Author Topic: If Intelligent Design was really science, what could you write a PhD thesis on?  (Read 3341 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline ParkingPlaces

  • Professor
  • ********
  • Posts: 6125
  • Darwins +689/-3
  • Gender: Male
  • Hide and Seek World Champion since 1958!
Damn, I forgot to insult rhocam again. When I don't, he doesn't respond to my posts. Since I'm not a believer it's not natural for me to diss the crap out of other humans, but I guess I gotta do it. It's going to take awhile to think something up. You guys keep at it. And don't let him get away.

I didn't insult him either, but he pretended that I did, and used it as a pretense to ignore my request for a testible hypothesis based on ID theory.

So, I guess I'm special.  :)

Well, as I always say, it takes all kinds to ruin the world.

Not us, of course, Brad. It's those other guys...
Not everyone is entitled to their opinion. They're all entitled to mine though.

Offline velkyn

  • Laureate
  • *********
  • Posts: 15420
  • Darwins +169/-6
  • Gender: Female
  • You're wearing the juice, aren't you?"
If creationism postulates that one can see God's hand (aka intelligent design) in nature, how does this work with some Christians claiming that many of the feature of nature are from sin?  How can one determine what was a initial design feature and what was from "sin"?   I'm guessing that foreskins must be from since, since God only likes them in big piles on the ground. Figs would be a good candidate.  Shrimp.  But there is little unique about them from other animals and plants, so everything about them must be from sin.    But Christians claim continuously that if you "just look around" you can see their god.  But it's all "sinful".   :o



"There is no use in arguing with a man who can multiply anything by the square root of minus 1" - Pirates of Venus, ERB

http://clubschadenfreude.wordpress.com/

Offline Ivellios

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1077
  • Darwins +52/-0
  • Gender: Male
  • Seek and Ye Shall Find
I SEE IT!

I see God's hand in those sheep! Circular reasoning! Proof there is a God! woooo! He even calls his followers sheep because of thier intellect! Can't you see it?

 :P

Offline MadBunny

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 3558
  • Darwins +110/-0
  • Fallen Illuminatus
What a shame, I was hoping that Rho would be able to answer my simple question.

Oh well.  Here is a picture instead.

Give a man a fire, and he'll be warm for a night.  Set a man on fire and he'll be warm for the rest of his life.

Offline ParkingPlaces

  • Professor
  • ********
  • Posts: 6125
  • Darwins +689/-3
  • Gender: Male
  • Hide and Seek World Champion since 1958!
velkyn, i just discovered I can't laugh and type at the same time. That's the funniest thing I've seen in ages. Should I thank you or rhocam?  ;D
Not everyone is entitled to their opinion. They're all entitled to mine though.

Offline Brad the Bold

  • Undergraduate
  • ***
  • Posts: 106
  • Darwins +17/-0
If creationism postulates that one can see God's hand (aka intelligent design) in nature, how does this work with some Christians claiming that many of the feature of nature are from sin?  How can one determine what was a initial design feature and what was from "sin"?   

That's what I'm talking about! ID scientists could be researching genetic signs of sin.

If the fall changed everything from god's perfect creation, then we would expect perfect genes before the fall, and deliterious mutations only after the fall.

We could test that hypothesis, if only we had samples of Adam's DNA, pre and post fall.

Maybe god saved some of Adam's cord blood. Doh!!

A lock of his baby hair... DOH!

Offline Ambassador Pony

  • You keep what you kill.
  • Administrator
  • *******
  • Posts: 6856
  • Darwins +71/-4
  • Gender: Male
  • illuminatus
Damn, I forgot to insult rhocam again. When I don't, he doesn't respond to my posts. Since I'm not a believer it's not natural for me to diss the crap out of other humans, but I guess I gotta do it. It's going to take awhile to think something up. You guys keep at it. And don't let him get away.

I didn't insult him either, but he pretended that I did, and used it as a pretense to ignore my request for a testible hypothesis based on ID theory.

So, I guess I'm special.  :)

No, he just doesn't know exactly what you want. Remember, he's an ignorant fuckwit, from butt-fuck nowhere. How is he supposed to know anything about testable hypotheses?

Edited to include requisite insults. Why are we doing this again? 
You believe evolution and there is no evidence for that. Where is the fossil record of a half man half ape. I've only ever heard about it in reading.

Offline Astreja

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 2931
  • Darwins +237/-1
  • Gender: Female
  • Agnostic goddess with Clue-by-Four™
    • The Springy Goddess
We still have to do what we don't want to do for people most don't even like

Well, in the case of My family, that is 100% wrong.

I work in a hospital, and I love My work.  I will cheerfully sit in a dimly-lit room all day with a computer and a set of headphones, listening to doctors' voices, and transform what I hear into extremely interesting reports that provide a necessary service and increase daily My knowledge of human physiology and the medical arts.

And I use My salary to pay for music lessons, a mortgage on a house that I'll own outright in less than 5 years, and gas for the car so I can go romping off to band rehearsals and performances all over the countryside.  And chocolate.  Can't forget the chocolate.

My daughter is a visual artist.  She works for herself, on her own time.

If you hate your job, get another one, dammit!  Do what you have to do to support your goals, and take responsibility for your own happiness.
Reality Checkroom — Not Responsible for Lost Articles

Offline ParkingPlaces

  • Professor
  • ********
  • Posts: 6125
  • Darwins +689/-3
  • Gender: Male
  • Hide and Seek World Champion since 1958!
Why are we doing this again?

Practice, my dear Ambassador. Practice. How else are we going to get to Carnegie Hall?

If we get really good the fundy's won't last more than two or three posts.

Gotta have a goal.
Not everyone is entitled to their opinion. They're all entitled to mine though.

Offline jetson

  • Administrator
  • *******
  • Posts: 7268
  • Darwins +169/-6
  • Gender: Male
  • Meet George Jetson!
    • Jet Blog
nogods...interesting point, and it triggered a further thought.

How big is God?

Bwa ha ha ha ha ha ha....

why would it matter how big He is?

He is bigger than your god

I'm just curious.  Any guesses?

YHWH is bigger than my god?  How big was YHWH when he visited Adam and Eve in the garden?  Or, maybe YHWH is really the guy depicted in the Sistine Chapel, with the flowing white beard?  You know, all Charlton Heston like.  Wait, that was Moses.

I just don't see how a god that walks in a garden on planet Earth is powerful enough to create a universe that is bigger than the biggest thing there is.  That's all I'm saying.  Really.

Offline Anfauglir

  • Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 6198
  • Darwins +407/-5
  • Gender: Male
If you hate your job, get another one, dammit!  Do what you have to do to support your goals, and take responsibility for your own happiness.

But he can't - see, his god is responsible for everything and the big grand plan and so on, so if rhocam doesn't like his job, that's what his god wants.   He suffers because its part of god's plan.

That's one of the problems of Christianity - it makes you a victim, makes you feel worthless, takes responsibility away from you.
Just because you've always done it that way doesn't mean it's not incredibly stupid.
Why is it so hard for believers to answer a direct question?

Offline Ivellios

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1077
  • Darwins +52/-0
  • Gender: Male
  • Seek and Ye Shall Find
He is bigger than your god

Wow. Some christian forgot the entire lesson of David vs. Goliath. You remember that story? YHWH empowered a 12 year old boy to take down a 9' tall seasoned warrior. Size doesn't matter when YHWH is on your side. If YHWH was the only real god, and the Egyptian gods were imaginary, he wouldn't have to enter a contest against Real Gods to prove himself superior.

Moses: Hey Pharoh, Let my people Go!
Pharoh: Make me!
Moses: (Miracle!)
Pharoh: Priests, show this looser what our Real Egyptian Gods can do!
Priests: Uh oh... he doesn't actually expect us to replicate that? Our gods are really imaginary!
Pharoh: Oh, ****! Git, Git, Begone, and don't come back!


Moral: The reason YHWH has to show his display of power beyond that is because All the Egypian gods are real. YHWH may be more powerful in Egypt that the Egypian gods, but really, for an all powerful god, he needed pharoh's permission to do anything. Which means, he still needed Amen-Ra's permission. So who really has the authority and the power?

Offline velkyn

  • Laureate
  • *********
  • Posts: 15420
  • Darwins +169/-6
  • Gender: Female
  • You're wearing the juice, aren't you?"
That's what I'm talking about! ID scientists could be researching genetic signs of sin.

If the fall changed everything from god's perfect creation, then we would expect perfect genes before the fall, and deliterious mutations only after the fall.
We could test that hypothesis, if only we had samples of Adam's DNA, pre and post fall.
Maybe god saved some of Adam's cord blood. Doh!!
A lock of his baby hair... DOH!
let's see, we could remove every single "imperfect" gene from a cell and then would we have this perfect lifeform?  oh hail the messiah bacteria!   But funny how there is no good definition of what is perfect.  My perfect lifeform, and I think I'm cribbing this from someone else's post here, is that it requires no energy input, it just *is*. Why bother with an eco system too?  Get rid of both and then we'd have no "sin" because of eating fruit.   

Rhocam may be ignorant, but that can be fixed (heck, I was ignorant and from the middle of nowhere and I got better!).  However, it takes some desire for that to happen and most theists are too afraid and greedy to want it.  So, they remain in their ignorance, trying to claim that their bible is "x" and failing miserably in their desperation for something that even makes a little sense.
"There is no use in arguing with a man who can multiply anything by the square root of minus 1" - Pirates of Venus, ERB

http://clubschadenfreude.wordpress.com/

Offline Ivellios

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1077
  • Darwins +52/-0
  • Gender: Male
  • Seek and Ye Shall Find
My perfect lifeform, and I think I'm cribbing this from someone else's post here, is that it requires no energy input, it just *is*. Why bother with an eco system too?  Get rid of both and then we'd have no "sin" because of eating fruit.

Animals: eat, sleep, defecate and procreate. Burping, farting, hiccups. *feminine needs*

Perfect? Seriously? Someone cannot come up with something better?

I agree with Velkyn. If the universe was designed, they should have done a better job. YHWH's evaluation from me gets a 1 of 5. I am here, Earth in many places is beautiful and so is looking out into space. But... Out of this entire universe here we are, stuck on this itty-bitty rock we cannot even really go to over 80% of the surface, and that's just the surface. If you want to go below, the 1st 32' under water is the most dangerous because people don't get it that it is dangerous. "It's just 32'!" Like during a flood, "It's just 5 ft!" "It's ONLY water!" Really, if the eval would only reflect the amount of the universe we can access and survive, he would have a -nul- score.

Offline Azdgari

  • Laureate
  • *********
  • Posts: 12210
  • Darwins +267/-31
  • Gender: Male
Rhocam, I think you should read this thread:
http://whywontgodhealamputees.com/forums/index.php/topic,21466.0.html

Cowpar2's arguments against evolution are more eloquent than yours are; you could learn a thing or two.
The highest moral human authority is copied by our Gandhi neurons through observation.

Offline theFLEW

  • Student
  • **
  • Posts: 93
  • Darwins +1/-1
  • Gender: Male
  • Ron Paul for President
Hugh Ross states that "for physical life to be possible in the universe, several characteristics must take on specific values...in the case of several of these characteristics, and given the intricacy of their interrelationships, the indication of divine 'fine tuning' seems incontrovertible."

    Strong nuclear force constant
    Weak nuclear force constant
    Gravitational force constant
    Electromagnetic force constant
    Ratio of electromagnetic force constant to gravitational force constant
    Ratio of proton to electron mass
    Ratio of number of protons to number of electrons
    Ratio of proton to electron charge
    Expansion rate of the universe
    Mass density of the universe
    Baryon (proton and neutron) density of the universe
    Space energy or dark energy density of the universe
    Ratio of space energy density to mass density
    Entropy level of the universe
    Velocity of light
    Age of the universe
    Uniformity of radiation
    Homogeneity of the universe
    Average distance between galaxies
    Average distance between galaxy clusters
    Average distance between stars
    Average size and distribution of galaxy clusters
    Numbers, sizes, and locations of cosmic voids
    Electromagnetic fine structure constant
    Gravitational fine-structure constant
    Decay rate of protons
    Ground state energy level for helium-4
    Carbon-12 to oxygen-16 nuclear energy level ratio
    Decay rate for beryllium-8
    Ratio of neutron mass to proton mass
    Initial excess of nucleons over antinucleons
    Polarity of the water molecule
    Epoch for hypernova eruptions
    Number and type of hypernova eruptions
    Epoch for supernova eruptions
    Number and types of supernova eruptions
    Epoch for white dwarf binaries
    Density of white dwarf binaries
    Ratio of exotic matter to ordinary matter
    Number of effective dimensions in the early universe
    Number of effective dimensions in the present universe
    Mass values for the active neutrinos
    Number of different species of active neutrinos
    Number of active neutrinos in the universe
    Mass value for the sterile neutrino
    Number of sterile neutrinos in the universe
    Decay rates of exotic mass particles
    Magnitude of the temperature ripples in cosmic background radiation
    Size of the relativistic dilation factor
    Magnitude of the Heisenberg uncertainty
    Quantity of gas deposited into the deep intergalactic medium by the first supernovae
    Positive nature of cosmic pressures
    Positive nature of cosmic energy densities
    Density of quasars
    Decay rate of cold dark matter particles
    Relative abundances of different exotic mass particles
    Degree to which exotic matter self interacts
    Epoch at which the first stars (metal-free pop III stars) begin to form
    Epoch at which the first stars (metal-free pop III stars cease to form
    Number density of metal-free pop III stars
    Average mass of metal-free pop III stars
    Epoch for the formation of the first galaxies
    Epoch for the formation of the first quasars
    Amount, rate, and epoch of decay of embedded defects
    Ratio of warm exotic matter density to cold exotic matter density
    Ratio of hot exotic matter density to cold exotic matter density
    Level of quantization of the cosmic spacetime fabric
    Flatness of universe's geometry
    Average rate of increase in galaxy sizes
    Change in average rate of increase in galaxy sizes throughout cosmic history
    Constancy of dark energy factors
    Epoch for star formation peak
    Location of exotic matter relative to ordinary matter
    Strength of primordial cosmic magnetic field
    Level of primordial magnetohydrodynamic turbulence
    Level of charge-parity violation
    Number of galaxies in the observable universe
    Polarization level of the cosmic background radiation
    Date for completion of second reionization event of the universe
    Date of subsidence of gamma-ray burst production
    Relative density of intermediate mass stars in the early history of the universe
    Water's temperature of maximum density
    Water's heat of fusion
    Water's heat of vaporization
    Number density of clumpuscules (dense clouds of cold molecular hydrogen gas) in the universe
    Average mass of clumpuscules in the universe
    Location of clumpuscules in the universe
    Dioxygen's kinetic oxidation rate of organic molecules
    Level of paramagnetic behavior in dioxygen
    Density of ultra-dwarf galaxies (or supermassive globular clusters) in the middle-aged universe
    Degree of space-time warping and twisting by general relativistic factors
    Percentage of the initial mass function of the universe made up of intermediate mass stars
    Strength of the cosmic primordial magnetic field

I would say that any of these would make a good PhD topic ;)
"...and how much naivety, venerable, childlike and boundlessly stupid naivety there is in the scholar's belief in his superiority, in the good conscience of his tolerance, in the simply unsuspecting certainty with which his instinct treats the religious man as an inferior..." - F. Nietzsche

Offline Azdgari

  • Laureate
  • *********
  • Posts: 12210
  • Darwins +267/-31
  • Gender: Male
"Any of these"?  That's a single topic, NTS.  Possibly a fair one, but only one.

Can you see why?

As an aside, Your approach to that topic presupposes that the alternative to divine selection of those parameters would be randomess.  That is akin to saying that the odds of all the parameters of a rock's physical structure coming together randomly is so astronomically small that the rock's physical structure must have been pieced together in situ by a divine entity.

This ignores the possibility that the rock formed naturally.
« Last Edit: February 15, 2012, 09:03:31 PM by Azdgari »
The highest moral human authority is copied by our Gandhi neurons through observation.

Offline theFLEW

  • Student
  • **
  • Posts: 93
  • Darwins +1/-1
  • Gender: Male
  • Ron Paul for President
Granted, but I'm going to be honest, I don't understand the rock analogy.
"...and how much naivety, venerable, childlike and boundlessly stupid naivety there is in the scholar's belief in his superiority, in the good conscience of his tolerance, in the simply unsuspecting certainty with which his instinct treats the religious man as an inferior..." - F. Nietzsche

Offline Cyberia

  • Postgraduate
  • *****
  • Posts: 907
  • Darwins +35/-0
Your approach to that topic presupposes that the alternative to divine selection of those parameters would be randomess.  That is akin to saying that the odds of all the parameters of a rock's physical structure coming together randomly is so astronomically small that the rock's physical structure must have been pieced together in situ by a divine entity.

This ignores the possibility that the rock formed naturally.
I like this.  It nicely illustrates the problem with the argument creationists use regarding the "odds" of the first cell arising (or any number of creationists "odds" problems)
Soon we will judge angels.

Offline velkyn

  • Laureate
  • *********
  • Posts: 15420
  • Darwins +169/-6
  • Gender: Female
  • You're wearing the juice, aren't you?"
Hugh Ross states that "for physical life to be possible in the universe, several characteristics must take on specific values...in the case of several of these characteristics, and given the intricacy of their interrelationships, the indication of divine 'fine tuning' seems incontrovertible."

oooh the fine tuning nonsense and the lovely disagreement between old earth and young earth creationists, both of which have no evidence for their nonsense.  It's so cute to also see one more person who isn't a biologist, decide that evolutionary theory is wrong, with of course no better theory on how to explain the evidence.  Nope, it just all comes down to "looky at the universe, *my* god did it".  Of course, no theist has any evidence that their particular god did anything, or that the universe isn't simple the way it is and there aren't plenty of other sets of parameters that can be arrived at, with no need for any boogeyman at all.

I also enjoy Ross's selective translation since it does such a good job of showing how that, by his claims, it could take JC a very very very long time to return if we want to play games with what the bible “really” means when it comes to time periods.

JC claims to return within a generation
A generation can be given to be around 40 years. 
there could be 14600 “days” aka “yom” in this time span which evidently can mean just about anything too.  So, if we even say that a “day” is conservatively a half a billion years, then JC won’t be coming back for 7,300,000,000,000 years. 
"There is no use in arguing with a man who can multiply anything by the square root of minus 1" - Pirates of Venus, ERB

http://clubschadenfreude.wordpress.com/

Offline screwtape

  • The Great Red Dragon
  • Administrator
  • *******
  • Posts: 11990
  • Darwins +618/-23
  • Gender: Male
  • Karma mooch
Links:
Rules
Guides & Tutorials

What's true is already so. Owning up to it does not make it worse.

Offline theFLEW

  • Student
  • **
  • Posts: 93
  • Darwins +1/-1
  • Gender: Male
  • Ron Paul for President
Hey, facts are facts, no matter who says them.  A lot had to go right for life to exist in this universe, and that list Ross provides is just the tip of the iceberg (he's dealing mainly with physics); if organic chemistry and natural biology were added, you'd probably have a list in the thousands, if not millions.

Coincidence?  Hmmmm, depends how you see it.  I see directed action.

And incidentally Screwtape, Hugh Ross is most definitely a heretic.....in the Kent Hovind circles.  Ironically, since you see Kent Hovind as a "science heretic", and your enemy's enemy must be your friend, well...maybe you and Ross should grab coffee sometime? ;)
"...and how much naivety, venerable, childlike and boundlessly stupid naivety there is in the scholar's belief in his superiority, in the good conscience of his tolerance, in the simply unsuspecting certainty with which his instinct treats the religious man as an inferior..." - F. Nietzsche


Offline MadBunny

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 3558
  • Darwins +110/-0
  • Fallen Illuminatus
Hey, facts are facts, no matter who says them.  A lot had to go right for life to exist in this universe, and that list Ross provides is just the tip of the iceberg (he's dealing mainly with physics); if organic chemistry and natural biology were added, you'd probably have a list in the thousands, if not millions.

Coincidence?  Hmmmm, depends how you see it.  I see directed action.


It occurs to me that nobody has addressed the core issue of the topic.


Ok, fine you like to think that it's science go ahead and treat it like science. 
Apply 'fine tuning' to the scientific method and tell me how you would test for it.  How is it falsifiable?

The reason 'creation science' fails the muster isn't for lack of people thinking it's true, it's because so far it isn't science.

[1]

Where do you think 'fine tuning' fits on this particular chart?

Creation can't ever get past the 'hypothesis' stage of science because it is an unfalsifiable concept.



 1. Amusingly, when I did a google image search for this, I found my own post where I'd already used this image. 
Give a man a fire, and he'll be warm for a night.  Set a man on fire and he'll be warm for the rest of his life.

Offline Brad the Bold

  • Undergraduate
  • ***
  • Posts: 106
  • Darwins +17/-0
It occurs to me that nobody has addressed the core issue of the topic.

Ok, fine you like to think that it's science go ahead and treat it like science. 
Apply 'fine tuning' to the scientific method and tell me how you would test for it.  How is it falsifiable?

The reason 'creation science' fails the muster isn't for lack of people thinking it's true, it's because so far it isn't science.

[1]

Where do you think 'fine tuning' fits on this particular chart?

Creation can't ever get past the 'hypothesis' stage of science because it is an unfalsifiable concept.
 1. Amusingly, when I did a google image search for this, I found my own post where I'd already used this image. 

Great addition to the thread MB. Thanks.

I submit that most don't even really make it to the hypothesis. That's the challenge of this thread, to use ID theory to make a testable hypothesis.

So far the ID version of the chart is much shorter.

1. Make an Observation, (better yet, steal an observation made by someone who actually does real research), then choose one of the following.

a. State that the observation can only result from design. No further analysis is needed.
b. State that the observation can not be the result of evolution. No further analysis is needed.

Offline ParkingPlaces

  • Professor
  • ********
  • Posts: 6125
  • Darwins +689/-3
  • Gender: Male
  • Hide and Seek World Champion since 1958!
Brad, you overcomplicated it. This is how it really goes for them.

Step 1. Make an assumption based on how you hope the world is. And like, you know, it's really really important that the world be that way because god did it. Just the way you wanted him to.

Step 2. Not needed. Of course it's true.
Not everyone is entitled to their opinion. They're all entitled to mine though.

Offline velkyn

  • Laureate
  • *********
  • Posts: 15420
  • Darwins +169/-6
  • Gender: Female
  • You're wearing the juice, aren't you?"
Hey, facts are facts, no matter who says them.  A lot had to go right for life to exist in this universe, and that list Ross provides is just the tip of the iceberg (he's dealing mainly with physics); if organic chemistry and natural biology were added, you'd probably have a list in the thousands, if not millions.

Coincidence?  Hmmmm, depends how you see it.  I see directed action.

And incidentally Screwtape, Hugh Ross is most definitely a heretic.....in the Kent Hovind circles.  Ironically, since you see Kent Hovind as a "science heretic", and your enemy's enemy must be your friend, well...maybe you and Ross should grab coffee sometime? ;)

Love to see the Chrsitiansn declaring that each of them has the only "truth", all sur that their nonsense is the only one and hating each other over that.  Such good christians!  As for Ross, again, nothing has been shown to make a god necessary.  That's the fail for claims of finetuning/ID/creationism.   no evidence and no way to test for "directed action.  Fail again, NTS. 
"There is no use in arguing with a man who can multiply anything by the square root of minus 1" - Pirates of Venus, ERB

http://clubschadenfreude.wordpress.com/

Offline nogodsforme

  • Professor
  • ********
  • Posts: 6207
  • Darwins +783/-4
  • Gender: Female
  • Jehovah's Witness Protection Program
Granted, but I'm going to be honest, I don't understand the rock analogy.

But you claim to understand "Degree of space-time warping and twisting by general relativistic factors"..... :?

Hell, even I understand the science of rock formation. Magic is not needed.

BTW: A naturally occuring universe would be one where you have all these constants and so forth. Things happen a certain way because of the way nature is. Just like if you dribble flour onto a table you naturally get a nice little pyramid shape, but it is natural, not designed. If you bring water to a certain pressure and temperature, it boils. It always does.

On the other hand, a religious universe would be the random one. A random universe would be one where anything could happen. Talking snakes, women made out of ribs, apples full of dangerous knowledge, people walking on water, turning water into wine and rising from the dead. 

A random universe is a magical universe where there could be literally anything around the next corner: a flying pink llama in a green tutu with three Richard Dawkinses riding on it.  :D

Magic means: I win the lottery tomorrow, and I never even bought a ticket. Every child with cancer is spontaneously cured on Valentine's Day. Food packets rain down on the people of North Korea from a cloudless, empty sky. Anything.

That is the universe that religious people think exists, because god is capable of anything, right? God don't need no stupid constraints and constants. God don't need to follow no laws of physics--god can violate the laws of physics, chemistry, biology and meterology any day of the week, because he's god. :o

How else could he turn water into wine or walk on water or part the Red Sea? How else could he create a flood that drowned the entire earth? Those things can't happen naturally, because they violate the constants and constraints.

Soooo. Which is it, theFLEW? Either the universe is natural and has all those seemingly fine-tuned constants because that's the way science works. Or the universe is a magical place created by a magical god, where, as Whitney sang to Cinderella, impossible things happen every day. :?
Extraordinary claims of the bible don't even have ordinary evidence.

Kids aren't paying attention most of the time in science classes so it seems silly to get worked up over ID being taught in schools.

Offline Azdgari

  • Laureate
  • *********
  • Posts: 12210
  • Darwins +267/-31
  • Gender: Male
Granted, but I'm going to be honest, I don't understand the rock analogy.

The rock has a specific state.  Each molecule in it is in a specific arrangement.  The odds of those molecules coming to be arranged in exactly the manner that they are, from nothing, by chance, is astronomically small.  10 to the negative "some really big number" (which depends mainly on the size of the rock, and thus the number of molecules).

Think of every one of those molecules as a constant.  Now, we have this rock with all its constants so finely-tuned to be the way it is right now...the rock had to be specifically arranged by the hand of an intelligent being...right?

That's the same reasoning you've used.  In both cases, a natural cause is dismissed apriori.  Convenient, but not particularly honest.
« Last Edit: February 16, 2012, 04:56:19 PM by Azdgari »
The highest moral human authority is copied by our Gandhi neurons through observation.