Message boards :
Politics :
What is the best evidence/argument for intelligent design?
Message board moderation
Previous · 1 · 2 · 3 · 4 · 5 . . . 9 · Next
Author | Message |
---|---|
Robert Waite Send message Joined: 23 Oct 07 Posts: 2417 Credit: 18,192,122 RAC: 59 |
"What is the best evidence/argument for intelligent design?." Every argument supporting ID comes down to belief in the invisible man in the sky. I cannot make that leap based on the crap being sold by you or the churches. Based on that premise, I suppose the "best evidence/argument" is whatever suits your needs. Of course, being the "best evidence/argument" doesn't make it correct. It just makes it the most creative wrong answer. I do not fight fascists because I think I can win. I fight them because they are fascists. Chris Hedges A riot is the language of the unheard. -Martin Luther King, Jr. |
musicplayer Send message Joined: 17 May 10 Posts: 2430 Credit: 926,046 RAC: 0 |
Intelligent Design. Most people including scientists are looking at the world from as seen from a materialistic perspective or point of view. We are trying to explain everything in nature by means of defining physical laws for everything that we are able to see. As far as now, such laws are only based on equations, nothing more. If nature has been created having the physical laws and properties as we are able to observe them, we are in fact looking at these things as seen from a materialistic or physical point of view. Physicists are studing matter by means of its physical presence and assume that its is existing and present based on mathematical and physical laws as they are "given". What was once before gravity and the two or more physical laws or properties which are inherent with each such law was perhaps the so-called superforce. In addition, the Universe may also at one time have been consisting of antimatter, which when encountering matter annihilated each other creating enormous amounts of energy as a result. There may be more to this, but as far as I know there are four main theoretical laws of physics. These are the weak nuclear forces, strong nuclear forces, gravity itself and electromagnetism. If someone may be able to give me a quick summary of these main laws, I would be happy to know about it. One or more of these laws may be looked at by means of the laws of gravity as defined and explained by Isaac Newton. Similarly, these laws may be looked at by means of the laws of relativity as defined and explained by Albert Einstein and the like. Is it possible to give me an explanation where different theories are belonging when relating these to particular models of physics? Meaning with that the Theory of Relativity vs. Quantum Theory as well as other elements which may be relevant. Is Quantum Theory supposed to be dealing with the subject of gravity and time as well? Is Albert Einstein's Theory of Relativity better at explaining electromagnetism than perhaps Quantum Theory, which until now is not having any personal name behind it. As far as I know it, Einstein was not too happy about the Quantum Theory, because he was more a scientist that was concerned about and dealing with the subject of time. Am I again stuck with the Wikipedia when it comes to this, or is it possible to get some explanation from anyone here at these message boards? In summary, is it possible to explain the notion of God by means of understanding these theories, or should I rather revert back to the Bible in order for the same? I will be happy to know. |
W-K 666 Send message Joined: 18 May 99 Posts: 19012 Credit: 40,757,560 RAC: 67 |
This subject should not be here on a board discussing science. Do need higher authority? How about Supreme Court of the United States Argued December 10, 1986 Decided June 19, 1987 Full case name Edwin W. Edwards, Governor of Louisiana, et al., Appellants v. Don Aguillard et al. Citations 482 U.S. 578 (more) 107 S. Ct. 2573; 96 L. Ed. 2d 510; 1987 U.S. LEXIS 2729; 55 U.S.L.W. 4860 Argument Oral argument Holding Teaching creationism in public schools is unconstitutional because it attempts to advance a particular religion. Court membership Chief Justice William Rehnquist Associate Justices William J. Brennan, Jr. · Byron White Thurgood Marshall · Harry Blackmun Lewis F. Powell, Jr. · John P. Stevens Sandra Day O'Connor · Antonin Scalia Case opinions Majority Brennan, joined by Marshall, Blackmun, Powell, Stevens, O'Connor (all but part II) Concurrence Powell, joined by O'Connor Concurrence White (in the judgment of the court only) Dissent Scalia, joined by Rehnquist The result of this ruling that the draft of a creationist biology textbook had the terms "creation" and "creationists" in the text to "intelligent design" and "design proponents" changed, and the book renamed as "Of Pandas and People." And so the ID movement evolved out of the creationist movement, in an attempt to bypass the law. Therefore it passes the evolution marker 'change or die'. |
(banished: ID 9878057) Send message Joined: 19 May 13 Posts: 156 Credit: 527,760 RAC: 0 |
If ID had even a smidgen of compelling evidence for what it claims it would be a serious topic of discussion. As it stands now ID is no better than Scientology. |
skildude Send message Joined: 4 Oct 00 Posts: 9541 Credit: 50,759,529 RAC: 60 |
If ID had even a smidgen of compelling evidence for what it claims it would be a serious topic of discussion. quite agree. the complete lack of compelling evidence is only exaggerated by the cherry picking, pigeon holing and misleading statements about actual scientific works and scientists. In a rich man's house there is no place to spit but his face. Diogenes Of Sinope |
Wiggo Send message Joined: 24 Jan 00 Posts: 34744 Credit: 261,360,520 RAC: 489 |
I wondered where this thread went, but at least it is now in a much more suitable forum than were it was before (obviously I don't come here much at all). Cheers. |
skildude Send message Joined: 4 Oct 00 Posts: 9541 Credit: 50,759,529 RAC: 60 |
I think he tried to restart it in the science non seti@home and it mysteriously stopped being there. Not sure why. I presume ID was involved since I cannot grasp the reasons. In a rich man's house there is no place to spit but his face. Diogenes Of Sinope |
W-K 666 Send message Joined: 18 May 99 Posts: 19012 Credit: 40,757,560 RAC: 67 |
I think he tried to restart it in the science non seti@home and it mysteriously stopped being there. Not sure why. I presume ID was involved since I cannot grasp the reasons. You cannot grasp the SCOTUS ruling? |
skildude Send message Joined: 4 Oct 00 Posts: 9541 Credit: 50,759,529 RAC: 60 |
they'll take the SCOTUS ruling out of my cold dead hands In a rich man's house there is no place to spit but his face. Diogenes Of Sinope |
betreger Send message Joined: 29 Jun 99 Posts: 11358 Credit: 29,581,041 RAC: 66 |
http://static.comicvine.com/uploads/original/11111/111119363/3291267-viking.jpg This is enough proof for a normal person. |
skildude Send message Joined: 4 Oct 00 Posts: 9541 Credit: 50,759,529 RAC: 60 |
I was thinking scientifically the other day... How do we show that reptiles evolved into Mammals. I then recalled the Monotremes being the oldest lineage of Mammals. To be technical and not hopefully not making anyone uncomfortable I intend to discuss what is considered the major leap forward for mammals. the separation of function from the Cloaca to the mammalian digestive tract, urinary tract, and sexual orifices. For those that are unaware reptiles and Birds have a shared digestive, urinary and sexual tracts. mammals clearly do not. Monotremes have common tract but have what are considered mammalian traits that make it more mammal and not a bird/reptile. but not as evolved as non marsupial mammals. very very interesting to see the extend to information on this transitional group of mammals. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monotreme In a rich man's house there is no place to spit but his face. Diogenes Of Sinope |
skildude Send message Joined: 4 Oct 00 Posts: 9541 Credit: 50,759,529 RAC: 60 |
monotremes are a demonstration of a transitional animal into the class Mammalia with rudimentary warm bloodedness, hair, a transitional brain structure, and milk production though only through pores, monotremes demonstrate that indeed mammals are an offshoot of a reptilian ancestral specie(s). More specifically they come down, as what ID refuses to see but is obivious to others, as a very old mammalian order. One can infer that other mammalian species eventually evolved to Marsupial and the common orders of mammals we all know today. In a rich man's house there is no place to spit but his face. Diogenes Of Sinope |
Intelligent Design Send message Joined: 9 Apr 12 Posts: 3626 Credit: 37,520 RAC: 0 |
The leap of faith comes from you all thinking that one species has turned into another species. You have no proof of this at all. Webster defines faith as one who believe in something without proof to back it up. As you have clearly shown all of you you have a faith and no proof of what you believe. This can also be called a blind faith. Most of you don't even know why you believe this. This has been very evident as our talk here has progressed. skildude, when pressed by me on Darwin couldn't even get his own belief correct, and I had to correct him on his belief. (banished: ID 9878057), can only supply insults. I have seen nothing else that could be called science come from him yet he believes in neo-darwinism, by faith alone it seems. WinterKnight has only the argument of the law. Which suppressed most of the ID argument science, and suppressed the arguments I have brought up about there being absolutely no proof of Neo-Darwinism in the fact of species change. The proof is in the pudding. Must not conflict resolve by suggesting that someone should go sit on an ice pick... |
Intelligent Design Send message Joined: 9 Apr 12 Posts: 3626 Credit: 37,520 RAC: 0 |
ALERT NEW NPR Confirms INTELLIGENT DESIGN in Interview Must not conflict resolve by suggesting that someone should go sit on an ice pick... |
bluestar Send message Joined: 5 Sep 12 Posts: 6995 Credit: 2,084,789 RAC: 3 |
With reference to the web-link given. The same obviously can not be said about prime numbers and their possible relationship. Endless numbers. No start. No end. |
rob smith Send message Joined: 7 Mar 03 Posts: 22158 Credit: 416,307,556 RAC: 380 |
bluestar - there is a beginning to the prime number series - 3 The so called "negative primes" are the positive primes multiplied by minus one (-1) and are thus not prime, having a divisor that is neither themselves, nor 1 Bob Smith Member of Seti PIPPS (Pluto is a Planet Protest Society) Somewhere in the (un)known Universe? |
Terror Australis Send message Joined: 14 Feb 04 Posts: 1817 Credit: 262,693,308 RAC: 44 |
This thread reminds me of three science fiction stories I read decades ago. #1 was. It was discovered that the universe was collapsing. The answer was that "the universe" was the the dream of an "extra universal" mental giant and he/she/it was waking up. #2 Was that our world was an experiment in some super race's laboratory. The experiment had finished and it was time to "clean out the test tubes". However they had decided that there were some parts of the experiment that were worth saving. The hero of the story was offered entry into the "real world" but he declined. #3 Was a varieation on the "World is a stage" idea. The hero was an extra (i.e. one of "us") who had accidentally become the lover of one of the actresses in the play and was therefore offered a continuing role, this offer was also declined. I remember reading that the probability of a "Creator" existing was equal to the probability of a "Big Bang" creating the Universe, which led to the formation of our solar system, which led to the evolution of an "intelligent" race (i.e. Us). To me, no matter which side you are barracking for, there are just too many unknowns in your arguments for either of them to be taken as irrefutable fact. Any of the scenarios quoted above are just as valid as the arguments (either way) I've seen in this thread. This is not an argument about "fact", it's an argument about competing philosophies. T.A. |
bluestar Send message Joined: 5 Sep 12 Posts: 6995 Credit: 2,084,789 RAC: 3 |
Why not 2? It is an even number. |
Terror Australis Send message Joined: 14 Feb 04 Posts: 1817 Credit: 262,693,308 RAC: 44 |
Why not 2? Why not 42 ?? :) T.A. |
bluestar Send message Joined: 5 Sep 12 Posts: 6995 Credit: 2,084,789 RAC: 3 |
42=1*2*3*7 Next time I'll skip the 1. |
©2024 University of California
SETI@home and Astropulse are funded by grants from the National Science Foundation, NASA, and donations from SETI@home volunteers. AstroPulse is funded in part by the NSF through grant AST-0307956.