deuce -
There's a lot more to the Big Bang Theory than that. This is another issue common among ID or creationism backers, a horribly simple understanding of how evolution, abiogenesis, and the BBT even work. Take the typical "evolution is like a tornado hitting a junkyard and assembling a 747." I mean, everything about that sentence is wrong. It's not even aimed at the right theory, as evolution does not at all address the issue of how life started in the first place. (that's abiogenesis)
Well, thanks!
Firstly, I did not speak about evolution in this context, nor did I touch on abiogenesis. The only
hard-evidence for the big bang is an expanding universe. The CMBR
could be caused by something else, and it too suffers from interpretive issues. Jeesh, you're putting me in the position of arguing against the BB theory - a theory I happen to embrace, EVEN tho it has missing pieces. Secondly, since you quoted me, I assume you were speaking to me, and essentially accused me of not understanding the distinction between various separate terms we are discussing. If you think I don't have a grasp of the theories being discussed, please illustrate where in any of my posts this can be demonstrated.
Nothing else you wrote is actually evidence of anything. In fact, it's mostly gibberish.
Evidence on this scale is interpretive, and yes, even an expanding universe as being the result of a massive
explosion/implosion is interpretive. It relies on our understanding of physics as we currently understand the rules. Science is the pursuit of the objective truth in things. A fish lives in only 3 dimensions, and has no (presumably) concept of space/time, and, or dimension. It lives its whole life in the water, unaware of the reality that exists outside of it, a whole
other dimension that follows the same rules as its own reality, but to the fish, unknowable. The theory of ID, for me, is based on the idea that the universe is an intelligent system, in that, it works. Take a
single fundamental particle out of the structure of the universe and it all falls apart. A single quark, and it all goes to hell. (Figuratively speaking) In some sense, it defines
perfect as a crystal clear unambiguous concept. This is why religious people, I believe embrace ID. The universe is perfect, God is perfect.. You get the picture?
For me, the perfectness of the universe does not define God, it defines intelligence. I perceive human intelligence as an extension of this perfectness we see in the universe. The capacity in humanity to observe the universe's perfect nature, is a characteristic of the universes design, at a quantum level. Humanity, and life for that matter, may be pure random chance (Whatever that means) but even if humans, and life on Earth never happened, the intelligent system we call the universe would still exist. Think of it in terms we can understand. Potential is as equally infinite, as the universe. There appears to be no limit to creativity in the context of conceptualization. Or is there? If the answer is that there is a limit, how does it apply to the question of intelligent design, and, if there is no limit, how to does that affect the theory? Of course these are philosophical questions, but the exercise is not unworthy of our time and energy. Perhaps there is no answer to the question itself, but that too presents us with more avenues of thought and reason.
This is still not scientific evidence of an intelligent designer. Science does not deal with "purpose" in the way you describe it. You're making a leap that our parts were "arranged" or have a "purpose." All we know is that our parts developed to the point we can ask these questions. That is not evidence of intelligent design any more than bacteria adapting to a new species is evidence that the bacteria was designed
Oh.. So, ummm what does science have to say about the bacteria that
adapted to the new species? It evolved to adapt to the new species, and the ones that can't evolve, die. Yep got it. So the apparent process of natural selection is non-random to the extent that the ability to adapt is cumulative, and not random. Throw in random mutations and we have a recipe for evolution, however it's worth pointing out that random mutations are only random within the intrinsic material available for the mutations to occur, and are not as such purely random appearing from nowhere. Ok, got the evolutionary mechanism lesson all worked out. Why is the process of evolution not an intelligent system, or mechanism?
If two rocks in space collide to form a new rock, that doesn't provide evidence that intelligence was behind it. You have absolutely no understanding of what "evidence" on a scientific level even is.
This seems to be the standard answer to certain
types among this board. "You don't know what you're talking about" is common around here. I also see that my point about inert, at rest objects went way over your head..
Tim-