Intelligent Design New Evidence

[William Rea]

Wrong. The evidence for intelligent design is very strong...

This quite startling revelation deserves a thread of it's own because this would be Nobel Prize winning stuff and I want DP to be the place where it was first revealed.

So tosca1, present this strong evidence.

 

[Cephus]

Can I be the first to predict crickets?

 

[OrphanSlug]

Even from the most recent of Quantum Sciences there is not "strong evidence" of intelligent design.

There may be plenty of information that points to things we still cannot explain well enough, but that does not naturally point to diety or intelligent design as some default position. There may be also plenty of derived hypothosis and questions from other presentation of conclusion, other experiments and processes that resulted in their own conclusions. But what there is not to date from any of the known sciences is a process that followed to presentation of accepted conclusions that suggests "strong evidence" of intelligent design.

 

[DDD]

Even from the most recent of Quantum Sciences there is not "strong evidence" of intelligent design.

There may be plenty of information that points to things we still cannot explain well enough, but that does not naturally point to diety or intelligent design as some default position. There may be also plenty of derived hypothosis and questions from other presentation of conclusion, other experiments and processes that resulted in their own conclusions. But what there is not to date from any of the known sciences is a process that followed to presentation of accepted conclusions that suggests "strong evidence" of intelligent design.

Tell that to the religious whom equalize strong evidence with anecdotal ones. Their personal make belief is strong due to dogma, and they will always try to persuade based on that much.

 

[OrphanSlug]

Tell that to the religious whom equalize strong evidence with anecdotal ones. Their personal make belief is strong due to dogma, and they will always try to persuade based on that much.

Unfortunately, that is going to happen anyway. There is way too much confusion between systems of faith or belief vs. systems of science or methodical process. They may both end up with "theory" in a loose sense of the word, but how each gets to that point is very much different.

 

[Thom Paine]

This quite startling revelation deserves a thread of it's own because this would be Nobel Prize winning stuff and I want DP to be the place where it was first revealed.

So tosca1, present this strong evidence.

Hmmm, Big Bang Theory or Intelligent Design.....

Neither is more fantastic than the other.

Pick whichever belief makes you happy; after all, each is an unscientific belief.

From dictionary.com :


fantastic:
1)
conceived or appearing as if conceived by an unrestrained imagination; odd and remarkable; bizarre; grotesque:
fantastic rock formations; fantastic designs.
2.
fanciful or capricious, as persons or their ideas or actions:
We never know what that fantastic creature will say next.
3.
imaginary or groundless in not being based on reality; foolish or irrational:
fantastic fears.
4.
extravagantly fanciful; marvelous.

Have fun

Thom Paine

 

[Deuce]

Hmmm, Big Bang Theory or Intelligent Design.....

Neither is more fantastic than the other.

Pick whichever belief makes you happy; after all, each is an unscientific belief.

From dictionary.com :


fantastic:
1)
conceived or appearing as if conceived by an unrestrained imagination; odd and remarkable; bizarre; grotesque:
fantastic rock formations; fantastic designs.
2.
fanciful or capricious, as persons or their ideas or actions:
We never know what that fantastic creature will say next.
3.
imaginary or groundless in not being based on reality; foolish or irrational:
fantastic fears.
4.
extravagantly fanciful; marvelous.

Have fun

Thom Paine

The Big Bang is certainly fantastic (definition 4), but it's not "unscientific." It is well-supported by evidence. Not that you'd actually bother looking at such evidence.

 

[tosca1]

This quite startling revelation deserves a thread of it's own because this would be Nobel Prize winning stuff and I want DP to be the place where it was first revealed.

So tosca1, present this strong evidence.

Gee....that's sudden so you caught me sort of not quite prepared. I would say the strongest evidence for Design is the fine -tune argument.

 

[Deuce]

Gee....that's sudden so you caught me sort of not quite prepared. I would say the strongest evidence for Design is the fine -tune argument.

Elaborate. I am unfamiliar.

 

[Thom Paine]

The Big Bang is certainly fantastic (definition 4), but it's not "unscientific." It is well-supported by evidence. Not that you'd actually bother looking at such evidence.

Pick your "belief" ....

Sell the self righteous BS attitude somewhere else or keep it to yourself.

Thom Paine

 

[Deuce]

Pick your "belief" ....

Sell the self righteous BS attitude somewhere else or keep it to yourself.

Thom Paine

Says the guy handwaving centuries' worth of astronomy research and evidence as "belief."

 

[William Rea]

Gee....that's sudden so you caught me sort of not quite prepared. I would say the strongest evidence for Design is the fine -tune argument.

The floor is yours...

 

[Paschendale]

Gee....that's sudden so you caught me sort of not quite prepared. I would say the strongest evidence for Design is the fine -tune argument.

If that's your strongest evidence then you'd best give up now. All evidence suggests that life (and inorganic processes, including the life cycle of stars) is fitted to the universe it exists in, not the other way around.

 

[tosca1]

Elaborate. I am unfamiliar.

The basic structure of the universe as an example. Everything is "just right" to make it possible for life on earth to flourish.


As the eminent Princeton physicist Freeman Dyson notes, "There are many . . . lucky accidents in physics. Without such accidents, water could not exist as liquid, chains of carbon atoms could not form complex organic molecules, and hydrogen atoms could not form breakable bridges between molecules" (p. 251)--in short, life as we know it would be impossible

From Did We Win A Cosmic Lottery by Robin Collins


Since Carl Sagan's death in 1996, new discoveries in physics and cosmology bring into questions Sagan's assumption about the universe. Evidence shows that the constants of physics have been finely tuned to a degree not possible through human engineering.

Fine Tuning Parameters for the Universe

1.strong nuclear force constant
if larger: no hydrogen would form; atomic nuclei for most life-essential elements would be unstable; thus, no life chemistry
if smaller: no elements heavier than hydrogen would form: again, no life chemistry

2.weak nuclear force constant
if larger: too much hydrogen would convert to helium in big bang; hence, stars would convert too much matter into heavy elements making life chemistry impossible
if smaller: too little helium would be produced from big bang; hence, stars would convert too little matter into heavy elements making life chemistry impossible

3.gravitational force constant
if larger: stars would be too hot and would burn too rapidly and too unevenly for life chemistry
if smaller: stars would be too cool to ignite nuclear fusion; thus, many of the elements needed for life chemistry would never form

4.electromagnetic force constant
if greater: chemical bonding would be disrupted; elements more massive than boron would be unstable to fission
if lesser: chemical bonding would be insufficient for life chemistry

5.ratio of electromagnetic force constant to gravitational force constant
if larger: all stars would be at least 40% more massive than the sun; hence, stellar burning would be too brief and too uneven for life support
if smaller: all stars would be at least 20% less massive than the sun, thus incapable of producing heavy elements

6.ratio of electron to proton mass
if larger: chemical bonding would be insufficient for life chemistry
if smaller: same as above

7.ratio of number of protons to number of electrons
if larger: electromagnetism would dominate gravity, preventing galaxy, star, and planet formation
if smaller: same as above

8.expansion rate of the universe
if larger: no galaxies would form
if smaller: universe would collapse, even before stars formed

9.entropy level of the universe
if larger: stars would not form within proto-galaxies
if smaller: no proto-galaxies would form

10.mass density of the universe
if larger: overabundance of deuterium from big bang would cause stars to burn rapidly, too rapidly for life to form
if smaller: insufficient helium from big bang would result in a shortage of heavy elements

11.velocity of light
if faster: stars would be too luminous for life support if slower: stars would be insufficiently luminous for life support

12.age of the universe
if older: no solar-type stars in a stable burning phase would exist in the right (for life) part of the galaxy
if younger: solar-type stars in a stable burning phase would not yet have formed

13.initial uniformity of radiation
if more uniform: stars, star clusters, and galaxies would not have formed
if less uniform: universe by now would be mostly black holes and empty space

14.average distance between galaxies
if larger: star formation late enough in the history of the universe would be hampered by lack of material
if smaller: gravitational tug-of-wars would destabilize the sun's orbit

15.density of galaxy cluster
if denser: galaxy collisions and mergers would disrupt the sun's orbit
if less dense: star formation late enough in the history of the universe would be hampered by lack of material

16.average distance between stars
if larger: heavy element density would be too sparse for rocky planets to form
if smaller: planetary orbits would be too unstable for life

17.fine structure constant (describing the fine-structure splitting of spectral lines) if larger: all stars would be at least 30% less massive than the sun
if larger than 0.06: matter would be unstable in large magnetic fields
if smaller: all stars would be at least 80% more massive than the sun

18.decay rate of protons
if greater: life would be exterminated by the release of radiation
if smaller: universe would contain insufficient matter for life

19.12C to 16O nuclear energy level ratio
if larger: universe would contain insufficient oxygen for life
if smaller: universe would contain insufficient carbon for life

20.ground state energy level for 4He
if larger: universe would contain insufficient carbon and oxygen for life
if smaller: same as above

21.decay rate of 8Be
if slower: heavy element fusion would generate catastrophic explosions in all the stars
if faster: no element heavier than beryllium would form; thus, no life chemistry

22.ratio of neutron mass to proton mass
if higher: neutron decay would yield too few neutrons for the formation of many life-essential elements
if lower: neutron decay would produce so many neutrons as to collapse all stars into neutron stars or black holes

23.initial excess of nucleons over anti-nucleons
if greater: radiation would prohibit planet formation
if lesser: matter would be insufficient for galaxy or star formation

24.polarity of the water molecule
if greater: heat of fusion and vaporization would be too high for life
if smaller: heat of fusion and vaporization would be too low for life; liquid water would not work as a solvent for life chemistry; ice would not float, and a runaway freeze-up would result

25.supernovae eruptions
if too close, too frequent, or too late: radiation would exterminate life on the planet
if too distant, too infrequent, or too soon: heavy elements would be too sparse for rocky planets to form

26.white dwarf binaries
if too few: insufficient fluorine would exist for life chemistry
if too many: planetary orbits would be too unstable for life
if formed too soon: insufficient fluorine production
if formed too late: fluorine would arrive too late for life chemistry

27.ratio of exotic matter mass to ordinary matter mass
if larger: universe would collapse before solar-type stars could form
if smaller: no galaxies would form

28.number of effective dimensions in the early universe
if larger: quantum mechanics, gravity, and relativity could not coexist; thus, life would be impossible
if smaller: same result

29.number of effective dimensions in the present universe
if smaller: electron, planet, and star orbits would become unstable
if larger: same result

30.mass of the neutrino
if smaller: galaxy clusters, galaxies, and stars would not form
if larger: galaxy clusters and galaxies would be too dense

31.big bang ripples
if smaller: galaxies would not form; universe would expand too rapidly
if larger: galaxies/galaxy clusters would be too dense for life; black holes would dominate; universe would collapse before life-site could form

32.size of the relativistic dilation factor
if smaller: certain life-essential chemical reactions will not function properly
if larger: same result

33.uncertainty magnitude in the Heisenberg uncertainty principle
if smaller: oxygen transport to body cells would be too small and certain life-essential elements would be unstable
if larger: oxygen transport to body cells would be too great and certain life-essential elements would be unstable

34.cosmological constant
if larger: universe would expand too quickly to form solar-type stars

The Universe: Evidence for Its Fine Tuning

 

[tosca1]

Before we proceed any farther, let's be clear that this will heavily involve science. Personal opinions wouldn't be taken on their own. If there are any rebuttals to science materials presented, the rebuts will have to be accompanied by supporting documentation from credible sources (with links).

Don't just present the link and expect the reader to rummage through the whole site. If the article is too long, cite where the rebuttal was supported for verification.

 

[tosca1]

If that's your strongest evidence then you'd best give up now. All evidence suggests that life (and inorganic processes, including the life cycle of stars) is fitted to the universe it exists in, not the other way around.

Where are those evidences? Your source?

 

[William Rea]

Before we proceed any farther, let's be clear that this will heavily involve science. Personal opinions wouldn't be taken on their own. If there are any rebuttals to science materials presented, the rebuts will have to be accompanied by supporting documentation from credible sources (with links).

Don't just present the link and expect the reader to rummage through the whole site. If the article is too long, cite where the rebuttal was supported for verification.

OK, I'm waiting for your science.

 

[William Rea]

Where are those evidences? Your source?

It was your positive claim.

 

[Thom Paine]

Says the guy handwaving centuries' worth of astronomy research and evidence as "belief."

Okay, I'll play for a few minutes. Probably, I'm about to P.O. everybody.

" In the beginning there was a "Big Bang" and the word was "Big Bang" ........

There are those who accept what has been written as evidence on both sides of the equation; yet there is no absolute proof of either.

Have you witnessed such proof or are you choosing what you wish to believe?

Pick your belief

Thom Paine

 

[William Rea]

Okay, I'll play for a few minutes. Probably, I'm about to P.O. everybody.

" In the beginning there was a "Big Bang" and the word was "Big Bang" ........

There are those who accept what has been written as evidence on both sides of the equation; yet there is no absolute proof of either.

Have you witnessed such proof or are you choosing what you wish to believe?

Pick your belief

Thom Paine

Proof is for Whiskey and Mathematics.

 

[Thom Paine]

............................ All evidence suggests that life ........................

Ahhhhh, the basis of my comments.

Thanks P and good day to ya'

Thom Paine

 

[Thom Paine]

Proof is for Whiskey and Mathematics.

:lamo Agreed.

My attitude exactly.

Yet people ask for proof, from both sides, that does not exist which results in "belief"

Howdy to the UK , WR

Thom Paine

 

[Cephus]

Gee....that's sudden so you caught me sort of not quite prepared. I would say the strongest evidence for Design is the fine -tune argument.

Enter the Argument from Ignorance...

 

[tosca1]

Enter the Argument from Ignorance...

I'm counting the crickets of personal attacks now. :mrgreen:
That's always the same MO with most radical atheists.
You can easily qualify and eliminate those who'd nothing to give.

Here they come - #1.


At least I have an argument. Where is yours?

Put your money where your mouth is and actually rebut what I'd given. Blowing hot air and pure bravado does not merit you anything!

YOU GOTTA CONTRIBUTE SOMETHING SENSIBLE. :lol:

 

[Cephus]

At least I have an argument. Where is yours?

As with everything else, you have no clue what you're talking about. The Argument from Ignorance is a logical fallacy. It's nothing you ought to be proud of.