97
   

Intelligent Design Theory: Science or Religion?

 
 
Setanta
 
  1  
Wed 22 Mar, 2006 01:51 pm
I am mystified to know why RR would consider Gunga Din a scientist . . . but, then, i'm used to seeing him post meaningless drivel . . .
0 Replies
 
RexRed
 
  1  
Wed 22 Mar, 2006 02:11 pm
cicerone imposter wrote:
Rex, Why does god need to form man from the dust of the ground? If he created the universe out of nothing, what's the problem of creating humans? From dust? LOL


God first "created" the heavens and the earth, It fell into decay and God did not have to create it again... he just formed and made things from the first creation in Genesis 1:1. The only thing God had not created earlier was spirit in humans, which God creates LONG after the first creation... Quite simple actually. And nothing in this story actually disagrees with science as we know it...

It makes sense to me, God formed the body (through evolution) as he made man a living soul (life) and then created man in his own image (holy spirit)...
0 Replies
 
RexRed
 
  1  
Wed 22 Mar, 2006 02:12 pm
Setanta wrote:
I am mystified to know why RR would consider Gunga Din a scientist . . . but, then, i'm used to seeing him post meaningless drivel . . .


I think he was quoting from a "scientist"... Smile
0 Replies
 
spendius
 
  1  
Wed 22 Mar, 2006 02:14 pm
Setanta wrote-

Quote:
Never miss an opportunity to parade your virulent misogyny, do ya? I'll bet that if you were ever laid at all (by a woman), it hasn't happened since there were 240 pennies in a pound.


Get the terms of a 50 grand bet sorted out and I'll send you a video with a newspaper headline in it.

And I'll tell you something else too pal.Making suggestive remarks of that nature about me tells me for certain that your reading lessons at school were a complete waste of taxpayers money.I'd suspected as much anyway but that makes it 100% and any scientific person would not want you in his boat because he wouldn't wish to catch that sort of thing by being in proximity to it.And you should see what the psychologists say about that such projections.

Don't you even know that all writing is confessional to a decent reader.
0 Replies
 
spendius
 
  1  
Wed 22 Mar, 2006 02:18 pm
c.i. wrote-

Quote:
He prolly never heard of the "oldest profession."


Go on c.i.-have a go at defining the "oldest profession".Important rule of science you know to provide exact definitions.
0 Replies
 
spendius
 
  1  
Wed 22 Mar, 2006 02:23 pm
Wolf wrote-

Quote:
make it look as if they missed the irony bus


You're on it are you Wolf.Have you read Pater or Mann on irony.Or Empson even?
0 Replies
 
timberlandko
 
  1  
Wed 22 Mar, 2006 02:26 pm
Re: Intelligent Design Theory: Science or Religion?
RexRed wrote:
And what would you call a black hole or the Big Bang?


I would call them plausible to near the point of absolute certitude, and just recently yet further confirmed through direct observation:

Quote:
NASA images offer details about design of the universe
Probe 'confirms suspicions' of events after Big Bang, UBC professor says

PETTI FONG

VANCOUVER -- You may be reassured to know, as physicist Mark Halpern of the University of British Columbia has just learned, that the universe is behaving exactly as it should.

New images from a NASA space probe that Prof. Halpern and scientists from throughout the United States designed and launched five years ago, have provided evidence of what happened 13.7 billion years ago.

Prof. Halpern looked back in time to capture the split second when a mass the size of a pebble expanded exponentially over and over to become the universe, after the Big Bang.

And he saw what he expected to see.

"The simplest version of this fairy tale that is our universe is now dramatically more secure," Prof. Halpern said.

"What surprised me is how incredibly well the simple picture fits. It seems we understand a lot about the universe that until now has been just about guesses. Things are the way we believed they should be."

Cosmic microwave background radiation is the radiant heat left over from the Big Bang and first observed in 1965 by astronomers. From the properties of the radiation, scientists can learn the physical conditions of the universe at its beginning stages.

Images released yesterday detected the earliest light seen yet from the Big Bang afterglow, providing new evidence that the universe grew suddenly in less than a trillionth of a second.

The current picture shows blue and green cool spots, yellow and red hot spots and white slashes to indicate polarization, which tell scientists how material was moving in the beginning when the universe formed.

The information pinpoints when the first stars formed and provides new details about events that transpired in the first trillionth of a second. It's from quantum fluctuations that stars, planets and the galaxies formed.

Mike Nolta, a postdoctoral fellow at the Canadian Institute for Theoretical Astrophysics in Toronto, said the images are a relic left over from the beginning of the universe.

"There was an expectation we would see what we're seeing. It basically confirms our suspicions," he said yesterday.

For the past three years, the satellite has continuously observed the cosmic background radiation that lingers from the universe's sudden forceful beginnings billions of years ago from a distance of 1.6 million kilometres away from Earth.

From their observations, scientists were able to report the age of the universe as 13.7 billion years, give or take a few hundred million, and the age of the universe when stars first began to shine, 400 million years later, again with the cushion room of a few million either way.

Prof. Halpern and 12 other U.S. scientists around began the project, but it has since expanded to include a group of 20 physicists who continuously monitor and analyze the patterns and signals received.

Over the past three years, scientists have been able to identify that just 4 per cent of the universe is composed of ordinary familiar atoms.

Researchers have still not been able to identify 22 per cent of the universe, which they call "dark matter."

"It's not atoms, so it remains a mystery. It's some other stuff that doesn't give off light. We know it doesn't bump into other matter, but it gives us something to think about," Prof. Halpern said.

A remaining 74 per cent of the universe is another mysterious substance called dark energy.

Each new piece of the puzzle in determining the origins of the universe is done for pure curiosity, according to Prof. Halpern.

"It's not going to help us understand weather patterns or other things like that," he said.

But reassuringly, the latest images indicate the universe will last even longer than scientists predicted.

Also, its expansion is accelerating, rather than slowing down.

"I used to say the universe will last forever and people would say, 'How do you know that?' " Prof. Halpern said. "Now I can say it will last at least many tens of billions of years and the universe we know will last forever or at least as long as forever means."


"There was an expectation we would see what we're seeing. It basically confirms our suspicions"


Now, we all know what ID-iots would prefer be seen - what never has been seen is any indication whatsoever that that which ID-iots propose in opposition to what has been observed and confirmed might be.
0 Replies
 
spendius
 
  1  
Wed 22 Mar, 2006 02:32 pm
timber wrote-

Quote:
I believe Costanzian well might be more precise - but I was using Seinfeldian more or less generically, encompassing the entire canon within the reference, not really meaning to identify any particular one of the worthies as auteur of the concept presented


Gee timber,if you think that's good you should see Babestation.But I would avoid Footballer's Wives if I was you.It's a bit advanced and goes very fast.I have to video it and do re-runs.Sometimes a lot.
JC has finally turned up.Last scene in third episode (90 mins each).Very late entrance.She's an essdeeoid cockle-picker you know.She looked ghastly.It's a career mistake.
0 Replies
 
spendius
 
  1  
Wed 22 Mar, 2006 02:44 pm
timber wrote-

Quote:
Now, we all know what ID-iots would prefer be seen - what never has been seen is any indication whatsoever that that which ID-iots propose in opposition to what has been observed and confirmed might be.


Yes timber,we do know what we prefer to be seen and it isn't some dots on a photographic plate purporting to be some thing nobody understands which is probably not even still in existence.

And some of wish to see the edcational system persuading forming minds,even just some of them,to prefer what we prefer to be seen ahead of what essdeeoids prefer to be seen.

Actually,now I remember Calamity Jane said essdeeoids were "nerds".And to think I defended them at that time.
0 Replies
 
timberlandko
 
  1  
Wed 22 Mar, 2006 02:49 pm
I am given cause for pause to see spendi referencing himself as qualifying for inclusion among those who think.
0 Replies
 
RexRed
 
  1  
Wed 22 Mar, 2006 03:00 pm
Spendius

Both a black hole and the Big bang contain vast amounts of inherent energy...

Where did this energy come from? God is energy...

God = MC2

Or, the physical/spiritual world = God
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Wed 22 Mar, 2006 03:05 pm
god(s) = man's imagination and creation.
0 Replies
 
RexRed
 
  1  
Wed 22 Mar, 2006 03:10 pm
cicerone imposter wrote:
god(s) = man's imagination and creation.


True but it is also true reversed...

And not all men/women seem to contort God into their own image... we should not contort the world/universe into our own image either by denying God's hand in creation...
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Wed 22 Mar, 2006 03:13 pm
In my statement "god(s) = man's imagination and creation" there are no buts, if's, or howevers. It just is.
0 Replies
 
RexRed
 
  1  
Wed 22 Mar, 2006 03:25 pm
cicerone imposter wrote:
In my statement "god(s) = man's imagination and creation" there are no buts, if's, or howevers. It just is.


Well I disagree... Religion is man's imagination but God is truth and truth is not a human invention it is a human convention.
0 Replies
 
spendius
 
  1  
Wed 22 Mar, 2006 03:25 pm
c.i. wrote-

Quote:
In my statement "god(s) = man's imagination and creation" there are no buts, if's, or howevers. It just is.


On the button c.i.

And when there are no Gods it =no imagination and no creation.Hence no science.It was a God filled world,our God,from which science sprung.
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Wed 22 Mar, 2006 03:26 pm
How can "god be truth," when there is no evidence? It's all in your imagination; no more, no less.
0 Replies
 
spendius
 
  1  
Wed 22 Mar, 2006 03:27 pm
Oh-and all the great art and literature and architecture that everybody admires most.
0 Replies
 
RexRed
 
  1  
Wed 22 Mar, 2006 03:27 pm
cicerone imposter wrote:
How can "god be truth," when there is no evidence? It's all in your imagination; no more, no less.


One man's evidence is another man's politics...
0 Replies
 
spendius
 
  1  
Wed 22 Mar, 2006 03:29 pm
Rex wrote-

Quote:
Well I disagree... Religion is man's imagination but God is truth and truth is not a human invention it is a human convention.


Obviously.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

 
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.12 seconds on 10/12/2024 at 06:25:55