Intelligent Design of the universe!

[GAHD]

Just doing my part to combat global warming.

 

Yar.

[questor]

if intelligent design had no part in creating the universe, how do we:

1. explain gravity? without it there would be no universe

2. the big bang ? what force precipitated it at that moment

3. energy and matter ? where were they stored before the BB?

4. any other theory of the birth of the universe? what force dispersed energy and matter

5. if natural selection is the answer for the presence of modern man. why did the Cro Magnon only appear about 40,000 years ago, with no seeming relationship to the Neanderthal?

are there not more questions than answers? and do not the observable facts point more to intelligent design than happenstance?

[Southtown]

I dont know. I was try to start a conversation about, to create or imagine to create an absolutely independent Universe. But seems to be noone with me, nowhere. So this is a direct question: Dont you think we can understand everithyng about this existing one, if we do so?

How do you suggest we do that?

[C1ay]

if intelligent design had no part in creating the universe, how do we:

1. explain gravity? without it there would be no universe

2. the big bang ? what force precipitated it at that moment

3. energy and matter ? where were they stored before the BB?

4. any other theory of the birth of the universe? what force dispersed energy and matter

5. if natural selection is the answer for the presence of modern man. why did the Cro Magnon only appear about 40,000 years ago, with no seeming relationship to the Neanderthal?

are there not more questions than answers? and do not the observable facts point more to intelligent design than happenstance?

 

What does it matter if there are more questions than answers? What does it matter if we don't have answers for the questions you choose to ask? Just because we don't have answers doesn't mean we have to invent one like claiming some mythical being had to design it because we don't understand it. All it means is that we don't have the answers and we're looking for them. Why do so many have to invent answers for the questions man can't answer yet? Is there something wrong with simply waiting to learn the truth, if it should ever be possible?

[nkt]

What does it matter if there are more questions than answers? What does it matter if we don't have answers for the questions you choose to ask? Just because we don't have answers doesn't mean we have to invent one like claiming some mythical being had to design it because we don't understand it. All it means is that we don't have the answers and we're looking for them. Why do so many have to invent answers for the questions man can't answer yet? Is there something wrong with simply waiting to learn the truth, if it should ever be possible?

Ah, yes, but people expect answers to everything they can think of in the 21st century. And they expect it free and yesterday, and in terms they can understand without effort. Sadly, for hard science, this is an issue, since the "simple" stuff is a generalisation of a complex case.

 

Therefore people tend towards "feelings" and the feeling that someone/thing designed everything is easier. It means they don't need to think or question.

 

The danger of treating ID alongside Darwinian Science on an equal footing, is that even a 5 year old can get the hang of ID in an hour, and remember it. Treating evolutionary subtleties like that gets you nowhere except an easy to find fault with model. Suddenly, those kids are believing that there is a god who made the world. Next thing you know, they are talking about it with friends, and then the next generation things it is true, and Darwin comes second. A generation after that, it's "Darwin? That got debunked, as the Intelligent Designer planned..."

 

Then we enter the dark ages again. Only this time without cheap oil and coal to drag us out of it again.

 

EDIT: This loony ID [drdino.com] is a perfect example of why we have to fight hard. He sells his rubbish with beautiful words and carefully constructed appeals to what is "obviously right" and feelings. Most scientists simply show you the facts, and say work it out for yourself if you don't believe me. People like him will win the PR war easily if we don't argue against them at every step.

 

Regardless of the exact version heard, the myth is spread and repeated, by both the well-meaning and the deliberately deceptive. The belief that remains, then, is what Robert J. Samuelson termed a "psycho-fact, [a] belief that, though not supported by hard evidence, is taken as real because its constant repetition changes the way we experience life." People who don't know any better will repeat it over and over, until, like the admonition against swimming right after you eat, the claim is widely believed. ("Triumph of the Psycho-Fact," Newsweek, May 9, 1994.)

This is talking about the "we use 10% of our brains" myth, but if the shoe fits...

[emessay]

What are 'design philosophy' differences beween a 'foolish' procaryote and an 'intelligent' electric generator?

 

1. If we start to think how to troubleshoot a faulty generator, then we're hurry and shout: "Where are the hell of wiring drawing sheets, kalkir, or microfilms, I need it now!!" Then we can trace its complexity of system. There is a design and there is its implementation.

 

2. If two or three generator will be synchronized with automatic system, it's simple to work it. But if we start to think how to troubleshoot 'a faulty procaryote' to question why he wants to evolve by natural selection then the group want to be 'synchronized' being a new brand type of eucaryote, that's we need to detail. There is no kalkir drawing sheets, there is no microfilm, but it should be there a 'design', why life is so fine tuned, well desgined. At least we start to leave 'scientific hypocricy stylish' say that there is nothing, life would evolve everywhere by natural 'slow-motion-time in scale of billion years', but poorly we're still facing paradox reality like nukes threats everywhere, no alternative cheap and safe energy for future, no escape other planetary system. We'd better focus that earth is one, well desgined.

 

3. Search and find 'the design' and troubleshoot it. Perhaps God is still hiding 'the microfilm' in micro-cosmic levels, like we do always keep 'copyright sign' everything we've ever created and patented.

[Csongor]

I love your ne levitar, by the way....

[Csongor]

New levitar... : )

[Csongor]

Like could you imagine, we look at one small planet. This is a new Nasa programme by the way... So we create a server, and try to make this small Planet independent, with every elements. So we working together with all the players on the earth who keep up, and make this Vision there, as a planet.

 

 

And, I try to found out what we can programme or predestinate there as a life. This is easy at the simple lifeform level, but I dont now how could I create an independent spirit, .........Without to use any from the Earth.

 

 

So do you like this logice?

 

 

 

Csongor

[Southtown]

So do you like this logice?

I find your un-understandable language kind of interesting. That's probably unintentional, though. Are you talking about computer simulations? Here's one for the universe, I haven't seen one for the biosphere, assuming I understand you correctly.

 

http://sciencenews.org/articles/20050813/bob9.asp

 

And the scientific method is limited to the physical, by the way, since the otherwise is "unprovable." Neither do most experts have any interest in things spiritual.

[Csongor]

I think we nearly have every knowledge, and technology, to create, an independent Universe.

 

 

 

We are able to create all the rules and every other factors, like what kind of lifeform could be there, how long will it take for any kind of evolution.

 

 

When do we want to get any messages, from there, or when do we want to contact with the new system.

 

 

: )

[questor]

would someone please tell me what is philosophical or ''spiritual'' about discussing a creator? just because you can't understand a force or a power does not mean it doesn't exist. we agree gravity exists, but no one can explain it or quantify it. did gravity just happen to occur, or is something responsible for its presence? why do we put so much importance on evolution as if it would explain away creationism? for God's sake! we're

only talking about what happened on Earth,which is a minor planet with no apparent purpose. why not consider the important questions about physics, math, and the workings of the universe before making a statement concerning the lack of intelligent design that cannot be proved?

[rockytriton]

I think that some people just have a hard time believing that there really is no purpose to their life and that there is no great being that gives a crap what they do or what happens to them.

[coldcreation]

This thread has nothing to do with astronomy or cosmology. It reminds me of Stephen Hawking.

 

In his book, A Brief History of Time, inarguably his masterwork, Hawking parted from the conventions of natural science to write in a more stylistic unfettered manner: dramatic, poetic and prophetic. “At the big bang and other singularities, all the laws would have broken down, so God would still have had complete freedom to choose what happened and how the universe began.” (1988 p. 173). In Hawking’s concluding Chapter 11, God is made reference to 17 times.

 

There is no God other than the big bang, and inflation is our prophet.

 

Coldcreation

[C1ay]

Shouldn''t this be in the religion forum?

This thread has nothing to do with astronomy or cosmology.

I second my motion for the Theology forum? Anyone else?

[questor]

some people here seem to have ''earth locked'' minds. they can only think in terms of their relation to the earth. the thing we are discussing here is creationism versus non-creationism. some cannot seem to grasp the fact that this concept has nothing to do with theology, which is a man made philosophy. it does have to do with physics, astronomy,cosmology and all the forces and contents of the universe. some people seem to be absolutely certain there is no God (creator). this is ridiculous on its face because there is no absolute proof of that and the scientific method relies upon facts, not supposition. i would ask that those who are certain of the absence of a creator offer proof of the absence or admit there is a case for the presence of a creational force. for someone to take a positive stance on a subject with no proof violates scientific principle.

[Tormod]

the thing we are discussing here is creationism versus non-creationism. some cannot seem to grasp the fact that this concept has nothing to do with theology, which is a man made philosophy.

 

Creationism is not man made philosophy?

 

Moving this thread to theology.