http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-19728375

Now that is beautiful!

Indeed it is, thanks for the link.

---

I think you'll find it's a bit more complicated than that ...

Old, Great info.

---

ID, universe is a definition, and can not be modified. If modified the word means something else, not universe.

Thank you, very informational. You are the one to ask when a word needs defined.

The fine tuning concerning the energy of the Big Bang has been quantified by Roger Penrose.

Now, I have answered your question fully.

Now you will answer mine. The Anthropic Principle believes in a linkage between the fine tuning of various physical parameters of the universe and at the same time the various physical needs of human existence. Why do you ignore it?

"The challenge," Penrose said, "is to find a plausible explanation for this fine-tuning." The odds that our universe with life, could have accidentally evolved into its present fine-tuned configuration are one in 10 to the 10123. This is why many theorists believe in the existence of a "super-calculating intellect", "intelligent agent" to account for the fine-tuning.

Hoyle, in his writings, echos the same thoughts. Why do you ignore it?

Fully? You're on the right track when you say it's about the energy of the Big Bang, though there's more to it than that (it's not about fine-tuning).

First mention of the Anthropic Principle, so it's unclear why there's an accusation of my ignoring it. BTW, to my mind the principle is unremarkable (though perhaps a little unsatisfactory) and does not appear to suggest what you claim it does. Put (perhaps overly) simply, the anthropic principle states the universe is the way it is, because, if it were any other way, we would not be here to observe it.

What is the source for your quote from Penrose? The Penrose number has nothing, I repeat nothing, whatsoever to do with the evolution of life (or indeed the evolution of the universe).

For what it's worth, Penrose is commenting on Hoyle when he refers to "supercalculating intellect", which you'd know if you'd bothered to read Hoyle's article:

Some supercalculating intellect must have designed the properties of the carbon atom, otherwise the chance of my finding such an atom through the blind forces of nature would be utterly minuscule. Of course you would, and if you were a sensible superintellect you would conclude that the carbon atom is a fix.

Here Hoyle is discussing the triple alpha process, and not the evolution of life, or the evolution of the universe, as you'll see from the wikipedia article, it's about the production of carbon in stars.

ID, until you start reading what the scientists are actually saying, rather than the garbled nonsense that is repeated on the various Creationist/Intelligent Design sites you frequent, you won't stand a chance of making the case that you want to. It's clear that the quote is from such a site, as the Penrose number is 10^10^123 not 10^10123, the two numbers are vastly different from one another.

You miss the point. He seen intelligence in the evolution of stars.

Yes, vastly different, yet pointing in a direction that you refuse to see in.

You miss the point, I mentioned garbled nonsense because 10^10123 is a garlbled typo of 10^10^123. Keep on reading the nonsense if you wish, I'll stick to the science, it's much clearer and the vast majority of it does not suggest what you claim. You appear to be trapped by Hoyle's fallacy, and doomed to making the same fallacious arguments, it's time you started reading what the scientists say rather than what the ID "theorists" say the scientists say. I'll admit the Penrose paper is not simple, though you'll have to do better than a single inaccurate line before you can say that you have summarized the context of his number fully.

I give you my sources (and even find some of your own for you), how about answering my request for the source of the Penrose quote?

Done with you. When I figure out how to ignore you I will.

You're really not worth bantering with.

It is your conclusion, you don't speak for everyone. As I said you're entitled to your opinions. But for the majority of people their Faith is true and correct. It is in the disrespect of that Faith by not looking at the proof provided.

I have bothered to look at the other side of the argument of no God. I disagree. And provide what I believe it truth. And just like you and others add science as part of that proof.

The logic is so simple, who made who? You work backwards in history from that question.

The Bible is accurate in dates of battles. And much, much more.

But, I'm not here to discuss any of this. What did God do before creation.

What makes sense to me is that the intelligent agent/God must stand outside of our timeline.

All of us are on the inside looking out. We are not on the outside looking in.

All information about the intelligent agent/God will be incomplete and will always be incomplete because of the simple fact that our perspective is and will always be, from the inside looking out.

We have only one timeline that we can test, our own. That's limits any real science to our own. And I do believe this is called a working theory?

[smile]

ID
I never think of myself as speaking for everyone but I am a thoughtful person and when I am unsure of someones argument I have to ask questions to clarify their reasoning so I might better understand them.

I really want to understand your arguments and be confident that if I say to you at some point in the future, "Yep, OK, I agree with you," about whatever else you claim, then I must be convinced of your credibility of thought.

I know you don't want to talk about the Bible but it is key. The Bible is just one of many documents which recorded human existence on a geographically small part of the earth over a shortish (relative to the age of the earth) period of time. It does not include all human activity in all parts of the world, throughout all of human existence.

I never said it wasn't accurate apart from a few old testament fancies, which given the age of the planet, are apocryphal. But the New Testament does omit lots of contemporary 'books' and other equally 'accurate' writings. Therefore, it is an incomplete record and was deliberately created to serve a purpose. These facts are irrefutable as the other omitted works exist.

Once 'compiled' and once things had settled down a bit, it was copied numerous times, by hand, by monks, in Latin and that wasn't even its original language. (I go and look at one most weeks as they regularly turn the pages so we can read the beautiful illuminated text). Graphical errors and errors of tranposition often crept in and then those errors were mis-interpreted as they were mis-translated into English to begin with and then...well, imagine translating that into, say, French (quelle horreur!)

If you believe that the Bible is a complete, unadulterated, accurate account of man and his existence on the earth, then I would have to conclude that you have not properly studied the evidence and thought it through. This would throw your other claims into doubt.

As far as faith is concerned. Man has had 'faith' ever since he was terrified by the first eclipse of the sun (as seen from earth that is!). Faith helped him cope a bit!

Your question, 'What did God do before the creation?', is skewed from the start by assuming the existence of 'a' God sitting, floating or twiddling It's thumbs in boredom just before creation (whatever form that took!).

Your question, being respectful of other faiths or lack thereof, should have been 'Did Gods exist before the creation?' or 'Was the creation a natural phenomenon?'

All your statements about looking in, out and/or shaking it all about are irrelevant if we cannot prove the existence of God. I'm sorry but 'believing' in one is not enough for the rest of humanity just as not 'believing' in clairvoyance doesn't necessarily mean it doesn't happen! We just don't know yet as we may have just forgotten how to do that!

Having said all that, I would very much like to read what your thoughts and conclusions were on your studies into the 'no' God arguements.

It's simple. When I talk about the science of creation I do not interject my Faith into it. I don't even like to use the word--God. Intelligent agent, intelligence, maker, whatever word seems best at the time. It is not up to me to indoctrinate, or lead in any direction anyone about Who or What the Intelligent Agent is, it is up to them to place a name or what the agent/designer is.

If you would like to talk about God and the Christian Bible please feel free to start another thread. Id be happy to join in. I have joined repeatedly many other threads about all the topics you have touched on.

I would also be happy to join you on a 'no' God argument, please, by all means start another thread.

As I said...we cannot know what happened before our time line, nor does it matter. Logic dictates the designer stood outside out our time line since the designer made our time line.

It's simple. When I talk about the science of creation I do not interject my Faith into it. I don't even like to use the word--God. Intelligent agent, intelligence, maker, whatever word seems best at the time. It is not up to me to indoctrinate, or lead in any direction anyone about Who or What the Intelligent Agent is, it is up to them to place a name or what the agent/designer is.

To suggest a Designer of any sort, without any direct evidence (your misinterpretation of odds and your suggestion of DNA being unable to magically assemble are not considered supporting evidence by any definition), is to suggest a faith of some sort. Ergo, you are indeed interjecting your faith, but your faith blinds you from seeing that simple fact.

As I said...we cannot know what happened before our time line, nor does it matter. Logic dictates the designer stood outside out our time line since the designer made our time line.

Two statements made without supporting evidence. If we cannot know what happened before our time, we cannot know that a Designer was there. Suggesting as much without supporting evidence is in fact a faith. This is why Intelligent Design is not a valid scientific theory, nor even a 'working' theory. It is a hypothesis that will remain so until supporting evidence can be discovered.

ID

So sorry, I erroneously attributed the original question to your good self!

Will consider your other suggestions.

Done with you. When I figure out how to ignore you I will.

You're really not worth bantering with.

What an honor you've bestowed upon me, and the reasons? As far as can be seen they are:

1) I requested you read a paper then provide us with the context of a number mentioned in it, a number that you've seen elsewhere without the scientist's context and believed it meant what it was reported to mean, and repeated those reports as if they were true. (BTW you only attempt to provided the context "The fine tuning concerning the energy of the Big Bang has been quantified by Roger Penrose" is not the correct, the words "tuning", "tuned" and "tune" do not appear in the paper.

2) I requested you provide the source for one of those reports.

In the past you requested we read 50 or so papers from an ID site, is reading 1 so troublesome?

Hopefully the list of reasons to be added to your ignore list is helpful to others here.

---

I think you'll find it's a bit more complicated than that ...

ID

So sorry, I erroneously attributed the original question to your good self!

Will consider your other suggestions.

I'm far from upset with you. I kinda figured that was the case.

I am being quite honest that Id be happy to talk with you on said subjects.

Done with you. When I figure out how to ignore you I will.

You're really not worth bantering with.

What an honor you've bestowed upon me, and the reasons? As far as can be seen they are:

1) I requested you read a paper then provide us with the context of a number mentioned in it, a number that you've seen elsewhere without the scientist's context and believed it meant what it was reported to mean, and repeated those reports as if they were true. (BTW you only attempt to provided the context "The fine tuning concerning the energy of the Big Bang has been quantified by Roger Penrose" is not the correct, the words "tuning", "tuned" and "tune" do not appear in the paper.

2) I requested you provide the source for one of those reports.

In the past you requested we read 50 or so papers from an ID site, is reading 1 so troublesome?

Hopefully the list of reasons to be added to your ignore list is helpful to others here.

And I answered your questions. Just because you did not like that answers does not mean I did not answer.

I understand Roger Penrose point of view and I disagree with it and interjected my point of view just like I have with Mr. Hoyle.

I asked one question of you just one! And you have NOT answered.

Then to top all of it off you accused me of NOT reading either paper from either man without any real evidence. Your hypothesis is incorrect.

My point of view is that of design. You are well aware of that. Both men that I have quoted spoke of design.

Done with you. When I figure out how to ignore you I will.

You're really not worth bantering with.

What an honor you've bestowed upon me, and the reasons? As far as can be seen they are:

1) I requested you read a paper then provide us with the context of a number mentioned in it, a number that you've seen elsewhere without the scientist's context and believed it meant what it was reported to mean, and repeated those reports as if they were true. (BTW your only attempt to provide the context "The fine tuning concerning the energy of the Big Bang has been quantified by Roger Penrose" is not correct, the words "tuning", "tuned" and "tune" do not appear in the paper).

2) I requested you provide the source for one of those reports.

In the past you requested we read 50 or so papers from an ID site, is reading 1 so troublesome?

Hopefully the list of reasons to be added to your ignore list is helpful to others here.

And I answered your questions. Just because you did not like that answers does not mean I did not answer.

I understand Roger Penrose point of view and I disagree with it and interjected my point of view just like I have with Mr. Hoyle.

I asked one question of you just one! And you have NOT answered.

Then to top all of it off you accused me of NOT reading either paper from either man without any real evidence. Your hypothesis is incorrect.

My point of view is that of design. You are well aware of that. Both men that I have quoted spoke of design.

I asked you to summarize the context of Penrose's number in his paper, you mentioned fine-tuning (which isn't part of it) and energy (which is), and claimed that you answered "fully".

You have not provided the source for:

Intelligent Design wrote:

"The challenge," Penrose said, "is to find a plausible explanation for this fine-tuning." The odds that our universe with life, could have accidentally evolved into its present fine-tuned configuration are one in 10 to the 10123. This is why many theorists believe in the existence of a "super-calculating intellect", "intelligent agent" to account for the fine-tuning.

You asked me why I ignore Anthropic Principle, and I answered.

You also asked why I ignore Hoyle, I thought I'd answered that by reference to Hoyle's Fallacy.

You asked me "Would you like to see a photo of a oval and that of a circle? Both can be seen as round--depending on your point of view. Yes? Do you see the futility of this type of argument? Really, do you?". Were these questions not rhetorical?

If not rhetorical, then:
No, I do not need to see photos of ovals or circles.
Yes, I understand both may be thought of as round, if one considers round as a synonym for ellipse, or, if one considers round as a synonym for circle, an oval may appear round when viewed from a specific angle.
Yes, I understand the futility of pointing out the WMAP picture is a 2D projection of "an opened up" 3D object with somebody who states they learnt all the needed to know about shapes by age 4.
Yes, I really do understand the futility, a 4 year old that can comprehend what shape would result from the transformation of the WMAP 3D object to the WMAP 2D projection, would be a genius of the highest order debating Hawkings, Penrose and others directly rather than quoting garbled ID nonsense on the SETI@Home fora.

You say you asked me just one question (as you can see, I found 6), though do not care to restate it. Please do so.

If you had read Penrose's paper, I'm not sure how "entropy" was not part of your attempt to provide a context for his number, it's used directly at least 15 times in the first 2 pages (and indirectly a few more by reference to the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics). If you had read that paper you'd know that the Penrose's number is specifically about entropy more than it is about energy (mentioned directly only once in the entire paper, on the second page). It was on this basis that I accused you of not having read it.

---

I think you'll find it's a bit more complicated than that ...

[quote]It's simple. When I talk about the science of creation I do not interject my Faith into it. I don't even like to use the word--God. Intelligent agent, intelligence, maker, whatever word seems best at the time. It is not up to me to indoctrinate, or lead in any direction anyone about Who or What the Intelligent Agent is, it is up to them to place a name or what the agent/designer is.

Blankman" wrote:

To suggest a Designer of any sort, without any direct evidence (your misinterpretation of odds and your suggestion of DNA being unable to magically assemble are not considered supporting evidence by any definition), is to suggest a faith of some sort. Ergo, you are indeed interjecting your faith, but your faith blinds you from seeing that simple fact.

No, your blanket statement isn't worth the time it took you to type it.

I gave you two reasons. Odds, and magic. No such thing as magic and the odds are to long for chance happening. Your misinterpretation of both is to suggest a faith that you have in--nothing.

As I said...we cannot know what happened before our time line, nor does it matter. Logic dictates the designer stood outside out our time line since the designer made our time line.

"Blankman" wrote:

Two statements made without supporting evidence. If we cannot know what happened before our time, we cannot know that a Designer was there. Suggesting as much without supporting evidence is in fact a faith. This is why Intelligent Design is not a valid scientific theory, nor even a 'working' theory. It is a hypothesis that will remain so until supporting evidence can be discovered.

Well, lets see....

The universe is in 3D and a circle. The first stars were massive and circles, they made blackholes--that are circles. The next generation of stars were or course, circles. And so on.......

If we trace back in HISTORY what I posted above we see a design. Please tell me you see a circle as that design, please? Design by logic denotes intelligence.

Well, lets see....

The universe is in 3D and a circle. The first stars were massive and circles, they made blackholes--that are circles. The next generation of stars were or course, circles. And so on.......

If we trace back in HISTORY what I posted above we see a design. Please tell me you see a circle as that design, please? Design by logic denotes intelligence.

A circle exists on a plane and is 2 dimensional, there are several 3D objects that will produce a circle via a cross section, cones, cylinders, spheroids, etc. What is your basis to suggest the universe is any particular shape?

Stars and planets are spheroids as a result of gravity and spin.

---

I think you'll find it's a bit more complicated than that ...

No, your blanket statement isn't worth the time it took you to type it.

I largely agree, no matter how many times we have to correct your understanding of the English language, the scientific method, and mathematics, nearly everyone reading can see that I'm wasting my time responding. For you, Intelligent Design must be on the table in order to justify your belief in a God/Deity/Maker. For if there is no science backing it, you won't be able to rationalize believing. If only you could understand that this is the very basis for faith. You can still believe without there being an explanation for it.

But understanding that would not help you in your fight against agnostics/atheists, as your belief system dictates you defend mercilessly against all those that would deny a belief in a higher power.

I gave you two reasons. Odds, and magic. No such thing as magic and the odds are to long for chance happening. Your misinterpretation of both is to suggest a faith that you have in--nothing.

As repeated here ad infinitum, the mere fact that we are here means that there is at least one chance. No matter what the odds are, we are here. This very example does not denote a deity of any sort. Odds are just a way of figuring out the chances of something - it does not provide proof of a divine being except to maybe you and other ID proponents. This is the very basis if you misunderstanding of odds.

Turning around every argument you read does not strengthen your position. Most here will simply read that you are unable to defend yourself intellectually by actually responding to challenges posited to you, and by carefully explaining yourself so as to help others understand where you're coming from. Repeating one's arguments over and over while ignoring challenges means you don't have an argument - but we all know you will persist because your faith in a higher power demands you "defend" yourself and your beliefs. I could respect your religious perspectives so much more were you able to understand the arguments before you and acknowledge where you've misunderstood things that are well above your level of understanding.

Well, lets see....

The universe is in 3D and a circle. The first stars were massive and circles, they made blackholes--that are circles. The next generation of stars were or course, circles. And so on.......

If we trace back in HISTORY what I posted above we see a design. Please tell me you see a circle as that design, please? Design by logic denotes intelligence.

No, I don't see it as a design as you would suggest, but rather objects obeying the natural laws of the universe - laws that we are slowly discovering through the natural sciences to gain a better understanding of this universe we live in.

Now, I know you're going to suggest that something had to put those laws there, but that goes right back into the 'we haven't observed anything to support that claim' argument. I respect that you see it as Design, but understand that what you see as Design is only an assumption on your part, and one that supports your faith in a Designer.


But I know that not a single thing I say will sink through to you. You made it clear a while ago that you are:

Im very much a Christian man. Catholic. My Faith is a very important in my life. It permeates my whole life. I will not deny my God. I firmly believe in Intelligent Design. It is a science. I really don't care if you believe or like this fact, however, I will defend my God in forums. So you had better be on top of YOUR game if you wish to banter with me.

Absolutely nothing anyone can say can help you understand because your faith blocks you.

I don't have a problem with people who have faith - I just have a problem with people who don't understand science and think their faith is of a science (if there were proof, there would be no need for faith, which is why the two are always opposite of each other).

Quick question Intelligent Design, You keep saying you are a Catholic and believe in a designer, but the church rejects Intelligent Design, so what are you?

Intelligent Design belittles God, Vatican Observatory director says

Quick question Intelligent Design, You keep saying you are a Catholic and believe in a designer, but the church rejects Intelligent Design, so what are you?

Intelligent Design belittles God, Vatican Observatory director says

Quick answer, what makes you think that one man can tell me what to believe and not believe?

Quick question Intelligent Design, You keep saying you are a Catholic and believe in a designer, but the church rejects Intelligent Design, so what are you?

Intelligent Design belittles God, Vatican Observatory director says

Quick answer, what makes you think that one man can tell me what to believe and not believe?

The Pope?

---

Quick question Intelligent Design, You keep saying you are a Catholic and believe in a designer, but the church rejects Intelligent Design, so what are you?

Intelligent Design belittles God, Vatican Observatory director says

Quick answer, what makes you think that one man can tell me what to believe and not believe?

The Pope?

So you profess to be a catholic, and yet you choose not to follow the teachings of the Pope.

In case you missed it, or as usual failed to read the link, the last Pope said, in this quote from the article.

Pope John Paul Paul II, he adds, told the Pontifical Academy of Sciences in 1996 that “new scientific knowledge has led us to the conclusion that the theory of evolution is no longer a mere hypothesis.”

The Pope?

So you profess to be a catholic, and yet you choose not to follow the teachings of the Pope.

In case you missed it, or as usual failed to read the link, the last Pope said, in this quote from the article.

Pope John Paul Paul II, he adds, told the Pontifical Academy of Sciences in 1996 that “new scientific knowledge has led us to the conclusion that the theory of evolution is no longer a mere hypothesis.”

For me or I.D.? If me, no I was only baptised & the catholic church are just another bunch of cultists!

---

The Pope?

So you profess to be a catholic, and yet you choose not to follow the teachings of the Pope.

In case you missed it, or as usual failed to read the link, the last Pope said, in this quote from the article.

Pope John Paul Paul II, he adds, told the Pontifical Academy of Sciences in 1996 that “new scientific knowledge has led us to the conclusion that the theory of evolution is no longer a mere hypothesis.”

For me or I.D.? If me, no I was only baptised & the catholic church are just another bunch of cultists!

For I.D.

Sorry if you think I was questioning your religious status. AFAIK you have never claimed repeatedly to be a practicing member of a church.