can say with some certainty that his God doesn't exist.

The God of the people who believe in Intelligent Design doesn't exist for the same sorts of reasons.

My reply: I brought up the singularity, the primeval atom, for just that reason. It also is completely unprovable. It is not falsifiable and thus the other parts of the theory would have to be falsified to make it not necessary.

As I have pointed out, "unprovable" was bad wording - unfalsifiable would be the proper word. There are several points, however, that you consistently ignore:

(a) The physics behind the theory of a singularity can be disproven, which would then remove the singularity from the theory.

(b) It is physically possible (eventually) to create a singularity and test its effects.

(c) To become part of a theory, the things you posit must come *from the evidence*. Theories are not created in a vaccuum.

You claimed you didn't use the word unprovable and you clearly did.

I never claimed any such thing. I am well aware that people misspeak. However, as I have pointed out more than once now, use of that word is improper.

Don't waste my time on semantics bullshit. It weakens your point.[/I]

It is not a matter of semantics - it is a matter of logic. *Nothing* is provable, and thus nothing is unprovable in science. Things are falsifiable. If I misuse a word, by all means correct me on it.

The very definition of a singularity comes from the physics that define it. If those physics are shown to be wrong, the theory of a singularity is shown to be wrong.

You forget that the entire idea behind the singularity was entirely derived from the evidence at hand, while the idea of an intelligent creator was derived from someone's church and they injected it into their idea.

The definition of this singularity comes from this theory. If the theory is shown to be wrong is does not show that a singularity of that type does not exist, only that it's not necessary.

You make the assumption that the intelligent source (source, not creator) is the same one others profess. You can't make that assumption and I won't let you. Much like you can't suggest this singularity is the same as the ones Stephen Hawkings states may be inside black holes. Much like the lack of existence of his singularities is not tied to the existence of this one, neither is the existence of this intelligent source tied to God, no matter how hard you try to make it.

Perhaps, since the term ID is already taken, you should rename your theory? After all, like you said, you really shouldn't use a word that already has other meanings if you don't want to confuse people.

Perhaps since I told you where ID came from I shouldn't have to change the name because you're too ignorant to look up the book I cited. I don't have to change the name because someone bastardized it.

No, because that is saying the exact same thing. You cannot set out to prove that something.

So if I find a bone that I believe to be a brand new dinosaur and I look for more bones of this dinosaur to prove that this dinosaur exists, I'm being unscientific. I think it's you that doesn't understand science.

(a) I am a Christian, so I certainly don't dismiss anything which has to do with God or the Bible.

(b) You seem to have a fundamental problem with the scientific method here. If you set out to "prove" that a flood occurred, then you are biasing yourself. You will only look at evidence that supports your hypothesis, without looking for or considering evidence that does not. *That* is what makes it unscientific, but it is what every "scientist" who has set out to "prove" Biblical accounts has done.

Because some other biblical "scientists" didn't adhere to scientific method doesn't mean all don't. If someone looks at the flood myth and sees that many different cultures have a flood myth and says, hey, maybe there's something to this and looks for further evidence, does not mean they will ignore evidence to the contrary regardless of what other "scientists" have done in the past. And finding evidence supporting the flood doesn't prove the bible is "the Truth" or that God exists or even that the writers of the Bible were prophetic. Hell, finding the ark completely intact wouldn't do that. All it would do is suggest that the story in fact happened and that someone wrote it down. And it would most certainly be one of the most important archeological discoveries of our time.

Anything which exists outside the universe and can affect the universe is, to us, all-powerful. They are outside the rules of the universe.

Really? I thought all-powerful means I can do absolutely anything when it comes to the universe. This intelligent source hardly fits that bill. Are we redefining words again? How fun.

You are still very confused about how science works, darling. The idea of the singularity came from the evidence. Any new evidence can falsify it. The idea of an intelligent creator (by your theory anyways) did not come from evidence, but from someone attaching a random name to a source of energy.

Aw, he likes me. He really, really, likes me. Can you keep calling me darling? Please?

The idea of an intelligent source comes from the evidence as well. The scientist examined the evidence and suggested that current natural theories have not explained the evolution of complex lifeforms. He assigned intelligence to the theory because a random source would not continue to move toward complexity in the way he describes so the suggestion is purpose and, in this case, purpose suggests intelligence.

Aristotle was a philosopher. If Dembski was not following the *scientific* definition of theory, then his theory is unscientific. Thank you so much for proving my point.

Aristotle is where modern scientific method comes from. You can admit that explaining the purpose of a posited event or variable in a theory is not necessary (at least, not by your view), but it certainly doesn't automatically make it unscientific.

This is in no way backed up by the only evidence you have given, the idea that entropy in the universe is decreasing, rather than increasing. In order to include something in a theory, it must be backed up by the evidence at hand, not random speculation.

He believes that when the source is established to exist that we will find that it appears to have moved evolution towards specific goals. This would imply intelligence. This scientist gives support of his argument that shows mathematically that current theory does not adequately explain evolution. He also shows how we will eventually be able to test and evaluate his clams. I assume you can read and since I didn't create the mathematical proofs, I'll just let you look at them. I have found no source that actually showed his proofs to be inaccurate, only people that discounted his theory because it contained God, even though it doesn't.

Yes, but there is no reason, even withing your version of ID, to postulate that an intelligent creator exists. All you have suggested is that there needs to be an outside source of energy - there no evidence whatsoever to suggest that such a source is intelligent.

Sorry, I'll try not to simplify in the future. I gave the source of Intelligent Design. Feel free to read it.

A postulate which is in no way backed up by the evidence you have proposed.

Again, I gave you the source. I don't intend to bastardize another scientists work.

This would be really nice, if they had any evidence leading to them postulating it in the first place.

See above.

The idea of a singularity came out of the evidence. The theory was formed *from* the evidence. The only evidence you have proposed is the idea that entropy is decreasing, which is in no way evidence of an intelligence, only evidence of an outside energy source.

Again, see above.

While this is technically true, most the people who argue for intelligent design don't believe in a God who created some laws, set things in motion, then stopped interfereing. Science does effectively disprove the existence of their God.

No, science does no such thing. Science attempts to determine what the laws are - it doesn't posit where such laws came from. If they came, as many scientists believe, from a God, that is wonderful - and completley irrelevant to science.

Excuse me if i don´t agree with you in two things

I´m not silly

If you think that perhaps is because you don´t know me
If you say that but don´t think that perhaps your education is bad



If you try to prove that god doesn´t exist with science argument, then you are wasting your efford in the same way that people that want use science to prove god exist


Many great scientist believe in god.
Are they fools or they don´t untherstand science ?????

Same can be said with scintist don´t believe



Perhpas people have to understand the things they want talk about

I´m astrophysic. I have studied the universe evolution.
I don´t believe in god

BUT i can´t say that science prove nothing


God have characteristic ????????

Imagine that you can prove that a specific god doesn´t exist. Example Zeus doesn´t exist and you canprove it.

It doesn´t meanthatgod doesn´t exist. Perhaps god is different than Zeus...


Try to proveor refuse god with science is not possible and scientist know it !!!!!!!!!

( do you really understand science ????????? )

"*Nothing* is provable, and thus nothing is unprovable in science. "


That´s not true

Many things can be prove and many can be refused ( i can prove that 2+2=4 and can refuse any theory if i found just 1 experiment that made theory false )

But god is not a science subject.

It is not a matter of semantics - it is a matter of logic. *Nothing* is provable, and thus nothing is unprovable in science. Things are falsifiable. If I misuse a word, by all means correct me on it.

Falsify or disprove both mean to prove to be false. It's semantics crap and don't correct me unless your semantics are perfect or you don't know what I mean. If you honestly didn't know what I meant when I brought this up then there is a seriously problem, since you started the point and just reworded it to say the same thing you said about an intelligent source about a singularity that spawned the universe.

I'm fully aware that there is no absolute truth in science. There is just that which evidence suggests is true and that which evidence suggests is false. You technically can't falsify anything either. If you want to spend all day trying to find wording we both find acceptable, then I'll move to another thread, though you'll probably be there telling me I can't call the biological mother and biological father of a child the child's parents.

Eer wrong, the entire point of logic is its infalible, thats why all philosopy is based on it.
For whether i am awake or asleep, two and three added together make five, and a quadrilateral figure has no more than hour sides.
-Rene Descartes

"*Nothing* is provable, and thus nothing is unprovable in science. "


That´s not true

Many things can be prove and many can be refused ( i can prove that 2+2=4 and can refuse any theory if i found just 1 experiment that made theory false )

But god is not a science subject.

2+2=4 is Mathematics, which is the only branch of science capable of proofs. All others are lacking this. And refusing something is not the same as disproving it.

The definition of this singularity comes from this theory. If the theory is shown to be wrong is does not show that a singularity of that type does not exist, only that it's not necessary.

If all evidence for the existence of the singularity comes from the theory, and you disprove that theory, then you have effectively disproven the conclusion that the singularity exists (since the conclusion came from the theory anyways).

You make the assumption that the intelligent source (source, not creator) is the same one others profess. You can't make that assumption and I won't let you.

I am assuming no such thing. I am simply pointing out that, in order to posit an intelligent source as part of your theory, the evidence must back that up. Not just, as you have explicitly stated it came from "The evidence causes my theory to need an outside source of energy. I need to figure out why this energy is there (which is a question for philosophy, not science), so I'll say it is an intelligent source."

Much like you can't suggest this singularity is the same as the ones Stephen Hawkings states may be inside black holes.

Actually, I can - because the theory explicitly states that it is.

Perhaps since I told you where ID came from I shouldn't have to change the name because you're too ignorant to look up the book I cited. I don't have to change the name because someone bastardized it.

The current "theory" that is ID is exactly what I am describing. If I wanted to discuss current astronomy with you, would you insist that I read the geocentric view of the universe?

*You* consider it bastardized - but it is the current "theory". Meanwhile, I have been arguing quite consistently against *your* version, so I don't know what you're getting so uppity about.

So if I find a bone that I believe to be a brand new dinosaur and I look for more bones of this dinosaur to prove that this dinosaur exists, I'm being unscientific. I think it's you that doesn't understand science.

Actually, you find a bone that doesn't fit in to any known dinosaur. From the structure of the bone, you posit a new dinosaur and what it may look like. If you find more bones that seem to fit that idea, you have supported your hypothesis. If you do not, you have only one bone. You have not attempted to prove that your dinosaur exists, but to support your hypothesis that your dinosaur exists.

Because some other biblical "scientists" didn't adhere to scientific method doesn't mean all don't. If someone looks at the flood myth and sees that many different cultures have a flood myth and says, hey, maybe there's something to this and looks for further evidence, does not mean they will ignore evidence to the contrary regardless of what other "scientists" have done in the past. And finding evidence supporting the flood doesn't prove the bible is "the Truth" or that God exists or even that the writers of the Bible were prophetic. Hell, finding the ark completely intact wouldn't do that. All it would do is suggest that the story in fact happened and that someone wrote it down. And it would most certainly be one of the most important archeological discoveries of our time.

Yes, it would. And scientists following the scientific method would do everything possible to test the idea that it was the ark.

Really? I thought all-powerful means I can do absolutely anything when it comes to the universe. This intelligent source hardly fits that bill. Are we redefining words again? How fun.

If something is outside the rules of the universe, then it can do anything when it comes to the universe. Meanwhile, you have used the term "intelligent creator" before, it isn't my fault you have changed it now to "intelligent source."

Aw, he likes me. He really, really, likes me. Can you keep calling me darling? Please?

Who is he?

The idea of an intelligent source comes from the evidence as well. The scientist examined the evidence and suggested that current natural theories have not explained the evolution of complex lifeforms. He assigned intelligence to the theory because a random source would not continue to move toward complexity in the way he describes so the suggestion is purpose and, in this case, purpose suggests intelligence.

Stop right there. Every time I have suggested that the theory of ID comes from someone suggesting that random processes could not have created the complexity, you have yelled at me that it has nothing to do with that, that it is all about a decrease in entropy. You have now completely changed your tune and begun singing parts of the current ID theory.

Aristotle is where modern scientific method comes from.

So? The fact that Aristotle posited or championed the ideas that eventually became modern scientific methods does not suggest that Aristotle completely laid these methods down.

You can admit that explaining the purpose of a posited event or variable in a theory is not necessary (at least, not by your view), but it certainly doesn't automatically make it unscientific.

Actually, it does. Science does not concern itself with philosophic "why"s. If the evidence does not directly lead you to a conclusion, you can't just inject that conclusion in.

He believes that when the source is established to exist that we will find that it appears to have moved evolution towards specific goals.

...which would be completely without evidence and thus a personal belief, and nothing more.

Meanwhile, stating that evolution has been moved towards specific goals *would* discount the theory of evolution, something which you have claimed that ID does not do.

This scientist gives support of his argument that shows mathematically that current theory does not adequately explain evolution.

Poking holes in one idea is not evidence of another.

He also shows how we will eventually be able to test and evaluate his clams.

Really? He figures out how we can test something outside of the universe and thus outside of the scope of science? What an amazing guy!

He then figures out how we can test that such a source, even if we were able to measure it, is intelligent?

I assume you can read and since I didn't create the mathematical proofs, I'll just let you look at them. I have found no source that actually showed his proofs to be inaccurate, only people that discounted his theory because it contained God, even though it doesn't.

No one argues that evolution is perfect. Lots of people (although most of them don't actually understand the theory, some are scientists currently shaping it) find problems with it - and then fix said problems.

Again, I gave you the source. I don't intend to bastardize another scientists work.

You ignore the fact that it is impossible to have evidence of something outside of the scope of science, which anything outside of the universe is. If we could measure it, it would be within our universe.

It seems that you, like so many others, have been duped by people who use big scientific terms and thus sound scientific.

Falsify or disprove both mean to prove to be false.

...which has nothing to do with provable or unprovable.

It's semantics crap and don't correct me unless your semantics are perfect or you don't know what I mean.

Logic, upon which the scientific method is based, is highly dependent upon semantics. I would expect you to correct mine as well.

You technically can't falsify anything either.

Yes, you can. If you state "I hypothesize that plugging this in can cause the phone will ring" and then try plugging it in, the phone will either ring or not ring. If it does not ring, you have falsified the hypothesis. If it does ring, you have supported the hypothesis, but have not proven it, as you cannot be sure that the phone rang because you plugged it in.

Falsify or disprove both mean to prove to be false.

...which has nothing to do with provable or unprovable.

It's semantics crap and don't correct me unless your semantics are perfect or you don't know what I mean.

Logic, upon which the scientific method is based, is highly dependent upon semantics. I would expect you to correct mine as well.

You technically can't falsify anything either.

Yes, you can. If you state "I hypothesize that plugging this in can cause the phone will ring" and then try plugging it in, the phone will either ring or not ring. If it does not ring, you have falsified the hypothesis. If it does ring, you have supported the hypothesis, but have not proven it, as you cannot be sure that the phone rang because you plugged it in.

"*Nothing* is provable, and thus nothing is unprovable in science. "


That´s not true

Many things can be prove and many can be refused ( i can prove that 2+2=4 and can refuse any theory if i found just 1 experiment that made theory false )

But god is not a science subject.

Mathematics is completley defined by human beings.

If we had decided that 7 was actually 2, then 7+7 would equal 4.

There are a few points that I'd like to make.

First, when dealing with science, it is important to know that one never arrives at the "truth”. Imagine a Cartesian plane with fiction being negative 10 and truth being positive 10. Now between these two values, we have a limit curve, which by its mathematical nature approaches both -10 and 10 to infinity, but never quite reaches either. Now the values -10 and 10, fiction and truth respectively, are what we call ideals. Ideals do not truly exist in the world; we never really arrive at our ideals.

With this in mind, now we must realize that science is also a process of discovery. It is NOT static. New discoveries are constantly being made using "The Scientific Method". "The Scientific Method" is a process that gathers information from observations that are made. These observations are things that we gather using our senses, tangible things. Using observations, "The Scientific Method" over time will arrive at a solution which is the most probable. It will not ever reach the truth because it is not reachable, but it can get very close. If science ever arrived at the truth, then there would be no more need to study it. But there are thousands of scientists studying evolution.

So, to reject evolution is to reject "The Scientific Method". To reject the scientific method would require you to reject the belief that we can approach an understanding of the truth by using your senses. I don't know anyone that would be willing to agree that they things that you see do not really exist.

Now on to the other part of my argument …

I suspect the reason why this debate over evolution and the bible have gone on so long is because both deal with the past so much. We all should know how shady the past really is, how incomplete the fossil record is and how written history is only a fragment of what actually went on.

But let's also start with some assumptions that both sides agree on.

-The universe is really freaking complex!!
- We humans are unique among the other animals because we are creative creatures (meaning we make things of complexity)

Now, place these assumptions in the context of the Bible. We speak of God as Father and Christians follow God's son Jesus. So, both God and Jesus are images of humanity. In Christianity, we strive to reflect God and his son in our goodness. But just think is it possible that we reflect ourselves a bit onto God. That is a very important thought, that we may reflect ourselves on God, because it can cause us to believe that what created us, shares our qualities. That God the creator made us, the same way we shape a bowl from clay.

Now, let us think about the environment that we live in. We humans have constructed a very complex world. Not so long ago, we were hunting mastodons with spears, and now here we are getting meat wrapped in cellophane. When it is cold outside, all I have to do is turn up my thermostat. What is required for me to get heat is an astoundingly complex web of interactions. The human world is so complex, it is impossible to anyone person to understand. Yet, we created it.

Both are similar: God to Man and Universe to Man-Made World.

Now I need to ask you to take a leap of faith with me. We know that the Bible was written by people. Let’s imagine for a second that these people were not being inspired by God, and that they were simply recounting a belief system that we humans had created to explain the world around us. Even in Biblical times, we were living in a man-made world of extraordinary complexity. Isn’t it possible that in our attempt to explain the Universe, we created the notion of God because we related the complexity in our man-made world to the complexity in the Universe? In order for us to understand the Universe, we needed to project ourselves onto to it.

Finally, I feel I need to compare the belief systems of science and religion. When you place your belief in Christianity, you do not place it on God; you place in on the word of the person preaching to you and the written word of the men who wrote the Bible about 2000 years ago. The Bible, in its many versions, is a static system. It was never INTENDED to change.

Science is always changing and always will. It will constantly seek truth, and never stop.

I know where I place my belief.

Science does not equal religion. Conversely, religion is not a science, thus not being able to be proved. There is no reason to compare the two. Yes, the belief in Intelligent design is a bit illogical, but thats why the beleivers have "faith." Everyone believes in what they want to believe in, be it Intelligent design or evolution. Why compare the two if the argument never goes anywhere?


When everybody is so set in their beliefs anyways, it seems pointless to say that one side is right, and the other is wrong. Do others try and convert people in this way?

*snip*

Complexity dose not equal design,

you have been inducted to believe this because every other complex thing you have ever come across has had a designer, that they all will.

If you had only seen white swans would you be able to say that all swans were white. Perhaps

but then go to Australia and see a black one.

As David Hume pointed out in his theory of causality, your idea of induction is irrational or at very least can only be given

the idea that nothing can be prove, quite simply is wrong, its simply wrong.
Logic, i.e maths and geometry and are completely infallible.


For whether i am awake or asleep, two and three added together make five and a quadrilateral figure has no more than four sides.
-Rene Descartes

So therefore any idea built solely upon logic is therefore true, and totally knowable.

Science does not equal religion. Conversely, religion is not a science, thus not being able to be proved. There is no reason to compare the two. Yes, the belief in Intelligent design is a bit illogical, but thats why the beleivers have "faith." Everyone believes in what they want to believe in, be it Intelligent design or evolution. Why compare the two if the argument never goes anywhere?


When everybody is so set in their beliefs anyways, it seems pointless to say that one side is right, and the other is wrong. Do others try and convert people in this way?

Faith, is idealism, Sceince is materialism

idealism is concerded with the meta physical world, it judged and forms concept based on completely hypothetical ideas.

materialism only concerns itself with things we can see thouch and measure, therefore and idea it forms or judged is based on extratable logic and reason from empircal data.

Faith, is idealism, Sceince is materialism

idealism is concerded with the meta physical world, it judged and forms concept based on completely hypothetical ideas.

materialism only concerns itself with things we can see thouch and measure, therefore and idea it forms or judged is based on extratable logic and reason from empircal data.


Im not entirely sure thats what I asked, but I agree.

Im not entirely sure thats what I asked, but I agree.
Sorry im in judgemental mood.

Was pointing out that faith is the absence of reason.

Sorry im in judgemental mood.


You're forgiven. :D

You're forgiven. :D
Its partially due to me starting to read, David Humes enquiries, this drives him all mental too.

There are a few points that I'd like to make.

There are some very good points here, just a few clarifications I'd like to make.

So, to reject evolution is to reject "The Scientific Method". To reject the scientific method would require you to reject the belief that we can approach an understanding of the truth by using your senses. I don't know anyone that would be willing to agree that they things that you see do not really exist.

Rejection of the theory of evolution would not necessarily reject the scientific method *if and only if* you came by your alternate theory through the scientific method.

- We humans are unique among the other animals because we are creative creatures (meaning we make things of complexity)

I would argue that behavioral biology has shown this to be untrue. Many animals make complex structures or even sign languages (as in certain chimps).

Now I need to ask you to take a leap of faith with me. We know that the Bible was written by people. Let’s imagine for a second that these people were not being inspired by God, and that they were simply recounting a belief system that we humans had created to explain the world around us. Even in Biblical times, we were living in a man-made world of extraordinary complexity. Isn’t it possible that in our attempt to explain the Universe, we created the notion of God because we related the complexity in our man-made world to the complexity in the Universe? In order for us to understand the Universe, we needed to project ourselves onto to it.

That is certainly one way to look at it. Another might be that the people in question were being inspired by God, but in their lack of understanding reflected a bit of themselves onto God - that they were being inspired but, much like the case of most inspiration, added on to the original.

When you place your belief in Christianity, you do not place it on God; you place in on the word of the person preaching to you and the written word of the men who wrote the Bible about 2000 years ago.

This is actually only true of some who believe in Christianity.

The Bible, in its many versions, is a static system. It was never INTENDED to change.

That depends on whose intent you are talking about and what assumptions you make.

Science is always changing and always will. It will constantly seek truth, and never stop.

That I can't argue with.

I know where I place my belief.

Why must it be one or the other? There are certain areas in which science does not apply. There are many types of truth, and science cannot even work towards *all* of them.

I just want someone to explain something to me...


Why do you people insist that just because there is a small CHANCE that there was no grand designer behind evolution and the world, that there definately isn't? Where do all our pretty scientific laws come from?

Was pointing out that faith is the absence of reason.

If you put the word "blind" in front of it, you are correct.

I just want someone to explain something to me...


Why do you people insist that just because there is a small CHANCE that there was no grand designer behind evolution and the world, that there definately isn't? Where do all our pretty scientific laws come from?

No one has insisted any such thing.

No one has insisted any such thing.

Not in so few words. But I've read it that many people are arguing against the existance of a grand designer, in favour of evolutionary theorie. Evolution has been observed to occur through a scientific process, therefore it happened completely by chance and there could have been no guiding force.

Why did monkeys evolve into monkeys and lizards into lizards?

What put evolution into motion? Was there life on earth from it's very formation? Or when was it put there?

EDIT: Oh yeah, and this should probably be obvious to me, but who initially theorized evolution and how?

Just some things I don't understand about the evolutionist theory.

Not in so few words. But I've read it that many people are arguing against the existance of a grand designer, in favour of evolutionary theorie. Evolution has been observed to occur through a scientific process, therefore it happened completely by chance and there could have been no guiding force.

Wrong again. People have argued that positing a grand designer as an integral part of an idea is unscientific - as it is. This is because a grand designer is completely outside the scope of science.

Every theory in science leaves room for a grand designer behind it all, as we are not positing "why" things happened or "how" the rules got here - we are only looking at the rules.

Why did monkeys evolve into monkeys and lizards into lizards?

What put evolution into motion? Was there life on earth from it's very formation? Or when was it put there?

Just some things I don't understand about the evolutionist theory.

It has been proven and recreated that it is possible to create organic matter from inorganic base materials under the correct circumstances. These would then evolve into single celled organisms, then into multicelled organisms. In a nutshell.

Why did monkeys evolve into monkeys and lizards into lizards?

What put evolution into motion? Was there life on earth from it's very formation? Or when was it put there?

Just some things I don't understand about the evolutionist theory.

Well if you have the time, read up on them, then get back to us.

Though here's the short version:
nothing in particular, the physical laws of our universe dictated it.
No.
I think about a billion years after earth formed.

Why did monkeys evolve into monkeys and lizards into lizards?

Because they did.

What put evolution into motion? Was there life on earth from it's very formation? Or when was it put there?

Completely outside the scope of evolutionary theory.

Just some things I don't understand about the evolutionist theory.

The first is not something to understand about it. The "why" factor is not important in science - it is the "how" that is important.

The second is outside the scope of the theory.

The mechanism that puts evolution into 'motion' is cell mutliplication and so dna replication, this needs to occur for a organism to grow, live or multiply.

Wrong again. People have argued that positing a grand designer as an integral part of an idea is unscientific - as it is. This is because a grand designer is completely outside the scope of science.

Every theory in science leaves room for a grand designer behind it all, as we are not positing "why" things happened or "how" the rules got here - we are only looking at the rules.

There's no again, I'm only making one point.

Whether the presense of a grand designer is scientific or not is completely moot. The only thing anybody does is use their prior knowledge to shape a theory around their observed knowledge. What can be argued against are creationists who don't beleive in evolution at all, but evolution and intelligent design are the same thing with different spins on the knowledge obtained and shouldn't be treated seperately.

I am about to jump outside the scope of reason just for a second. I have a feeling im going to feel the wrath of some people for this, but hey, just my 2 cents.


Is it possible that evolution was done through a creator? Yeah, this would have to mean that the days that the bible mentions for creation would have to be more than mere days, and thats where logic goes wacky, so...not going there.

I am about to jump outside the scope of reason just for a second. I have a feeling im going to feel the wrath of some people for this, but hey, just my 2 cents.


Is it possible that evolution was done through a creator? Yeah, this would have to mean that the days that the bible mentions for creation would have to be more than mere days, and thats where logic goes wacky, so...not going there.
I doubt it, becuase evolution is all trial and error, why would god wait 10 million years for complex limbs to evolve when he can just magic a arm onto that lizard

The mechanism that puts evolution into 'motion' is cell mutliplication and so dna replication, this needs to occur for a organism to grow, live or multiply.

Indeed. When you breake it down, all life and reproduction is simply cell division and DNA multiplication. Organisms are in their basic form societies of more specialized single cell organisms working together to sustain themselves, and when a new creature is created they're just starting a new base colony. Much like how in ages past all people had to be somewhat of a jack-of-all-trades to survive, but today we live in cities and nations where people have become more specialized and entertwined for survival.

Why did monkeys evolve into monkeys and lizards into lizards?

What put evolution into motion? Was there life on earth from it's very formation? Or when was it put there?

Just some things I don't understand about the evolutionist theory.Strange question, that first one.

If you asking "why did they become <whatever>" then "because" is the best answer. Proto-monkeys could have died out, developed into monkeys or developed into not-quite-monkeys. The thing is, we only ever got to see what the monkeys (and other discovered descendants of proto-monkeys) look like and not the "not-quite-monkeys" that never developed.

As to its motion. Evolution is a natural force. It's like wondering why leaves blow across the street in the wind. Depending on what the wind does, they move to different parts of the street. Some leaves get trapped in the gutter and rot, others blow into the park... well, this analogy can go too far. In Intelligent Design, the idea is that there's some guy with a leaf-blower (or at least very good at placing the leaves in the right place) so that the leaves blow into the places He wants them to do. Non-ID evolutionism sees it all as random chance where they end up, and where some of them ended up (in evolutionary terms) is as us and other living creatures.

Life developed (so the currently most supportable theory goes) from chance reactions of random chemicals early in the planet's life, yes. Another theory, Panspermia, suggests that the building blocks came to Earth from elsewhere (but ultimately they must have developed somewhere). The former theory is more than capable of explaining the emergance of life in my opinion, however.

I doubt it, becuase evolution is all trial and error, why would god wait 10 million years for complex limbs to evolve when he can just magic a arm onto that lizard


Quoted for emphasis to Dempublicents. This is exactly what I was talking about.


How the religious backing for the generally unscientific theory behind a guiding creator goes is that it was done over a period of time for us to observe it. A universe with it's laws was made for us, and those laws were utilized to create life over a period of time that as we progressed we could observe. In the terms of a being such as a god, 10 million years is still nothing. So why not take that long?

I doubt it, becuase evolution is all trial and error, why would god wait 10 million years for complex limbs to evolve when he can just magic a arm onto that lizard


See, thats why I don't understand Christian Scientists at all. It just doesn't make sense that a person would base all of their experiments and theories on logic, and then state that they believe in a God.


These same people claim that the days mentioned in Genesis may have been millions of years.

Any Christian scientists in the house, explain your basic belief system to me

See, thats why I don't understand Christian Scientists at all. It just doesn't make sense that a person would base all of their experiments and theories on logic, and then state that they believe in a God.


These same people claim that the days mentioned in Genesis may have been millions of years.
Christian Scientists + ockhams razor = idiots.

Not to mention there are two seperate genesis stories where man gets made.

the bible its not a guide to live by, its not a histories, its not even a biography. its a theoligical work.

Christian Scientists + ockhams razor = idiots.

Not to mention there are two seperate genesis stories where man gets made.

the bible its not a guide to live by, its not a histories, its not even a biography. its a theoligical work.

What is Ockhams razor?

And what are those two Genesis stories? In my research, I only know of one.

I am about to jump outside the scope of reason just for a second. I have a feeling im going to feel the wrath of some people for this, but hey, just my 2 cents.


Is it possible that evolution was done through a creator? Yeah, this would have to mean that the days that the bible mentions for creation would have to be more than mere days, and thats where logic goes wacky, so...not going there.This is a view often posited.

It may be true. There may be a creator who started the whole thing off. It would explain all the proof (using the word in its 'lay' manner) for evolution if the Creator actually allowed that evolution to happen. The thing is that all the proof for evolution could arise from the fact that a Creatorless evolutionary process occured, also. Working by Occam's principle, we ignore (not deny, just ignore) the Creator as unfalsifiable and deal with the testing of various aspects of evolution in isolation from the issue of whether He started it off or it just happened.

Christian Scientists + ockhams razor = idiots.

Not to mention there are two seperate genesis stories where man gets made.

the bible its not a guide to live by, its not a histories, its not even a biography. its a theoligical work.

The only reason that you call them idiots is that you cannot conceive the possibility to their being more to the universe than what you perceive.


You're right that it is best not to try to live by the bible blindly, but for different reasons than you give. The Bible has simply had too much corruption, and interference, with too many metaphors and translations, to trust to the letter. Whether it's true or not not falling into the equation.

Whether the presense of a grand designer is scientific or not is completely moot.

Not when we are talking about science.

The only thing anybody does is use their prior knowledge to shape a theory around their observed knowledge. What can be argued against are creationists who don't beleive in evolution at all, but evolution and intelligent design are the same thing with different spins on the knowledge obtained and shouldn't be treated seperately.

Actually, they are not.

If ID said "there is an outside source of energy", which may be backed up by the evidence at hand, they would be a scientific theory that could be taught in schools. Because they specifically attributed characteristics to that source that cannot be tested for, their theory is unscientific, and thus cannot be taught, at least not in a science class.

Who created the creator?

What is Ockhams razor?

And what are those two Genesis stories? In my research, I only know of one.
Ockhams razor

Why do with more, than what can be done with less.

aka the simplest explanation is normally the correct one.


Two genesis stories.

1. God creates world in 6 days + man on the 6th i belive
2. God desides the need to create man all over again the garden of eden.

What is Ockhams razor?Occam's Razorp (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occam%27s_Razor). When you have two explanations that work, and one is more complicated or contains surplus elements (in this case trying to involve a Creator into a process that is adequately explained without one, never mind the unprovability of said Creator) go with the simpler.

Except it's probably said better in the resource I give you a link to.

And what are those two Genesis stories? In my research, I only know of one.Genesis goes through the creation story twice, with subtle (but important) changes in order of various things. Somebody else will be along to explain it, I'm sure.

Quoted for emphasis to Dempublicents. This is exactly what I was talking about.

If you really see that as an argument against an intelligent designer, then you need to take classes in logic.

How the religious backing for the generally unscientific theory behind a guiding creator goes is that it was done over a period of time for us to observe it. A universe with it's laws was made for us, and those laws were utilized to create life over a period of time that as we progressed we could observe. In the terms of a being such as a god, 10 million years is still nothing. So why not take that long?

Exactly - why not? Of course, you can't put that into a *scientific* theory, but you can certainly believe it. Many of us do, although I do not limit God by stating that it had to be done so that we could observe it.

Not when we are talking about science.

Yes it is. The presence of a divine being or even not shouldn't even enter into things on a general scale.


Actually, they are not.

If ID said "there is an outside source of energy", which may be backed up by the evidence at hand, they would be a scientific theory that could be taught in schools. Because they specifically attributed characteristics to that source that cannot be tested for, their theory is unscientific, and thus cannot be taught, at least not in a science class.

I'm not saying that they should teach Divine Intervention in science classes. That would be stupid. What I'm saying is that the possibility should not be discluded. Discluding any possibily is the mark of the foolish. What people are arguing, that I'm arguing against, is that the fact that evolution has taken place over millions of years discludes there being a God. Which I have observed in this thread.

Who created the creator?


Oh, no! Not this AGAIN!

If you really see that as an argument against an intelligent designer, then you need to take classes in logic. He as much as said that there is no integligent designer, because a god wouldn't wait that long because he wouldn't have to. And even later resorted to name calling, in proscribing people who beleived such to be idiots.

I'm not saying that they should teach Divine Intervention in science classes. That would be stupid. What I'm saying is that the possibility should not be discluded. Discluding any possibily is the mark of the foolish. What people are arguing, that I'm arguing against, is that the fact that evolution has taken place over millions of years discludes there being a God. Which I have observed in this thread.

People may say that, but evolutionary theory doesnt say that. Science has no say on the concept of god because it cant for reasons gone into earlier.

and I think the word you're looking for is exclude. Disclude means to disclose.

Yes it is. The presence of a divine being or even not shouldn't even enter into things on a general scale.

We are not talking on a general scale, we are talking about *science*.

I'm not saying that they should teach Divine Intervention in science classes. That would be stupid. What I'm saying is that the possibility should not be discluded. Discluding any possibily is the mark of the foolish. What people are arguing, that I'm arguing against, is that the fact that evolution has taken place over millions of years discludes there being a God. Which I have observed in this thread.

The possibility of divine intervention is not excluded, in evolutionary theory, or in any science class that properly teaches the theory.

Ockhams razor

Why do with more, than what can be done with less.

aka the simplest explanation is normally the correct one.


Two genesis stories.

1. God creates world in 6 days + man on the 6th i belive
2. God desides the need to create man all over again the garden of eden.


I was under the impression that that was one creation story with two parts.

He as much as said that there is no integligent designer, because a god wouldn't wait that long because he wouldn't have to. And even later resorted to name calling, in proscribing people who beleived such to be idiots.

The fact that he doesn't understand logic does not mean that you shouldn't. Yes, he is *attempting* to use such an argument to "disprove" an intelligent designer. However, logically, it doesn't work. As such, you really shouldn't worry about it. There are idiots on every side of every argument.

People may say that, but evolutionary theory doesnt say that. Science has no say on the concept of god because it cant for reasons gone into earlier.

and I think the word you're looking for is exclude. Disclude means to disclose.

Yes, exclude. whatever.

The point is, I have never been arguing against evolutionary theory. I definately beleive in evolution, it's logical and easy to observe. I have been merely against the people who use it to try to EXCLUDE the existance of a God. Which there are many of, especially teaching science classes. And at least one in this thread. And I have been arguing FOR the need for people to keep an open mind, and not exclude the possibility of other peoples points of view.

Any true scientist will never say definately. Only most likely.

I was under the impression that that was one creation story with two parts.

Most people are, but closer examination reveals that to be wrong. This is especially true if you (as many theologist have) look into the actual Hebrew, literary style, and moral of each story. They were both written by two different authors, with two very different views of God and points to get across - and they conflict on certain details.

Of course, the moral of the story is not in the details, but in the story. The priestly author wanted to get across that God was the great creator, with infinite power. As such, everything was "God said X, X happened, it was good." The author also gave the impression that humankind was the pinnacle of creation.

The second story, the Yahwist's, wished to make several points. The Yahwist saw *man* (and yes, I use a gender specific term on purpose) as the creature for whom creation was performed. Everything, including woman, was *for* man to use. However, man stepped out of line through loss of innocence and disobedience, and lost many things.

There are idiots on every side of every argument.


We can go further, saying there are idiots on the other side of EVERYTHING! On the other side of the internet, of the world, of the table...you name it, theres idiots everywhere! :)

The point is, I have never been arguing against evolutionary theory. I definately beleive in evolution, it's logical and easy to observe. I have been merely against the people who use it to try to EXCLUDE the existance of a God. Which there are many of, especially teaching science classes. And at least one in this thread. And I have been arguing FOR the need for people to keep an open mind, and not exclude the possibility of other peoples points of view.

I have yet to be in a science class in which the teacher excluded the existence of God, and I have taken many science classes.

Meanwhile, any teacher who does can and should be fired, just as any teacher who teaches that 3*5=400 should be fired.

I have yet to be in a science class in which the teacher excluded the existence of God, and I have taken many science classes.

Meanwhile, any teacher who does can and should be fired, just as any teacher who teaches that 3*5=400 should be fired.

I'm speaking mostly of my perception in my high school science classes. I'd had one teacher who actually said "evolution is wrong, but I'm teaching it anyways because I have to" and another teacher that has, in fact, argued with those in the class against the existance of a god.

It becomes increasingly difficult to fire teachers who have been teaching a long time in some areas, especially thanks to teachers unions.


What SHOULD happen, what SHOULD be, often has little effect on what IS in the area of peoples social actions.

I'm speaking mostly of my perception in my high school science classes. I'd had one teacher who actually said "evolution is wrong, but I'm teaching it anyways because I have to" and another teacher that has, in fact, argued with those in the class against the existance of a god.

Please tell me where you live so I can be sure that my future children do not go to school there.

It becomes increasingly difficult to fire teachers who have been teaching a long time in some areas, especially thanks to teachers unions.

Do you think it would be difficult to fire a teacher who taught her class that a triangle has 8 sides and that 4*5=78?

What SHOULD happen, what SHOULD be, often has little effect on what IS in the area of peoples social actions.

To a point, people must take responsibility for their actions. Do the children not read the first chapter of the textbook? (based on some arguments I have had, I would say that they most definitely do not actually bother, regardless of assignments). Do the parents not teach their children that everything the teacher says is not gospel truth?

Why do we condition people to be passive and accept everything anyone else says on blind faith?

Do you think it would be difficult to fire a teacher who taught her class that a triangle has 8 sides and that 4*5=78?




Triangles do have 8 sides. 4 * 5 actually equals 47.

Please tell me where you live so I can be sure that my future children do not go to school there. Heh. Well, I've lived in virginia, Colorado, and two places in california as I've gone through school. And the one of the locations in california I actually went to two different schools, one of which was a private school. Suffice to say it messed up my schooling succinctly.



Do you think it would be difficult to fire a teacher who taught her class that a triangle has 8 sides and that 4*5=78? The problem is, the both taught the textbook theory, they just added their own junk on top of it. As they taught everything htey were supposed to, nothing came from it.



To a point, people must take responsibility for their actions. Do the children not read the first chapter of the textbook? (based on some arguments I have had, I would say that they most definitely do not actually bother, regardless of assignments). Do the parents not teach their children that everything the teacher says is not gospel truth?

Why do we condition people to be passive and accept everything anyone else says on blind faith?

Most parents don't seem to want to take the time to explain things to their kids, which also seems to result in the taking everything people say on blind faith factor. I'm not TERRIBLY worried about it. I've learned throughout school to take everything a person says with a grain of salt, such as the reason planes fly having to do with the hair travelign mroe distance over the top, or that the national language of the USA is english, though it was almost german.

It's dangerous being a kid. People tell you things, and you beleive because your gullible. If you don't get over that you could grow up beleiving that the world is flat, and that the sun revolves around the earth.

The problem is, the both taught the textbook theory, they just added their own junk on top of it. As they taught everything htey were supposed to, nothing came from it.

Claiming that evolution in any way disproves God is teaching bad science, on par with teaching improper math.

If the teacher had said "I don't believe in God, because *I* think that evolution is evidence against such a being," it would be alright. If the teacher, however, was arguing, in his capacity as a teacher, that evolution disproves God, it is not.

Claiming that evolution in any way disproves God is teaching bad science, on par with teaching improper math.

If the teacher had said "I don't believe in God, because *I* think that evolution is evidence against such a being," it would be alright. If the teacher, however, was arguing, in his capacity as a teacher, that evolution disproves God, it is not.

I'm not saying what he taught was excusable, merely that he got away with it. He still taught the textbook material, he just added a "and this disproves this" on the end of it.

I actually had a total of three high school sciences. The third one had his opinions in the "I beleive" catagory such as you're mentioning.

And actually was the best of the three I think...

If all evidence for the existence of the singularity comes from the theory, and you disprove that theory, then you have effectively disproven the conclusion that the singularity exists (since the conclusion came from the theory anyways).

If all evidence for the existence on intelligent source comes from the theory, you disprove that theory, then you have effectively disproven the conclusion that the intelligent source exists. Thank you for wording it so well. The intelligent source is as falsifiable as the singularity.

I am assuming no such thing. I am simply pointing out that, in order to posit an intelligent source as part of your theory, the evidence must back that up. Not just, as you have explicitly stated it came from "The evidence causes my theory to need an outside source of energy. I need to figure out why this energy is there (which is a question for philosophy, not science), so I'll say it is an intelligent source."

I showed where the theory required an intelligent source and you didn't address it. You only claimed that he can't test the intelligent source. You suggest there is no evidence though you have made no effort to actually read or discredit my source other than "Boo, God".

The current "theory" that is ID is exactly what I am describing. If I wanted to discuss current astronomy with you, would you insist that I read the geocentric view of the universe?

*You* consider it bastardized - but it is the current "theory". Meanwhile, I have been arguing quite consistently against *your* version, so I don't know what you're getting so uppity about.

According to you it can't be the current theory because it's unscientific. What you call current is a nonfactor, because it took a scientific theory and made it unscientific. According to you that makes it not exist to the scientific community, which is good for me, because that theory is crap and I don't want it mucking up a perfectly good scientific theory.

Actually, you find a bone that doesn't fit in to any known dinosaur. From the structure of the bone, you posit a new dinosaur and what it may look like. If you find more bones that seem to fit that idea, you have supported your hypothesis. If you do not, you have only one bone. You have not attempted to prove that your dinosaur exists, but to support your hypothesis that your dinosaur exists.

Ok, like supporting a hypothesis that the flood occurred. We agree. I'm glad. Looking for evidence to support one's hypothesis that a global flood occurred is scientific.

Yes, it would. And scientists following the scientific method would do everything possible to test the idea that it was the ark.

Again, we agree. Now we're getting somewhere.

If something is outside the rules of the universe, then it can do anything when it comes to the universe.

Now you're just making things up. How do you support that little theory?

[QUOTE=Dempublicents1]Meanwhile, you have used the term "intelligent creator" before, it isn't my fault you have changed it now to "intelligent source."

I was regurgitating your term, but you're right I shouldn't use the term creator.

Stop right there. Every time I have suggested that the theory of ID comes from someone suggesting that random processes could not have created the complexity, you have yelled at me that it has nothing to do with that, that it is all about a decrease in entropy. You have now completely changed your tune and begun singing parts of the current ID theory.

No, I have continually mentioned that the intelligent source is responsible for the selection that resulted in more complex organisms. Remember supernatural selection v natural selection. Also, you are only required to show that natural selection can account for a move toward more complex organism and theory is out the window. That never changed.

The ID theory you keep quoting suggests that there were entire jumps in evolution which is actually unfalsifiable because no matter how much you show an instance where no jump occurred you can never show that no instance occurred in the past with a jump involved. It's not a part of the theory. The theory is simply that jumps occurred in evolution so there must have been an intelligent source. It is a seperate and ridiculous theory that is in fact unscientific.

Meanwhile, stating that evolution has been moved towards specific goals *would* discount the theory of evolution, something which you have claimed that ID does not do.

No, it would say that the selection was not natural, which I continually have said during this debate. There are no jumps in evolution. Evolution was gradual just as the theory of evolution espouses. The theory of evolution would have to be changed to accept non-natural selection.

Poking holes in one idea is not evidence of another.

No, poking holes in a current theory is evidence that another theory or a modified theory is required. Poking holes in current theory is the job of the scientist. Remember? You taught me that. *rolls eyes*

Really? He figures out how we can test something outside of the universe and thus outside of the scope of science? What an amazing guy!

When you can test for a singularity that no longer exists and existed outside of time and space, I will concede this point. You're not trying to claim that you can, so stop making this stupid argument.

He then figures out how we can test that such a source, even if we were able to measure it, is intelligent?

If evolution is not natural and it is purposeful, goes against natural forces, intelligence is not a leap.

You ignore the fact that it is impossible to have evidence of something outside of the scope of science, which anything outside of the universe is. If we could measure it, it would be within our universe.

Same stupid argument I've debunked a billion times. It's okay to posit something outside of the bounds of space and time so long as it's not intelligent according to you.

It seems that you, like so many others, have been duped by people who use big scientific terms and thus sound scientific.

I still wait for you to actually debunk his work, show someone who has or shut up. And you can't just falsify his work, because that would make it a scientific theory. You have to show that someone has completely debunk it.

If all evidence for the existence on intelligent source comes from the theory, you disprove that theory, then you have effectively disproven the conclusion that the intelligent source exists. Thank you for wording it so well. The intelligent source is as falsifiable as the singularity.

You missed something here, it is impossible to find evidence of an intelligent source outside the universe -as it is outside that which we can measure. As such, an intelligent source is *not* falsifiable, as it does not come from the evidence.

I showed where the theory required an intelligent source and you didn't address it.

The "evidence" you suggested completely contradicted an earlier statement you had made that such "evidence" was NOT part of ID. You really need to make up your mind.

You only claimed that he can't test the intelligent source.

Which is also true.

You suggest there is no evidence though you have made no effort to actually read or discredit my source other than "Boo, God".

It is logically impossible to *find* evidence. And I have yet to say "Boo, God." As I have pointed out, I believe in God - I simply realize that such belief is outside the realm of science.

According to you it can't be the current theory because it's unscientific. What you call current is a nonfactor, because it took a scientific theory and made it unscientific. According to you that makes it not exist to the scientific community, which is good for me, because that theory is crap and I don't want it mucking up a perfectly good scientific theory.

Anything which is unscientific is not a scientific theory, period. Anything that says, as you have said it does, "The source of energy is intelligent, because I have to have a reason and that's the one I can think of" is not scientific.


Now you're just making things up. How do you support that little theory?

It isn't a theory - it is logic. If something is outside the rules of the universe, then it would be all-powerful to us, as it could break the rules of the universe.

No, I have continually mentioned that the intelligent source is responsible for the selection that resulted in more complex organisms. Remember supernatural selection v natural selection. Also, you are only required to show that natural selection can account for a move toward more complex organism and theory is out the window. That never changed.

Wrong. I pointed out that ID posits an intelligent designer because it states that natural selection could not have resulted in the complexity that is life. You yelled at me and stated that this was completley wrong, and that it was derived from the idea that the universe is decreasing, rather than increasing in energy.

Meanwhile, if supernatural selection is needed, then the theory of evolution is already out the window, as natural selection is the very basis of the theory.

No, it would say that the selection was not natural, which I continually have said during this debate.

And evolution is based *entirely* on natural selection.

theory of evolution would have to be changed to accept non-natural selection.

That's like saying the "theory" of ID would have to be changed to accept that there is no intelligence.

No, poking holes in a current theory is evidence that another theory or a modified theory is required. Poking holes in current theory is the job of the scientist. Remember? You taught me that. *rolls eyes*

Yes, but it in no way provides evidence for any other theory. Thus, saying "evolution is mathematically impossible" in no way supports "so there is an intelligent source pushing it."

When you can test for a singularity that no longer exists and existed outside of time and space, I will concede this point. You're not trying to claim that you can, so stop making this stupid argument.

I'm making a stupid argument? You are arguing that all theories require time travel. To disprove a theory, one does not have to go back to a specific instance in history where it might have occurred.

Meanwhile, we can test for evidence that a singularity occurred. We cannot test for evidence that an intelligent designer exists.

If evolution is not natural and it is purposeful, goes against natural forces, intelligence is not a leap.

If evolution is not natural and is purposeful, the entire theory is out the window.

Same stupid argument I've debunked a billion times. It's okay to posit something outside of the bounds of space and time so long as it's not intelligent according to you.

No, it is not ok to posit anything outside the bounds of the universe - as you cannot test for it. It has nothing to do with intelligent or not. Science is only concerned with *the universe*.

I still wait for you to actually debunk his work, show someone who has or shut up. And you can't just falsify his work, because that would make it a scientific theory. You have to show that someone has completely debunk it.

By this logic, I could propose that the force of gravity is actually intelligent. You could try to disprove that all day long, and you wouldn't be able to.

You missed something here, it is impossible to find evidence of an intelligent source outside the universe -as it is outside that which we can measure. As such, an intelligent source is *not* falsifiable, as it does not come from the evidence.

If you test the theory then you accomplish the only scientific goal to falsify or support a theory. If the source is upheld by testing and the evidence suggests intelligence, you have an intelligent source. Wow, that was difficult.

The "evidence" you suggested completely contradicted an earlier statement you had made that such "evidence" was NOT part of ID. You really need to make up your mind.

I have been consistent. You can't seperate two different theories. This is not my problem.

It is logically impossible to *find* evidence.

Ok, I think Dempublicents1 uses the word "the" somewhere on this page. OH, LOOK, I *FOUND* some evidence. You can *find* it too if you look.

And I have yet to say "Boo, God." As I have pointed out, I believe in God - I simply realize that such belief is outside the realm of science.

No, you refuse to address an intelligent source because it is too close to the idea of God. Even when I regurgitated your sentence to you. You say a singularity is okay, intelligent source is not. The singularity spawned the universe and thus exists outside the universe, but it is falsifiable. The intelligent source is outside the universe so it is not falsifiable. You're a wonderful scientist.

Anything which is unscientific is not a scientific theory, period. Anything that says, as you have said it does, "The source of energy is intelligent, because I have to have a reason and that's the one I can think of" is not scientific.

If the source shows intelligence in selection then it makes sense to call it intelligent. Again, it was shown in my source why it will show intelligence. Read it if you like.

It isn't a theory - it is logic. If something is outside the rules of the universe, then it would be all-powerful to us, as it could break the rules of the universe.

Why would it be all powerful to us? I think what you mean to say is that it has abilities we do not. Not the same as all-powerful, which says it can do absolutely anything. Why would it have to have any interaction with the universe at all? It's not logic. You're just making shit up. Maybe it's outside the universe but it CAN'T interact with the universe. Does that make it all-powerful? This intelligent source with one specific abilty because it is necessary for the theory, any other "logical" abilities are not postulated on as they don't matter. That is not all-powerful. In fact, it is quite specifically powerful.

Wrong. I pointed out that ID posits an intelligent designer because it states that natural selection could not have resulted in the complexity that is life. You yelled at me and stated that this was completley wrong, and that it was derived from the idea that the universe is decreasing, rather than increasing in energy.

Fine, I don't care. The argument is stupid. You're avoiding the point that you can not demonstrate that an intelligent source is any less falsifiable than the singularity. PERIOD. It's that simple. You haven't demonstrated it. You won't. You won't even accept your own logic.

Meanwhile, if supernatural selection is needed, then the theory of evolution is already out the window, as natural selection is the very basis of the theory.

Natural selection still occurs. Just not in moves toward more complex organisms. In fact, ID doesn't even claim that speciation doesn't occur naturally. It only says that we can't move in the direction from one-celled to human or even one-celled to multicellular without an intelligent source. It can be falsified and it adheres to scientific method. Guess what that makes it.

Yes, but it in no way provides evidence for any other theory. Thus, saying "evolution is mathematically impossible" in no way supports "so there is an intelligent source pushing it."

No, it just gives a reason to create a new theory. You'd have a point if that was his only evidence. It's not. You can't oversimplify a theory and suggest your oversimplification is reason it's unscientific.

I'm making a stupid argument? You are arguing that all theories require time travel. To disprove a theory, one does not have to go back to a specific instance in history where it might have occurred.

No, I'm not arguing that all theories require time travel. I argued that there is nothing wrong with the singularity because you can disprove the theory that makes it necessary. I argued there is nothing wrong with the intelligent source because you can disprove the theory that makes it necessary.

Meanwhile, we can test for evidence that a singularity occurred. We cannot test for evidence that an intelligent designer exists.

According to you. You show evidence suports a non-natural force that exists outside of known forces of the universe. Show this force demonstrates intelligence.

No, it is not ok to posit anything outside the bounds of the universe - as you cannot test for it. It has nothing to do with intelligent or not. Science is only concerned with *the universe*.

Again, the singularity spawned the universe.

By this logic, I could propose that the force of gravity is actually intelligent. You could try to disprove that all day long, and you wouldn't be able to.

If you intended to show the force of gravity has an intelligent purpose then you certainly could propose that.

If you test the theory then you accomplish the only scientific goal to falsify or support a theory. If the source is upheld by testing and the evidence suggests intelligence, you have an intelligent source. Wow, that was difficult.

(a) The source itself cannot be upheld by scientific evidence, as we cannot measure something outside the realm in which we can measure.

(b) We, in our lay-lives, ascribe intelligence to many things when there is no evidence for it.

(c) There is no evidence that can support an outside intelligence, as I have pointed out time and time again. It is a logical fallacy.

I have been consistent. You can't seperate two different theories. This is not my problem.

You yelled at me for suggesting that ID posits that complexity cannot increase without an intelligent designer. You later stated that this is exactly what ID says. That is completely *inconsistent*.

Ok, I think Dempublicents1 uses the word "the" somewhere on this page. OH, LOOK, I *FOUND* some evidence. You can *find* it too if you look.

Now, now, you know what I meant. It is impossible to find evidence of an intelligent designer (which, by the way, is pretty much the same as creator) outside the universe.

No, you refuse to address an intelligent source because it is too close to the idea of God. Even when I regurgitated your sentence to you. You say a singularity is okay, intelligent source is not. The singularity spawned the universe and thus exists outside the universe, but it is falsifiable. The intelligent source is outside the universe so it is not falsifiable. You're a wonderful scientist.

I came from an embryo. Making this statement does not suggest something outside of myself.

However, my computer *is* outside of myself.

The beginings of something are not outside that something, but are, in fact, a part of it. Science cannot posit something *before* the beginning of the Universe. The singularity itself is the beginning.

If the source shows intelligence in selection then it makes sense to call it intelligent. Again, it was shown in my source why it will show intelligence. Read it if you like.

One can find intelligence in anything.

Why would it be all powerful to us?

Because it would be outside the rules of the universe. True, it may not be able to do all things from its point of view, but to us, it could do all things within the universe and things others outside of it.

Maybe it's outside the universe but it CAN'T interact with the universe. Does that make it all-powerful?

That makes it even more irrelevant.

Fine, I don't care. The argument is stupid. You're avoiding the point that you can not demonstrate that an intelligent source is any less falsifiable than the singularity. PERIOD. It's that simple. You haven't demonstrated it. You won't. You won't even accept your own logic.

I have pointed out, time and time again, the reasoning here. It is simple logic. You are simply being argumentative for the sake of argument, which is fine.

Natural selection still occurs. Just not in moves toward more complex organisms. In fact, ID doesn't even claim that speciation doesn't occur naturally. It only says that we can't move in the direction from one-celled to human or even one-celled to multicellular without an intelligent source. It can be falsified and it adheres to scientific method. Guess what that makes it.

So you are saying that ID posits that something cannot increase in complexity without an intelligent source? Hell, that has already been disproven.

No, it just gives a reason to create a new theory. You'd have a point if that was his only evidence. It's not. You can't oversimplify a theory and suggest your oversimplification is reason it's unscientific.

*YOU* stated that this was his evidence, when you stated that the reason for the intelligent designer was that he had to say why this source of energy existed.

According to you.

Actually, according to simple logic.

You show evidence suports a non-natural force that exists outside of known forces of the universe.

If it is measurable, it is within the universe as we know it. As such, this is impossible to demonstrate.

Show this force demonstrates intelligence.

Again, impossible to demonstrate. Any intelligence we perceive could easily be us projecting. I often say that the cells I am growing in culture "like" X or "don't like" Y. Of course, I know that the cells don't actually think at all, but human beings project intelligence onto other things.

Again, the singularity spawned the universe.

The singularity *was* the universe and developed into the universe as we know it now.

If you intended to show the force of gravity has an intelligent purpose then you certainly could propose that.

It obviously has an intelligent purpose. It makes sure that things always fall down when I am on the Earth unless I apply force to them. That is so intelligent!

If all evidence for the existence on intelligent source comes from the theory, you disprove that theory, then you have effectively disproven the conclusion that the intelligent source exists. Thank you for wording it so well. The intelligent source is as falsifiable as the singularity.


The evidence for an intelligent source does not come from theory... or even from observation - it comes from faith, which is belief without evidence.

Thus, it is a flawed premise in a scientific theory.


I showed where the theory required an intelligent source and you didn't address it. You only claimed that he can't test the intelligent source. You suggest there is no evidence though you have made no effort to actually read or discredit my source other than "Boo, God".


There is no scientific theory that REQUIRES an intelligent source... and to REQUIRE one would be the death of a scientific theory, since it would reuire something that cannot be falsified.

It's moot. The 'Big Bang' or 'Evolution' COULD have been instigated by a god, but such is not within the purview of scientific observation, thus, not within the capacity of scientific theory to rationalise.


According to you it can't be the current theory because it's unscientific. What you call current is a nonfactor, because it took a scientific theory and made it unscientific. According to you that makes it not exist to the scientific community, which is good for me, because that theory is crap and I don't want it mucking up a perfectly good scientific theory.


Such theories do exist to the scientific community. They are examples of pseudo-science.


No, I have continually mentioned that the intelligent source is responsible for the selection that resulted in more complex organisms. Remember supernatural selection v natural selection. Also, you are only required to show that natural selection can account for a move toward more complex organism and theory is out the window. That never changed.

The ID theory you keep quoting suggests that there were entire jumps in evolution which is actually unfalsifiable because no matter how much you show an instance where no jump occurred you can never show that no instance occurred in the past with a jump involved. It's not a part of the theory. The theory is simply that jumps occurred in evolution so there must have been an intelligent source. It is a seperate and ridiculous theory that is in fact unscientific.


I have never seen an evidence that suggests supernatural selection as a MORE logical approach than natural selection.

Clearly, natural selection CAN favour a more complex organism - so, by your own argument, there - ID is out.


No, it would say that the selection was not natural, which I continually have said during this debate. There are no jumps in evolution. Evolution was gradual just as the theory of evolution espouses. The theory of evolution would have to be changed to accept non-natural selection.


Since you can SEE that there is no evidence of supernatural selection, I wonder why you keep arguing it as a 'logocal' premise.


No, poking holes in a current theory is evidence that another theory or a modified theory is required. Poking holes in current theory is the job of the scientist. Remember? You taught me that. *rolls eyes*


Poking holes DUE TO OBSERVATION is the job of the scientist.

Just saying "I don't like Gravity, it's too unlikely", is not good science.


When you can test for a singularity that no longer exists and existed outside of time and space, I will concede this point. You're not trying to claim that you can, so stop making this stupid argument.


There has never been any claim of a singularity that existed 'outside of space and time'. The fundamental 'Big Bang' singularity concept existed DURING the creation of the universe, not BEFORE it.


If evolution is not natural and it is purposeful, goes against natural forces, intelligence is not a leap.


Okay. But, all the evidence supports natural selection, there has never been an unrefutable assertion of supernatural selection, and there has yet to be a valid example of evolution going 'against natural forces'.

So - why intelligent design?


Same stupid argument I've debunked a billion times. It's okay to posit something outside of the bounds of space and time so long as it's not intelligent according to you.


What are you claiming exists outside of space and time?

It would be okay to posit an intelligent entity outside of space and time, IF there was ANY WAY to ascertain whether such an entity existed or not.


I still wait for you to actually debunk his work, show someone who has or shut up. And you can't just falsify his work, because that would make it a scientific theory. You have to show that someone has completely debunk it.

There is no need to debunk bad science. It does that, itself.

"as we are not positing "why" things happened or "how" the rules got here - we are only looking at the rules."


He understand science


Thous that want to know WHY things happen - the final why - has to find in another wy.

Science try to understand universe.

Ask WHY - the final WHY - the universe is as it´s is a fool question.
If universe were in another way you always could do the same question

I'm wondering if there's going to be an evolution in schools. If a school can't sack a teacher for teaching ID you're going to get parents who believe in ID sending their children to such schools.

Obviously advocates of ID are dumber than the rest (if you can't grasp evolution there's something wrong with you). So therefore the kids will be dumber and will grow up together, then marry and have kids of their own.

I see the dumb becoming dumber and the smart becoming smarter.

Unless school tuition is effectively regulated.

I'm wondering if there's going to be an evolution in schools. If a school can't sack a teacher for teaching ID you're going to get parents who believe in ID sending their children to such schools.

Obviously advocates of ID are dumber than the rest (if you can't grasp evolution there's something wrong with you). So therefore the kids will be dumber and will grow up together, then marry and have kids of their own.

I see the dumb becoming dumber and the smart becoming smarter.

Unless school tuition is effectively regulated.

A person teaching ID in a British school, public or private, would definitely loose his/her job because (funnily enough) only real theories make it into the national curriculum

A person teaching ID in a British school, public or private, would definitely loose his/her job because (funnily enough) only real theories make it into the national curriculum

I know, I'm English and probably not a million miles from you if you're a Liverpudlian. Just stirring it for the Yanks!

Oh, just seen - a scouser in Bristol.

Fine present an experiment where you falsify the existence of a singularity at the start of the Big Bang and I'll concede. Now remember according to both of you falsifying the Big Bang itself isn't enough. There can be no unfalsifiable element.

Two points.

If scientific observation revealed that the universe was expanding from TWO points, the single 'singularity' of the theory is falsified.

Um, no. I showed that ID is falsifiable. They have a problem with a single aspect of the theory not being falsifiable. I said falsify the theory you don't need the "Intelligent source". That's not good enough for them, so I gave them the same burden with Big Bang.

Simply repeating it over and over, is not the same as it being true.

You haven't 'showed that ID is falsifiable'.

There is no way to prove ID falsifiable, because it RELIES on an unobservable intelligence.... which cannot be falsified.

Quote of Dem:

(a) Positing something outside the universe immediately takes you outside the realm of science.

(b) Positing that the something is intelligent is an important point - because you have introduced a main part of your hypothesis that is completely unprovable.



Jocabia - a 'proof' can be a positive or negative thing.

What is relly being siad here is that the 'main' part of your hypothesis' cannot have any actual evidence attached to it... it is 'unprovable'... but that means it cannot be verified EITHER way... you can provide no evidence which SUPPORTS an Intelligent Designer, or which conclusively REJECTS an Intelligent Designer.

'Unprovable' (in this context) is not contradictory to 'un-falsifiable'.

(Since a flasification would be a 'proof'... just not a proof that the idea was RIGHT).

Mathematics is completley defined by human beings.

If we had decided that 7 was actually 2, then 7+7 would equal 4.

Indeed, math is entirely based on a central premise, that numbers have values, and that operators have functions.

Those premises match observation, thus far - but you are right - math is STILL a pure artifact.

I just want someone to explain something to me...


Why do you people insist that just because there is a small CHANCE that there was no grand designer behind evolution and the world, that there definately isn't? Where do all our pretty scientific laws come from?

They don't.

You are creating an artificial argument to fight against.

Science deals with the observable. A 'creator' that exists outside of science is not observable.

So - scientific thought cannot describe such a creator, measure such a creator, etc.

Thus - it is illogical to assume a 'creator' in any theory.

That doesn't mean there ISN'T a 'creator'... just that a 'creator' cannot be arrived at THROUGH science.

I am about to jump outside the scope of reason just for a second. I have a feeling im going to feel the wrath of some people for this, but hey, just my 2 cents.


Is it possible that evolution was done through a creator? Yeah, this would have to mean that the days that the bible mentions for creation would have to be more than mere days, and thats where logic goes wacky, so...not going there.

First: Let me just,in the interests of full disclosure, reiterate that I am a 'godless heathen' (or Atheist, as some like to be called) - and definitely a scientist... I value the contribution of science, I work in the field of science, etc.

However: Science doesn't REJECT the idea that a 'creator' or 'intelligence' may have been involved in the creation... science just cannot validate it, or invalidate it.

Perhaps there was a 'god' who created all the universe... perhaps this 'god' created the very first life and left evolution to sort it out.

But, it is outside the realms of science to comment - because we cannot obtain evidence either way.

Personally - if there IS a god - I prefer the idea of it creating a world over billions of years, and through something as complex and organic as 'survival of the fittest'.

That idea seems much more glorious and majestic, to me, than the idea that an immortal and eternal 'god' made men from clay, six thousand years ago.

Two points.

If scientific observation revealed that the universe was expanding from TWO points, the single 'singularity' of the theory is falsified.

I thought the Universe was expanding relative to all points at the same time, not from one or two points. That still doesn't falsify the Big Bang theory.

I thought the Universe was expanding relative to all points at the same time, not from one or two points. That still doesn't falsify the Big Bang theory.It's all relative (which isn't to say that it's Reletivity, though it is... erm... related).

If you look at any one point (take the one you're standing on, but you don't have to) and look at any other point then it will generally (on cosmic scales) be seen to move away from it. On the other hand, you could easily be moving away from the other point.

However, the cosmic movement of all those points shows that, rewinding time, at some point everything was not as far away as it is now, and whichiever point is 'the' point, everything was there. The trouble is that you can't identify 'the' point, you just know that somewhere there is one. And only one.

If you could look at the galaxies and split them into two groups, each of which is a group of galaxies moving away from themselves, but not the members of the other group, then you might then have justification for being more than one expansion point (different universes 'merging'?) and might (I think) be able to identify the true centres of each other, assuming that the true-centres weren't themselves originally moving...

(One issue with twin expanding universe 'crossing' each other, at least in one particular scenario, is that you're going to have light-speed and light-speed meeting of 'pioneer' energy/matter from each Big Bang crosng each other and even far behind the wave-front you're going to be encountering vastly different velocities from those that make local cluster members orbit each other... And that's ignoring the fact that the 'wavefront' propogates through a meta-spacetime, given that only what is within that wavefront boundary is considered "The Universe" by the respective residents, at least until they meet, and I can only hypothesise what such a boundary colission would mean... A boundary collision between two higher-dimensional 'bubbles' is said to be one possible way to create our Universe as we personally see it, but what two 'regular' expanding universe bubbles create when they meet. Flatland, anyone?)

[What I forgot to say, when I posted just then, is that if you can trivially group the seperate galaxies, then the one Universe may have had two separate 'generation' points and thus be 'spewing matter' into an existing space-time without the whole of space-time also being generated there, i.e. spacetime already existed, for the two/more creation points to shove stuff out into. I unfortunately got diverted into describing what might happen if two actual Big Bangs, each with their own space-time structure within an expanding bubble, started to meet. This confuses the whole issue. Sorry.]

I thought the Universe was expanding relative to all points at the same time, not from one or two points. That still doesn't falsify the Big Bang theory.
No all points are TRAVELING relitive to all points not expanding from all points

No all points are TRAVELING relitive to all points not expanding from all pointsYes! Yes! That's what I meant to say.. (Did I say it? I think I strayed a little.)

Yes! Yes! That's what I meant to say.. (Did I say it? I think I strayed a little.)
You could have :) though I thought I would take some time to point it out in a short post (I dont know ... you know how browsing a thread certian things just bug you for no peticular reason) :fluffle: :fluffle:

Ok, so I started my arguments with the statement that I actually think ID is bullocks. I'm stating it again for those who didn't read it.

As such, here are my arguments against ID:

Behe's arguments are not only not supported by evidence but require you to ignore evidence completely. We know that things don't develop in leaps and bounds and nothing suggests that they do. In every example given to logically demonstrate this, it is relatively easy to show how they occurred using entirely natural forces.

As far as probability arguments, you know, the basic argument of what are the odds, blah, blah, blah. They are debunked two ways. One, what are the odds of me winning the lottery. Well, if I haven't yet, they are roughly the same as being struck by lightning seventeen times. If I've already won the lottery, well, then, the probability is one. The second way, is that there is a enourmous number of suns with an enourmous number of planets. We happen to be on the one planet (or one of the planets) that has intelligent life. They aren't having this dicussion on the planets where what you consider to be more probable occurred, well, because there's no intelligent life there.

As far as Dembski (forgive me if I spelled his name wrong), I know people who have run through the mathematical arguments and they are pretty sound. He does a pretty good job of suggesting an external source (ignore intelligence for the moment). One problem, we have observed the move towards more intelligent life and accounted for entropic energies (I think I just made that word up, but here I mean all energy related to entropy). No need for a source, so the theory is shot to hell right there.

However, let's address the intelligence issue. The claim made by Dembski is that the external source has purpose (in his claim to create man, but let's assume just some purpose). This purpose has been met which is why man hasn't become a new species according to him. He does a sort of simplistic job of suggesting intelligence of the source, and it can be debunked using the same science he claims, but let's just use logic here. If that purpose has been met then why are single-celled organisms still evolving into multicellular life, which we can observe. Nature is still evolving which means the process has not ended. No purpose has been met. So either there is no intelligent source or the intelligent source's purpose is not to create man (watch a Creationist's head explode on that little nugget). If you don't know the purpose and can't show the purpose then you can't support a need for an intelligent source.

Dem, I liked discussing this with you and you caught me on a couple of points. I think you should support your arguments better, but that's neither here nor there.

Grave, when you were here, I thought your arguments were really solid. I hope we get a chance to debate at another time.

Personally - if there IS a god - I prefer the idea of it creating a world over billions of years, and through something as complex and organic as 'survival of the fittest'.

Which is actually more amazing than just saying "poof". In order to get creation the way God wanted it, *every* beginning variable would have had to be just right. Of course, this only works assuming a deterministic universe, but I don't think that assumption is so far off. What we consider "random" is really more "we don't have enough information." Yes, mutations occur randomly, but if you knew exactly what angle an energy would hit a cells, exactly what stage of the cell cycle it was in, exactly what reactive oxygen species were around, etc, etc, I think you *could* pinpoint the exact mutation that would occur.

Grave, when you were here, I thought your arguments were really solid. I hope we get a chance to debate at another time.

Thank you.

I'm sure we will cross swords again, at some point... or even argue the same viewpoint on an issue, perhaps?

"When you were here"... yes, unfortunately, my access can be a little... erratic.

Which is why I turn up, respond to like... 20 posts... and then disappear again for a while.
:)

Which is actually more amazing than just saying "poof". In order to get creation the way God wanted it, *every* beginning variable would have had to be just right. Of course, this only works assuming a deterministic universe, but I don't think that assumption is so far off. What we consider "random" is really more "we don't have enough information." Yes, mutations occur randomly, but if you knew exactly what angle an energy would hit a cells, exactly what stage of the cell cycle it was in, exactly what reactive oxygen species were around, etc, etc, I think you *could* pinpoint the exact mutation that would occur.

Indeed... and that seems so much more majestic than a hands-in-the-dirt approach.

And, I just can't rationalise how people argue god as eternal, but have to have everything accomplished within a 'believable' time span...