
Part 2 - Its not incorrect or limiting - intelligent design claims to be a scientific theory yet fails the basic tests of what constitutes a scientific theory.
Part 3 - I can't even 'prove' the sun will rise tomorrow.
shuffles off muttering
Again I belive that Jesus was the Son of God so it was not a human construct but revealed through him.Religion is a human construct based on belief. The construct of Christianity has evolved and speciated. So you're saying that Christianity has not been diluted by the various sects and species? Dude, in the middle ages you had sects killing one another because one sect believed Christ was a pauper and other believed Christ owned material goods.
No, lets simplify things:It's not limiting or incorrect at all - by proving the design you would have to prove evidence of the designer, or it would be a logicalfallacy. And you wouldn't be able to prove design without designer, because without evidence of a designer it would be nothing more than happenstance. Do you agree?
no it doesn't prove its mr beaver. but design implies purposeful intent by an entity - a designer......... whose to say it isn't Slartibartfast and his chums? Pt is intelligent design isn't a testable scientific theory. not the design part not the designer partNo, lets simplify things:
A river dams up. The cause: a large pile of wood. At first glance it looks like a random pile of branches and twigs after the recent storm.
Upon closer inspection it's revealed that certain branches are positioned in key positions as reinforcement, etc, etc.
While this does not prove it was Mt Beaver, it offers the design which does rule out random creation.
ps this is fun - I've got to revisit Humes theories, brush up on my understanding the philosophy of science and avoid workFor the design argument to be feasible, it must be true that order and purpose are observed only when they result from design. But order is observed regularly, resulting from presumably mindless processes like snowflake or crystal generation.
If a well-ordered natural world requires a special designer, then God's mind (being so well-ordered) also requires a special designer. And then this designer would likewise need a designer, and so on ad infinitum. We could respond by resting content with an inexplicably self-ordered divine mind; but then why not rest content with an inexplicably self-ordered natural world?
Furthermore, the design argument is based on an incomplete analogy: because of our experience with objects, we can recognise human-designed ones, comparing for example a pile of stones and a brick wall. But in order to point to a designed Universe, we would need to have an experience of a range of different universes. As we only experience one, the analogy cannot be applied.
No, I wasn't. I was arguing that trying to justify things in the bible scientifically (i.e. "We know it wasn't really 7 days, it's just a handy timescale") is dilution.Stu wrote: You were originally arguing that study beyond the bible to prove religion would lead to the dilution of a religion, this is what I was refering to.
Precisely - it means there was a designer. I never said you had to know what it was, just that there was one. If you prove the design, you prove that there was a designer. You just made my point.Stu wrote: While this does not prove it was Mt Beaver, it offers the design which does rule out random creation.
It's that chance thing. It is entirely probably that there were probably millions of 'almost' universes.Stu wrote: Something a little more complicated:
"Skeptics like to say that fine tuning cannot be proven by science, since we have only one universe to study. However, the discovery and quantification of dark energy has puzzled a number of scientists, who realize that its extremely small value requires that the initial conditions of the universe must have been extremely fine tuned in order that even matter would exist in our universe. By chance, our universe would have been expected to consist of merely some thermal radiation."
Stu wrote: Guy, but religion is different from god, while religion is more closely linked to people wouldn't you say?
Dom wrote: Religion is a human construct
No, I wasn't. I was arguing that trying to justify things in the bible scientifically (i.e. \"We know it wasn't really 7 days, it's just a handy timescale\") is dilution.
We'll agree to disagree as it all hinges on how you in interpret the facts evidence, proof, whatever.It's that chance thing. It is entirely probably that there were probably millions of 'almost' universes.
This explanation comes from the geoscience research institute, which is a group of christian research scientists:Of course, the great flood etc happened. And every animal on earth is a descendant of the pairs that Noah managed to fit on his (immensely) huge ark.
You haven't read anything we've said in this thread if you believe that. Creationism is not a theory, as it cannot be verified and there is no evidence for it. There is evidence for evolution (even Christians tend not to argue with what they call microevolution). Theories and beliefs are two entirely different things.fundaddy wrote:Since neither creation nor evolution can be proved, they are both theories, or beliefs. In order to choose which belief to support, an examination of the anecdotal evidence supporting each belief is helpful.
There may be 350 families that conform to that definition at the moment, but within these families there are many more species. Many, many more. Of course, if you took a pair of each family, that would mean that the earth had been repopulated by 1 breeding pair of each family. So what then explains said speciation?fundaddy wrote: This explanation comes from the geoscience research institute, which is a group of christian research scientists:
The ark was designed to include only terrestrial vertebrates — those that walk on the ground and breathe through nostrils (Genesis 7:22). This does not include marine animals, worms, insects, or plants. There are fewer than 350 living families of terrestrial vertebrates. Most of these would be the size of a house cat or smaller. If each taxonomic family was represented on the ark by one pair, with the few clean families represented by seven pairs, the ark may have needed to contain fewer than 1000 individuals. The ark could probably accommodate ten times this number.
Hahahahaha, server space. Dude, if you uploaded one of your lame photos it would take up more space that 10 of these posts.Find a chat room guys, this is just using up server space! Not to mention boring the pants off us everyday unelightened types!
Hey gluon... could also translate the above as thus:gluon wrote: Can people know f-all about physics please stop talking about quantum mechanics? Reading popular science books by Stephen Hawking does not make one an expert in the field. Maybe you should try varying a Lagrangian to get the equations of motion for a classical system before you start commenting on a theory that is less than a hundred years old.
For once, I agree.Grigri wrote:Which threat would that be? The threat to our sanity as we wade through all this garbage? Or is the threat you pose to guest as holder of the 'Waffle Award'?Sunny wrote:Just came across these threats ...