Intelligent Design New Evidence

[Lethargic Aptitude]

Not to mention the fact that the universe has been here for billions of years so we could live on earth for what, 200,000 years? Now that is intelligent design.
Man will likely be gone in no time, and the universe will keep on chugging along.

Well Christians do believe that Earth is doomed. But at any rate the existence of exo-planets pretty much destroys a intelligent design claim, since there isnt a rational argument against at least one of those planets being able to support life. ANd actually mans ability to go into space already has given us the evidence that Earth is not unique in supporting life. I mean us lowly homo sapiens created micro environments that can sustain life. No god needed. But then in the defense of intelligent design a god theoretically isnt needed for that either. If one puts any worth into intelligent design then you must also admit that there is no god. But never fear Christians though are not being rational when they promote intelligent design, they in fact are just saying: believe in god. Which is why intelligent design does not belong in any science class.

 

[ludin]

Provide a quote in which Dr Hawking said the Big Bang was "impossible".

a correction penrose said it wasn't possible
hawking supported this by saying if the expansion of the big bang was not down to the milli-second that it would collapse on itself.

these two theories have now been proven by the higgs theory. the big bang simply was not possible and if it was to occur that it would collapse in on itself.

From a brief history in time:

If the rate of expansion one second after the Big Bang had been smaller by even one part in 100 thousand million million, the universe would have collapsed before it ever reached its present size."

this is exactly what the higgs field theory suggests as well.

 

[Deuce]

Good, then explain it.

The short version is that we don't know. We can observe that our universe expanded from a single point. But your claim that it came from nothing is speculative.

Don't blame me or ID or any conservative for the poor science curriculum in school. You people (spelled liberals) are running the school system now, take credit for your teaching methods. They haven't worked. Fortunately we have smart people in spite of the ridiculous methods being used, but the general education has eroded.

:roll: Right. It's those liberals trying to erode basic science education by stuffing religion into science classes. It's liberals slashing funding to schools all across the nation. It's liberals saying we should eliminate the Department of Education. It's liberals attacking teachers as a whole on Fox News because teachers are overpaid and get out of work at 3pm. ( :lamo)

Let me guess, you saw some facebook macros about common core and think liberals control everything in education.

 

[Deuce]

Physics seems to go off the deep end, when discussing a singularity of infinite gravity and heat, and prior to that of coming from "nothing". Nothing by it's own definition does not exist, so how do you get a point of energy density powerful enough to create a universe from the utter lack of matter/energy/space?

Who says there was an utter lack of matter/energy/space?

 

[Lethargic Aptitude]

Who says there was an utter lack of matter/energy/space?

Those things did not exist as we know them to exist now. But they could have existed in a different state, therefor existing as something that we do not know. ANd that different state could still exist. The point being that as you are saying: Who dictates that there wasnt anything before the big bang or that there was a before? Most religions believe in a nothingness before their god(s) created something. ANd base everything on that presumption. It is called confirmation bias or at the very least religious dogma that insists its their way or no way at all.

 

[William Rea]

a correction penrose said it wasn't possible
hawking supported this by saying if the expansion of the big bang was not down to the milli-second that it would collapse on itself.

these two theories have now been proven by the higgs theory. the big bang simply was not possible and if it was to occur that it would collapse in on itself.

From a brief history in time:

If the rate of expansion one second after the Big Bang had been smaller by even one part in 100 thousand million million, the universe would have collapsed before it ever reached its present size."

this is exactly what the higgs field theory suggests as well.

Hate to be the bringer of bad news but, something happened or we wouldn't be here.

So if it was actually impossible, how do you explain us? Scientifically of course because, we know that everything would have been right in the Goldilocks zone for a Creator.

 

[grip]

Who says there was an utter lack of matter/energy/space?

Full Definition of NOTHING
1
a : something that does not exist
b : the absence of all magnitude or quantity; also : zero 1a
c : nothingness, nonexistence

Nothingness is the state of being nothing,[2] the state of nonexistence of anything (energy/matter/space), or the property of having nothing.


"In Stephen Hawking’s new book The Grand Design, he says that because of the law of gravity, the universe can and will create itself out of nothing."

Can a Universe Create Itself Out of Nothing? | Big Think | Dr. Kaku's Universe


"What caused the Big Bang itself? For many years, cosmologists have relied on the idea that the universe formed spontaneously, that the Big Bang was the result of quantum fluctuations in which the Universe came into existence from nothing."

A Mathematical Proof That The Universe Could Have Formed Spontaneously From Nothing

 

[Deuce]

Good, then explain it.

Full Definition of NOTHING
1
a : something that does not exist
b : the absence of all magnitude or quantity; also : zero 1a
c : nothingness, nonexistence

Nothingness is the state of being nothing,[2] the state of nonexistence of anything (energy/matter/space), or the property of having nothing.


"In Stephen Hawking’s new book The Grand Design, he says that because of the law of gravity, the universe can and will create itself out of nothing."

Can a Universe Create Itself Out of Nothing? | Big Think | Dr. Kaku's Universe


"What caused the Big Bang itself? For many years, cosmologists have relied on the idea that the universe formed spontaneously, that the Big Bang was the result of quantum fluctuations in which the Universe came into existence from nothing."

A Mathematical Proof That The Universe Could Have Formed Spontaneously From Nothing

Your link explains why the apparent violation of thermodynamics actually isn't. Thanks!

 

[roughdraft274]

No, they didn't have paper yet. :roll: When are you ever going to add something useful?

He gave you something very useful and you just can't understand it. They didn't exist prior to the universe.

And even now we have evidence that the laws of thermodynamics break down under certain conditions and that has been demonstrated and confirmed in the lab:

But what made the universe and all its mass come into being at all? The suggestion is that the universe began as a quantum fluctuation of the vacuum. It used to be thought that the vacuum was truly nothing, simply inert space. But we now know that it is actually a hive of activity with particle-antiparticle pairs being repeatedly produced out of the vacuum and almost immediately annihilating themselves into nothingness again. The creation of a particle-antiparticle pair out of the vacuum violates the law of conservation of energy but the Heisenberg uncertainty principle allows such violations for a very short time. This phenomenon has observable and measurable consequences, which have been tested and confirmed. (The Inflationary Universe, Alan Guth, 1997, p. 272)

Big Bang for beginners-13: Does the Big Bang theory violate the law of conservation of energy? | Machines Like Us

 

[grip]

Your link explains why the apparent violation of thermodynamics actually isn't. Thanks!

Glad I could be of service.

 

[roughdraft274]

Human intelligence is an analytic reflection of preeminent natural order. Therefore if humans are evolved (designed) by nature, it's done in a way that involves intelligence.

You are simply saying that a natural process must involve intelligence, and that simply isn't true. And you can't switch out the word evolved for designed. They are two different words with two very different meanings.

 

[grip]

You are simply saying that a natural process must involve intelligence, and that simply isn't true. And you can't switch out the word evolved for designed. They are two different words with two very different meanings.

The world wasn't designed by evolution thru a natural process that eventually developed intelligent life based on it's own design?

 

[Fallenangel]

Most theories I'm aware of require vacuum to exist before the creation of our universe.
Where did the vacuum come from?

Fallen.

 

[ttwtt78640]

The world wasn't designed by evolution thru a natural process that eventually developed intelligent life based on it's own design?

Correct. Nothing cannot evolve into something. Evolution is one thing (already created) eventually turning into another thing.

 

[Deuce]

Most theories I'm aware of require vacuum to exist before the creation of our universe.
Where did the vacuum come from?

Fallen.

No they don't.

 

[Fallenangel]

No they don't.

Can you name and explain a few? ... you know cause you need something for the quantum fluctuations to fluctuate in.


Fallen.

 

[roughdraft274]

The world wasn't designed by evolution thru a natural process that eventually developed intelligent life based on it's own design?

Design: to plan and make decisions

Therefor, no, what you are saying isnt true. Evolution is a term that we have given a completely natural process. This natural process involves no planning or decisions. You can not use the word design here. Because this isn't "design".

We have intelligent life that was the result of evolution, but at no point in time did nature or the world or a natural process make any decisions or planned anything.

 

[RogueWarrior]

Design: to plan and make decisions

Therefor, no, what you are saying isnt true. Evolution is a term that we have given a completely natural process. This natural process involves no planning or decisions. You can not use the word design here. Because this isn't "design".

We have intelligent life that was the result of evolution, but at no point in time did nature or the world or a natural process make any decisions or planned anything.

No what we have is intelligent life, well sorta intelligent anyway :mrgreen:. The leading hypothesis bolstered by truck loads of scientific evidence suggests that it arose by natural processes. It is possible that the Christian god was involved or the Hindus gods, aliens or even the FSM. Any theories suggesting their involvement have exactly the same amount of scientific evidence. Their lack of evidence does not mean they are wrong. They are just unsupported.

Evolution is the term we give to a process. Again, all the scientific evidence leads to a hypothesis that it is a natural process. It is possible that it was 'guided' by something or someone. Again, as is the case above, there is scant i.e. no scientific evidence that points leads to something other than a natural process.

Please be careful with positive claims.

 

[roughdraft274]

Again, all the scientific evidence leads to a hypothesis that it is a natural process. It is possible that it was 'guided' by something or someone.

If it was ever shown that evolution was "guided" by a supernatural entity, then it wouldn't be evolution any more. Because evolution only describes the completely natural process involved.

I am not stating that it's impossible for there to be some guiding process that is making decisions, even though there is no evidence for it, but if we found evidence for it, the resulting theory would no longer be "evolution".

 

[tosca1]

Richard Dawkins is a Hit-and-Run! He has a habit of making stout claims, and refusing to face any challenges to those claims!

Before peeing on his pants when challenged to debate with William Lane Craig in 2011, he fleed from Stepen Meyer.


Dawkins Dodges Meyer, Won't Debate Evolution vs. Design

Dawkins Dodges Meyer, Won't Debate Evolution vs. Design (Stephen C Meyer - News)


If you're confident that your opponent doesn't have any ground to stand on - why don't you prove it in a public debate?

That he won't face Meyer in this golden opportunity to debunk DESIGN says a lot for the validity of the plausibility of Design, and the crock of macro-evolution.

 

[Deuce]

Richard Dawkins is a Hit-and-Run! He has a habit of making stout claims, and refusing to face any challenges to those claims!

Before peeing on his pants when challenged to debate with William Lane Craig in 2011, he fleed from Stepen Meyer.


Dawkins Dodges Meyer, Won't Debate Evolution vs. Design

Dawkins Dodges Meyer, Won't Debate Evolution vs. Design (Stephen C Meyer - News)


If you're confident that your opponent doesn't have any ground to stand on - why don't you prove it in a public debate?

That he won't face Meyer in this golden opportunity to debunk DESIGN says a lot for the validity of the plausibility of Design, and the crock of macro-evolution.

The debate would lend false impression that these are two equally valid, competing scientific theories.

We saw it with Bill Nye's "debate" against the creation museum guy. No debate actually occurs. Creationists don't debate science. They just want a platform to spew their talking points.

 

[Somerville]

This will probably 'validate' the beliefs of those who say Catholics aren't 'real' Christians

Pope says evolution, Big Bang are real

 

[roughdraft274]

Richard Dawkins is a Hit-and-Run! He has a habit of making stout claims, and refusing to face any challenges to those claims!

Before peeing on his pants when challenged to debate with William Lane Craig in 2011, he fleed from Stepen Meyer.


Dawkins Dodges Meyer, Won't Debate Evolution vs. Design

Dawkins Dodges Meyer, Won't Debate Evolution vs. Design (Stephen C Meyer - News)


If you're confident that your opponent doesn't have any ground to stand on - why don't you prove it in a public debate?

That he won't face Meyer in this golden opportunity to debunk DESIGN says a lot for the validity of the plausibility of Design, and the crock of macro-evolution.

There's no reason to debate Meyer. He's not a biologist and it shows in his work. His degree is in "philosophy of science" for pete's sake.

These people ignore all of the scientific data and evidence for evolution and Dawkins is right in not giving them a venue to spout their nonsense.

In the exact same way that we shouldn't be having big public debates between structural engineers and 9/11 truther nuts about the integrity or the world trade center and whether a jet crashing into them could cause the collapse. The engineers are so far above their level that it would be undignified to even give them a chance at a public appearance like that.

If intelligent design people want to be taken seriously, start doing science and publishing reputable scientific articles in reputable scientific journals and allow them to be peer reviewed. Otherwise, it's a big joke for gullible idiots.

 

[calamity]

Richard Dawkins is a Hit-and-Run! He has a habit of making stout claims, and refusing to face any challenges to those claims!

Before peeing on his pants when challenged to debate with William Lane Craig in 2011, he fleed from Stepen Meyer.


Dawkins Dodges Meyer, Won't Debate Evolution vs. Design

Dawkins Dodges Meyer, Won't Debate Evolution vs. Design (Stephen C Meyer - News)


If you're confident that your opponent doesn't have any ground to stand on - why don't you prove it in a public debate?

That he won't face Meyer in this golden opportunity to debunk DESIGN says a lot for the validity of the plausibility of Design, and the crock of macro-evolution.

"Design" as about as valid and plausible as is the Crow creation story.

 

[grip]

Correct. Nothing cannot evolve into something. Evolution is one thing (already created) eventually turning into another thing.

The DNA of an egg has the 'blueprints' or the design of something already within it before it develops, just as the ecosystem of the planet came about from the process of information being transferred from natural conditions.

Design: to plan and make decisions

Therefor, no, what you are saying isnt true. Evolution is a term that we have given a completely natural process. This natural process involves no planning or decisions. You can not use the word design here. Because this isn't "design".

We have intelligent life that was the result of evolution, but at no point in time did nature or the world or a natural process make any decisions or planned anything.

Evolution: the gradual development of something, especially from a simple to a more complex form.

Nature is involved in the process of transferring information of stimuli from environmental conditions to biological processes, which allows it to basically design things as it goes along.

Intelligent life arose from the simple into a more complex form, which is a result of natural selection. Natural selection is the gradual process by which biological traits become either more or less common in a population as a function of the effect of inherited traits on the differential reproductive success of organisms interacting with their environment. The term "natural selection" was popularized by Charles Darwin, now more commonly referred to as selective breeding.

So, it appears that nature designed humans thru selective breeding. I didn't say a sentient force using predetermined plans was involved, other than humans trying to become the top of the food chain.