Before the bang

[Iridescectile]

This is interesting:
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/topic/stor...ectid=10400645

[JoshM]

It is true that neither theory can be proven empirically. If we can agree on that then wouldn't the theory that has more facts to support it become the most logically plausible? Sure you can chalk it up to being a “miracle” or just something that will remain “unknown” as Johnny pointed out but that sort of defeats the purpose of science doesn’t it? I mean if you’re approaching something scientifically then you’re making an attempt to try and explain something where and explanation didn’t exist before. Its also ok to say that you don’t know yes however if there is this battle between the 2 theories then you would have to then look at the facts that support each one.

Intelligent Design Theory – The facts that support this theory are really all around us. An objective approach to this would be to look at everything around you that exists. For instance the computer you’re viewing this post on didn’t happen by chance or out of randomness. It was designed, created and build with intent and purpose. The chair you’re sitting in didn’t explode from nothingness, same thing there. In order for that kind of complicated order to exist there had to be some kind of design involved. Even organic things as well. Every species on this planet was proCREATED from another of the same species. People MAKE love to MAKE a baby. Even plants have to utilize some sort of sexual process to procreate their own species. Creation and intent is necessary for the survival of a species to support its own existence. So everything that we all know to exist in this physical world had to have some sort of design, with intent for it to be there. The evidence to support it is astronomical in comparison to a Big Bang theory. By saying that something designed the origination, the catalyst of the universe through the process of creation supports how everything else got here. With big bang there really is hardly any facts to support it. There is the current model of understanding physics and matter that supports some theories. There is also the data to show the universe is expanding too. There might be some evidence of evolution here and there but that doesn’t support that theory of its origination. It only explains the process that some species had to endure for its own survival. Human evolution from other species still has not been factually proven. Much less is there factual evidence to support more complicated organisms evolved from single cell organisms. It’s a far stretch. I also think that if it were true the evidence would be astronomical. There should be missing link bones everywhere if that was the case but there isn’t. There is however a process of procreation that all species do that requires some type of intent to create and live on. A man builds and designs a house the same way a beaver builds and designs a dam, birds create nests ect. This we see everywhere. Its all around us in a MUCH higher percentage then the facts that we evolved from single cell organisms. Even if there were missing link bones everywhere, or missing link people such as multiple species of organisms between man and monkey, that still doesn’t give as many facts to support the theory that the catalyst of the universe was a random explosion.

Consider this also, chaos naturally happens out of order MUCH more often then order happens naturally out of chaos. For order to happen from chaos there has to be some kind of design. 2nd Law of Thermodynamics proves this and it’s not a theory. Like xian’s paper plane is not going to make itself. People get old, get diseases and eventually die. Especially if they don’t take good care of themselves or try and enrich their lives with something healthy. To be in a relationship takes work to make it work. If you just ignore or don’t communicate with that person you’re in a relationship with its eventually going to end or become destructive. Chaos naturally arises when you don’t put any more effort into making it work. We see this everywhere. If you don’t go to your job anymore, you’ll get fired and those paychecks will not show up in your bank account anymore. Those paychecks just don’t randomly appear there as the Big Bang theory suggests.

Conclusion is that the amount of evidence to support a design being involved in the catalyst of the universe weather one calls it God, the creator or whatever is astronomical in comparison to the evidence of random explosion being the catalyst. To believe in God takes faith, yes however to support the theory of a creator (regardless of a name) is just more factually supported and more logical. With this other theory it says 2 universe dimensions collided witch created matter, but it doesn’t explain the origin of the 2 dimensions or flat branes as they call it. It doesn’t explain where time originally came from. It might offer physicists more ways of understanding how matter came to be but still fails to offer the origin of time or the dimension itself. So who designed and created the flat branes?

[Xodiac]

Okay, that's all well and good, but nobody is aguing that the universe sprang up from randomness, there is a scientific process behind the order of the universe, chaos is only part of it. We've already been though everything you've just said, and you'd be hard pressed to find somebody that disagrees with your point that the universe has order to it, that part is beyond obvious. The part where we disagree is the part where proponents of ID claim that order can only come from consiousness. Try and defend THAT, and then we'll have something to talk about.

[PETA]

Originally Posted by Xodiac

The part where we disagree is the part where proponents of ID claim that order can only come from consiousness. Try and defend THAT, and then we'll have something to talk about.

That's not what I was arguing. I was arguing that order suggests design and lack of order suggests no design. The more order we find the more likely there is a designer. I didn't say that if any order then god.

There are some complicated structures (eg DNA) in existence that are simply too incredible to think that they could have fallen into place by chance - especially in light of the laws of entropy that you brought up. Quite rather it is more plausible that such complicated structures are a product of intent, design etc than they are of a roll of the dice.... which some idiot suggested God doesn't do with the universe.

[Xodiac]

I was arguing that order suggests design and lack of order suggests no design.

It only suggests design in cases where humans have specifically been the designers. In the vast majority of the cases (ie nature) order doesn't suggest anything. It doesn't suggest a designer, and it doesn't suggest that it all came from randomness either. Order in doesn't suggest anything, it is fundamentally mysterious, and the best we can do is to study the ways in which the underlying processes of that order plays itself out, ie physics, math, etc.

And by the way, the "idiot" who said that quote about dice was talking about quantum mechanics, and he was wrong.

[kalamu]

it only suggests a designer because that's what you want to believe xian.

[Xodiac]

Originally Posted by kalamu

it only suggests a designer because that's what you want to believe xian.

It seems like just a different point of view...ah, I wish I was better with strict logic, I feel like I can't ever make my arguments clear enough.

[PETA]

Originally Posted by kalamu

it only suggests a designer because that's what you want to believe xian.

No, it suggests a designer because that piece of paper on my desk wasn't going to become an airplane unless I folded it. Do to was a pile of amino acid unlikely to form DNA and encode with information that builds life merely as a product of chance and a fortuitous sequence events. If such wonderful things can occur as a result of chance - why haven't other complicated structures materialized? If they have, where are they? What is much more easily argued here is that you deny any chance that there could be a designer because that's what you want to believe. I certainly agree that I could be completely wrong and that no designer exists while you refuse to concede any chance that one may in fact exist. Who has the closed mind?

[kalamu]

LOL, you say i have a closed mind and that's supposed to hurt me or something?

even if there is a designer, man will never know it and if i had to place a bet... i'd bet it all that it has nothing to do with the myth we call the christian god.

man is a foolish being who likes to make up explanations for things that there is no explanation for and then live their lives believing that garbage. even fighting for that garbage.

[PETA]

Originally Posted by kalamu

LOL, you say i have a closed mind and that's supposed to hurt me or something?

It wasn't intended to hurt you. It was intended to point out the obvious irony in your position.

Originally Posted by kalamu

even if there is a designer, man will never know it

So true - and something I noted in one of the very first posts on this topic. ID is a theory and further it can NEVER be proven and made law.

Originally Posted by kalamu

and if i had to place a bet... i'd bet it all that it has nothing to do with the myth we call the christian god.

man is a foolish being who likes to make up explanations for things that there is no explanation for and then live their lives believing that garbage. even fighting for that garbage.

And who is the positive thinker full of hope for mankind here?

But I'll bite - what foolish explanation are you specifically thinking of (and what garbage do men believe in) when you say things like that?

[Xodiac]

ID can never be proven? WTF? Where do you get that from? Of course ID could be proven. It will be proven the second we empirically find the designer, right?

[PETA]

Originally Posted by Xodiac

ID can never be proven? WTF? Where do you get that from? Of course ID could be proven. It will be proven the second we empirically find the designer, right?

Sure, and how do you communicate that to the rest of us back here on the material place


The way I read the notion originally was something like this... approximate quote.... ID can never be proven, until it is, and at that point it should seem a hollow triumph.

[kalamu]

Originally Posted by xian

And who is the positive thinker full of hope for mankind here?

not you. once man stops believing in foolish myths about God, the better off we will all be. it doesn't seem as though man is capable of doing that though, man is still under the false notion that believing in God is a helpful thing.

[PETA]

Originally Posted by kalamu

not you. once man stops believing in foolish myths about God, the better off we will all be. it doesn't seem as though man is capable of doing that though, man is still under the false notion that believing in God is a helpful thing.

yes yes we all know you love to repeat ad nauseum that belief in god is stupid.

What I asked you to do was to explain what foolish and garbage explanations you were referring to here:

Originally Posted by kalamu

man is a foolish being who likes to make up explanations for things that there is no explanation for and then live their lives believing that garbage. even fighting for that garbage.

I ask because I think you have a very misguided concept of what people of faith believe and further I think you prefer to live with that misconception because it permits you to continue sneering at people of faith. Again, who is living their life clouded by garbage explanations?

[MattM]

Originally Posted by xian

a roll of the dice....

Ah. And even a roll of the dice or a flip of the coin has something of an order to it via probability etc. Flip a coin 10,000 times and the results will be somewhere around 50/50.