DavidFirth
Well-Known Member
Well, you expressed that ID has no evidence. You either lied or were ignorant of it.
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
The validity of intelligent design
- Thread starter Nirvana
- Start date
Well, you expressed that ID has no evidence. You either lied or were ignorant of it.
DavidFirth
Well-Known Member
Oh. And while we're at it, let's see some non-abiogenesis crowd evidence for abiogenesis or evidence from the non-evolution crowd for evolution.
Not hilarious at all, just pointing out your own bias as you want to point it out in others.
metis
aged ecumenical anthropologist
These simply are not scientific sites but come from a religious perspective, and a faulty one at that. .
DavidFirth
Well-Known Member
metis
aged ecumenical anthropologist
Not an opinion-- a fact as these are simply not science websites as they do not reflect use of the scientific method.
Check out the links that you can find even here: Evolution - Wikipedia
shawn001
Well-Known Member
I think you are missing the point. WE have no evidence the universe was ever in disorder. If it was and now is not, it seems very unlikely that could happen by accident. Therefore God is the cause and order is the effect. During creation God declared what He did "good." When God finished His creation, He declared it very good.
Now if you are not a Christian I don't expect you to believe that, but since our universe is now orderly, you need to consider how it is possible without an omnipotent intelligent Designer.[/QUOTE]
This is why I said order or disorder from a human perspective. We have the evidence of a way different universe than we see today.
For example
Big Bang Conditions Created in Lab
"WASHINGTON – By smashing gold particles together at super-fast speeds, physicists have basically melted protons, creating a kind of "quark soup" of matter that is about 250,000 times hotter than the center of the sun and similar to conditions just after the birth of the universe.Scientists reported in 2005 that they suspected they had created this unique state of matter, but for the first time, they have verified that the extreme temperatures necessary have been reached.
"This is the hottest matter ever created in the laboratory," Steven Vigdor, associate laboratory director for nuclear and particle physics at the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE)'s Brookhaven National Laboratory in Upton, N.Y., said Monday at a meeting of the American Physical Society in Washington, D.C. "The temperature is hot enough to melt protons and neutrons."
Big Bang Conditions Created in Lab
The universe was 7 trillion degrees and a type of plasma. Is that we as humans perceived as order?
Or the pictures we have from the early universe around 380, 000 years after the Big Bang, before or galaxies or planets existed?
In actuality, though the universe in disorder right now, from it's previous state.
Life in the Universe
Stephen Hawking
"It is a matter of common experience, that things get more disordered and chaotic with time. This observation can be elevated to the status of a law, the so-called Second Law of Thermodynamics. This says that the total amount of disorder, or entropy, in the universe, always increases with time. However, the Law refers only to the total amount of disorder. The order in one body can increase, provided that the amount of disorder in its surroundings increases by a greater amount. This is what happens in a living being. One can define Life to be an ordered system that can sustain itself against the tendency to disorder and can reproduce itself. That is, it can make similar, but independent ordered systems. To do these things, the system must convert energy in some ordered form, like food, sunlight, or electric power, into disordered energy, in the form of heat. In this way, the system can satisfy the requirement that the total amount of disorder increases, while, at the same time, increasing the order in itself and its offspring."
"At first sight, it seems remarkable that the universe is so finely tuned. Maybe this is evidence, that the universe was specially designed to produce the human race. However, one has to be careful about such arguments, because of what is known as the Anthropic Principle. This is based on the self-evident truth, that if the universe had not been suitable for life, we wouldn't be asking why it is so finely adjusted."
Life in the Universe
The universe is actually getting more disordered with time, which is why the fate of the universe looks so bleak.
THE END OF EVERYTHING
"It can be said that humans have a bit of a short-term view of things. We’re concerned about the end of summer, the next school year, and maybe even retirement. But these are just a blink of an eye in cosmic terms. Let’s really think big, stare forward in time, and think about what the future holds for the Universe. Look forward millions, trillions, and even 10100 years into the future. Let’s consider the end of everything."
The End of Everything - Universe Today
shawn001
Well-Known Member
So omega2, in your take, God made the universe from disorder to order, but in reality, it's ordered to disordered due to the 2 Law of Thermodynamics! Things become more disordered with time. Entropy.
"
en·tro·py
ˈentrəpē/
noun
"
en·tro·py
ˈentrəpē/
noun
- 1.
PHYSICS
a thermodynamic quantity representing the unavailability of a system's thermal energy for conversion into mechanical work often interpreted as the degree of disorder or randomness in the system. - 2.
lack of order or predictability; gradual decline into disorder."
It's not valid at all. The question which is infinitely harder is why. Science can't answer that.
shawn001
Well-Known Member
So first of all these sites start with a preconceived notion, then try to fit facts to support "God did it". I also noticed in was young earth as well.
I also noticed they were from 2005.
But, I did look at this.
"
The latter paper included a fascinating discussion of a massive whale fossil graveyard in the deserts of Peru that gives clear evidence of catastrophic, rapid burial and fossilization, contrary to the evolutionary story that the 80-meter-thick formation containing the whales was formed slowly over the course of several millions of years. The biblical framework of the Christian paleontologists provided "the glasses to see" the evidence that the evolutionists were blind to because of their naturalistic worldview. The evidence shows that the whales and sediments were in fact deposited in weeks (or months at the most). Studies to date are insufficient to say for sure whether that deposition was during Noah's Flood or due to a localized catastrophe in the post-Flood period.
Two Old Testament scholars presented papers. One gave strong evidence from a detailed statistical analysis of the verb forms used in Genesis 1 to show with 99.5% certainty that the chapter is historical narrative, not poetry, and therefore, although it is teaching theological truths, it is also a guide to understanding the scientific evidence related to the origin and history of the creation. The scholar also briefly discussed biblical evidence that man is distinct from other animals and that, unlike man and animals, plants are not living in the biblical sense.
Real Scientists, Really?
First not all that long ago, many species of Homo Sapiens were living on the planet together and that we know even from DNA.
But the whale's interested me and Chile. There are part's of Chile where it hasn't rained more than two inches in some 25 to 150 million years. The Atacama dessert!
"
Chile's stunning fossil whale graveyard explained"
"
It is one of the most astonishing fossil discoveries of recent years - a graveyard of whales found beside the Pan-American Highway in Chile.
And now scientists think they can explain how so many of the animals came to be preserved in one location more than five million years ago.
It was the result of not one but four separate mass strandings, they report in a Royal Society journal.
The evidence strongly suggests the whales all ingested toxic algae.
The dead and dying mammals were then washed into an estuary and on to flat sands where they became buried over time."
"
Identified in the beds were over 40 individual rorquals - the type of large cetacean that includes the modern blue, fin and minke whales.
Among them were other important marine predators and grazers.
"We found extinct creatures such as walrus whales - dolphins that evolved a walrus-like face. And then there were these bizarre aquatic sloths," recalls Nicholas Pyenson, a palaeontologist at the Smithsonian's National Museum of Natural History.
"To me, it's amazing that in 240m of road-cut, we managed to sample all the superstars of the fossil marine-mammal world in South America in the Late Miocene. Just an incredibly dense accumulation of species," he told BBC News.
The team immediately noticed that the skeletons were nearly all complete, and that their death poses had clear commonalities. Many had come to rest facing in the same direction and upside down, for example.
This all pointed to the creatures succumbing to the same, sudden catastrophe; only, the different fossils levels indicated it was not one event but four separate episodes spread over a period of several thousand years.
The best explanation is that these animals were all poisoned by the toxins that can be generated in some algal blooms.
Such blooms are one of the prevalent causes for repeated mass strandings seen in today's marine animals."
Chile's stunning fossil whale graveyard explained - BBC News
How do you have a young Earth, say 6000 to 10,000 years and whale fossils over 5 million years old? Nor did they all die at once from a flood which is what the above you posted implies.
You also might want to research this by watching it. They found those in the Atacama Desert. One of the oldest desert on earth formed 150 million years ago, by plate tectonics.
If you don't watch it all, although I suggest watching it all at 7 minutes in it gives the evidence for a rock outcrop called Gypsum, that dissolves in water. This outcrop formed 150 million years ago and has not dissolved from water or rain.
Those links aren't credible expect some creationists have degrees and write papers. However show me one that has gained widespread attention, been peer reviewed by other scientists and been confirmed?
shawn001
Well-Known Member
There is also Valley of the Whales in Egypt.
"There is another even more ancient Egypt that is known to very few people. The Fayoum area contains some of the best-preserved paleontological sites in the world one of which is Wadi Hitan or the Valley of Whales. This is a remote valley in the Western Desert of Egypt. At 150 kilometers southwest of Cairo, the valley is located near the Al-Katrani mountain range, a well-known and valuable geological site for its rare vertebrate fossils and mega-fossils."
"There is considerable evidence which indicates that the basin of Wadi Hitan was submerged in water some 40 to 50 million years ago. At that time, the so-called Tethys Sea reached far south of the existing Mediterranean. The Tethys Sea is assumed to have retreated north and over the years deposited thick sediments of sandstone and limestone visible in rock formations in Wadi Hitan."
The Valley of the Whales
It's a well know fact that whales came out of the oceans and were on land for a while and then when back to the oceans.
"There is another even more ancient Egypt that is known to very few people. The Fayoum area contains some of the best-preserved paleontological sites in the world one of which is Wadi Hitan or the Valley of Whales. This is a remote valley in the Western Desert of Egypt. At 150 kilometers southwest of Cairo, the valley is located near the Al-Katrani mountain range, a well-known and valuable geological site for its rare vertebrate fossils and mega-fossils."
"There is considerable evidence which indicates that the basin of Wadi Hitan was submerged in water some 40 to 50 million years ago. At that time, the so-called Tethys Sea reached far south of the existing Mediterranean. The Tethys Sea is assumed to have retreated north and over the years deposited thick sediments of sandstone and limestone visible in rock formations in Wadi Hitan."
The Valley of the Whales
It's a well know fact that whales came out of the oceans and were on land for a while and then when back to the oceans.
Laughing Coyote
Member
Funny thing, neither did Darwin.
Laughing Coyote
Member
Actually it was thought to have been archaea and bacteria. You may think of the laboratory they "set up" and which is continually evolving as being what we call the ecosphere. They may not have had a plan, but they selected possibilities made available with each change, which gave rise to greater complexity giving increasingly growing possibilities, and it is still going on. Purposes evolved out of these changes. Even us humans may be experiencing selection, for example, to enable us better to cope with the conditions in urban environments.
Laughing Coyote
Member
Though it is not science, I wouldn't say it is exactly nonsense as it has its own purposes and associated logic. It too is product of evolution.
osgart
Nothing my eye, Something for sure
I see no need to make it complex.
you are all physical thinkers and nothing outside of the physical can exist for you.
and you need complexity for validity.
I think non locality throws physicality on it's ear.
why are there so many anti religious thinkers in a religious forum anyway?
evolutionists throw around the term natural selection, but the word selection implies choice and intellect.
you'll always see intelligence as a fluke, and an unimportant arising that emerged in nature. that's your religion, I get it.
you are all physical thinkers and nothing outside of the physical can exist for you.
and you need complexity for validity.
I think non locality throws physicality on it's ear.
why are there so many anti religious thinkers in a religious forum anyway?
evolutionists throw around the term natural selection, but the word selection implies choice and intellect.
you'll always see intelligence as a fluke, and an unimportant arising that emerged in nature. that's your religion, I get it.
Last edited:
Laughing Coyote
Member
Science also has its untestable premises. For example the claim that all truth is based on sensual experience or empiricism, a position taken by Rene Descartes because at that time rationalism was being used by the church to persecute early scientists and thus became associated with religion, although for Plato it encompassed science and in fact gives us the tools to investigate premises. Science inherited furthermore from the Judeo Christian-prophetic tradition a belief of separation of divinity from the earth, and took it to its full development in the form of a dead universe subject to indifferent laws. Laws furthermore tend to be things that can't be explained but are evident (such as gravity, at least until Einstein came along, and yet there are still things not explained about it). Science inherited a reductionist view of things and events that makes us think we can understand things in terms of their parts, and that separate disciplines of science can operate autonomously within their frames of reference, methods and vocabulary that makes it difficult communicate with each other. Furthermore, sensual experience and the descriptions we give it are not the things themselves, so knowledge will always be imperfect; and all things in the universe are part of larger things that we don't fully understand or as yet are unable even to identify. Much of religious criticism of science has been of limitations of its premises, observations and explanations, giving explanations if not understanding. Science, furthermore, is taught as religion and used as a legitimizing tool for economic and political purposes and for preceding with certainty based upon incomplete understanding (e.g., introduction of nuclear power and GMOs with promises of being "harmless" or of insignificant risk) which discredit it. The theories of relativity and quantum mechanics arose in part to challenge many of these premises and if followed to their full implication would revolutionize all the sciences (or so argued Alfred North Whitehead, who attempted a unified view that is yet having impact mostly only among some ecologists, whose discipline is one of the whole, and before them, theologians, whose questions address the whole). I thing Popper tried to frame the problem of uninvestigated premises in terms of the overthrow or displacement of paradigms, which is another way to look at it.
Last edited:
MonkeyFire
Well-Known Member
Eternity before>intelligent design.
Barry Irwin
New Member
Secretary of Health and head of the genome project Francis Collinshas shown in his book The Language of God that intelligent Design is not the correct Christian response to atheistic materialism
Grandliseur
Well-Known Member
At least you can see where we are headed.
"The Lord will Provide " - I have experienced this on more than one occasion in my life. True, I never have been given riches, but am yet to need to beg.
Grandliseur
Well-Known Member
I don't understand why there is any disrespect in this. I would think it follows as B follows A in the alphabet. Of course, I am not including Buddhism in this, or Shintoism, ancestor worship, etc..
Laughing Coyote
Member
That's true about selection, and Darwin explained it in terms of analogy with the selection by breeders of traits in animals and plants by limiting reproduction to those organisms best expressing desired traits. In nature, he identified it as internal to the development of life itself. What they don't have evidence for and as yet haven't required for their theory is choice and intellect outside the the Earth. But I agree there are built-in limitations within the scientific worldview, which many philosophers and theologians of addressed, including Henri Bergson in his lifelong discussion with Einstein, who told Einstein that though he saw time as relative Einstein still privileged the time of the scientist, a thought with deep implications. His students, and people influenced by him such as Alfred North Whitehead (who I keep quoting here, mainly because I've been reading his works on and off through the preceding months) developed its implications in various ways. Science is always in a process of attempting to overcome these limitations, as described by Karl Popper in terms of rule of paradigms which from time to time are displaced. He is not the first or the last to have thought about it. Philosophers have spoken before him in terms of premises. I think open minded scientists don't dismiss things, though they might search for more encompassing explanations and understandings. ... well, got to go.