Re: The Reasonable Minority
- From: chris thompson <chris.linthompson@xxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Wed, 2 Jan 2008 03:56:56 -0800 (PST)
On Jan 1, 8:37 pm, Evopeach <keaton1...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Jan 1, 3:14 pm, chris thompson <chris.linthomp...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Jan 1, 3:26 pm, Evopeach <keaton1...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Jan 1, 1:13 pm, TomS <TomS_mem...@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
"On Tue, 01 Jan 2008 13:38:54 -0500, in article
<7h1ln39ri1hgfba9rrvkaqsudth8bqp...@xxxxxxx>, Augray stated..."
[...snip...]>I have yet to see any scientific explanation for Intelligent Design.
Can you point me to one?
[...snip...]
I have yet to see anything that Intelligent Design explains -
except in the case of intelligent designers (such as humans)
that make use of natural causes.
--
---Tom S.
"As scarce as truth is, the supply has always been in excess of the demand."
attributed to Josh Billings
The principle is that a disembodied IDer was the creator and that we
are given His template or model for how to effect cognitive thought
onto matter to achieve a result by design and imlementation is a
strict argument from analogy consistent with rationality.
However abiogenesis came about you believe RM and NS even at the
molecular level in a one celled replicator took over and led to us.
Thus all of the apparent design was due to the original act of
abiogenesis and the minimal capacity of self reproduction or
replication.
Yet you have no rational or demonstrable proof that abiogenesis was
itself natural...you simply assume it was.
Well, here's the rub. Everything else we know of- Every. Last. Thing.-
is natural. There is simply no reason other than willful delusion to
think there's anything out there that isn't natural. When you get
some actual evidence for something supernatural- say, a
multidimensional temple of Zuul in a refrigerator in an apartment on
Central Park West, drop us a line, ok?
Chris
You look at the so called RM and NS design methodology and believe
that by studying it, modeling it in software that an effective design
process, problem solving process, etc. can be achieved...at least in
special classes of problems.
You are precisely effecting an analogy of a natural "design" method
with unknown origin to a practical use in the human domain via human
intellligence.
Attributing the capacity, the model, the template, the original design
to a disembodied designer is more rational than to a blank wall.- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
Einstein didn't agree with you. And when you have a definitive
demonstrable proof for naturalistic abiogenesis or the big bang you
trot it out.
Uh, so what? Did Einstein get a phone call from God? I don't think
so.
And you once again show you have no idea of how science proceeds.
There is no such thing in science as "definitive demonstrable proof"-
for anything. Not atoms, not evolution, not germ theory, not one.
single. thing. Why is that so difficult for you to grasp?
Now if you asked for _evidence_, I would have provided this:
"Theoretical support for the Big Bang comes from mathematical models,
called Friedmann models. These models show that a Big Bang is
consistent with general relativity and with the cosmological
principle, which states that the properties of the universe should be
independent of position or orientation.
Observational evidence for the Big Bang includes the analysis of the
spectrum of light from galaxies, which reveal a shift towards longer
wavelengths proportional to each galaxy's distance in a relationship
described by Hubble's law. Combined with the evidence that observers
located anywhere in the universe make similar observations (the
Copernican principle), this suggests that space itself is expanding.
The next most important observational evidence was the discovery of
cosmic microwave background radiation in 1964. This had been predicted
as a relic from when hot ionized plasma of the early universe first
cooled sufficiently to form neutral hydrogen and allow space to become
transparent to light, and its discovery led to general acceptance
among physicists that the Big Bang is the best model for the origin
and evolution of the universe. A third important line of evidence is
the relative proportion of light elements in the universe, which is a
close match to predictions for the formation of light elements in the
first minutes of the universe, according to Big Bang nucleosynthesis."
Lifted straight from the first three paragraphs of Wikipedia's article
on the Big Bang:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_bang
You need to do at least minimal reading before you make silly claims,
you know.
Chris
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: The Reasonable Minority
- From: Evopeach
- Re: The Reasonable Minority
- References:
- Re: The Reasonable Minority
- From: John Harshman
- Re: The Reasonable Minority
- From: Evopeach
- Re: The Reasonable Minority
- From: Augray
- Re: The Reasonable Minority
- From: TomS
- Re: The Reasonable Minority
- From: Evopeach
- Re: The Reasonable Minority
- From: chris thompson
- Re: The Reasonable Minority
- From: Evopeach
- Re: The Reasonable Minority
- Prev by Date: Re: Religious Tolerance view on the conflict
- Next by Date: Re: The Reasonable Minority
- Previous by thread: Re: The Reasonable Minority
- Next by thread: Re: The Reasonable Minority
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|