2
   

Intelligent Design is not creationism

 
 
Eorl
 
  1  
Reply Sun 9 Apr, 2006 07:47 pm
At last, real life asking some sensible questions (unfortunatley, I suspect he thinks he already has the answers)
0 Replies
 
Lightwizard
 
  1  
Reply Sun 9 Apr, 2006 08:13 pm
Of course he does. He's throwing out bait and thinks the rest of us don't know it. It's all to resolve the questions in his own mind, however -- whether or not he should continue believe what he believes. That's really up to him.
0 Replies
 
Teleologist
 
  1  
Reply Sun 9 Apr, 2006 08:15 pm
Quote:
Apart from and regardless of any consideration of the ID Movement, The Discovery Institute, or any other entity, individual, organization - philosophic, religious, academic, or other - that there be Intelligent Design entails creationism; the concept of Intelligent Design is indivorceable from, wholly dependent upon, the concept of creationism.


I asked the ID critics back on page 1 to define creationism and no one would do it. So I guess it's time to ask again. How do you define creationism? You are obviously using a different definition than I am.
0 Replies
 
Eorl
 
  1  
Reply Sun 9 Apr, 2006 08:25 pm
Creationism = magic.

but that's just my definition.
0 Replies
 
Eorl
 
  1  
Reply Sun 9 Apr, 2006 08:26 pm
LW I hope so, but I think it's more about propaganda than real questioning, sadly.
0 Replies
 
Lightwizard
 
  1  
Reply Sun 9 Apr, 2006 08:33 pm
Why are there people who want to rewrite the dictionary? Get a job rewriting the dictionary.

creationism
2 entries found for creationism.
To select an entry, click on it.
creationismscientific creationism

Main Entry: cre·a·tion·ism
Pronunciation: -sh&-"ni-z&m
Function: noun
: a doctrine or theory holding that matter, the various forms of life, and the world were created by God out of nothing and usually in the way described in Genesis -- compare EVOLUTION
0 Replies
 
Lightwizard
 
  1  
Reply Sun 9 Apr, 2006 08:34 pm
(Or just get a job).
0 Replies
 
rosborne979
 
  1  
Reply Sun 9 Apr, 2006 08:35 pm
Teleologist wrote:
I asked the ID critics back on page 1 to define creationism and no one would do it. So I guess it's time to ask again. How do you define creationism?


Creationism is the dogged adherance to certain simplistic fantasies set forth in the more common versions of the Bible.
0 Replies
 
Eorl
 
  1  
Reply Sun 9 Apr, 2006 08:40 pm
I think it's closely related to Cretinism isn't it? Etymologically speaking.
0 Replies
 
snood
 
  1  
Reply Sun 9 Apr, 2006 08:43 pm
Eorl wrote:
I think it's closely related to Cretinism isn't it? Etymologically speaking.


That's the problem with these discussions. Some folk don't have it in them to disagree without being disrespectful. Why can't you think Theists, Christians, Creationists, etc. are wrong, without calling them stupid?
0 Replies
 
Eorl
 
  1  
Reply Sun 9 Apr, 2006 08:47 pm
joke snood, lighten up dude. It's obvious creationists do not suffer from cretinism, to seriously suggest so could be insulting to both.
0 Replies
 
rosborne979
 
  1  
Reply Sun 9 Apr, 2006 08:48 pm
snood wrote:
That's the problem with these discussions. Some folk don't have it in them to disagree without being disrespectful. Why can't you think Theists, Christians, Creationists, etc. are wrong, without calling them stupid?


Ok. They're wrong.

What do you think causes them to be wrong?
0 Replies
 
parados
 
  1  
Reply Sun 9 Apr, 2006 08:50 pm
snood wrote:
Eorl wrote:
I think it's closely related to Cretinism isn't it? Etymologically speaking.


That's the problem with these discussions. Some folk don't have it in them to disagree without being disrespectful. Why can't you think Theists, Christians, Creationists, etc. are wrong, without calling them stupid?
That's because I'm right and you're wrong so that makes me smart and you...

What?

I'm wrong?

Really?

oh... never mind..
0 Replies
 
snood
 
  1  
Reply Sun 9 Apr, 2006 09:11 pm
rosborne979 wrote:
snood wrote:
That's the problem with these discussions. Some folk don't have it in them to disagree without being disrespectful. Why can't you think Theists, Christians, Creationists, etc. are wrong, without calling them stupid?


Ok. They're wrong.

What do you think causes them to be wrong?


Nice. What do you think causes people not to be able to disagree without calling names?
0 Replies
 
timberlandko
 
  1  
Reply Sun 9 Apr, 2006 09:27 pm
real life wrote:
Where did this empty Universe come from? How are you sure it was empty? How large was it?

What empty universe? What universe period? Prior to the emergence of the singularity, the state or condition of being we perceive and describe as "The Universe" did not exist; whether there may have been or were other previous or parellel unverse or universerses is immaterial to th fact this universe came into being with the expansion of the singularity.

Quote:
Where did this single source of energy come from?

Nobody knows, maybe nobody ever will know, maybe some day we'll figure out how and from whence it originated, but for now, nobody knows. That is immaterial to the fact we experience our universe.

Quote:
How are you sure there was only one source?

Nobody knows for sure - very little is "known for sure", "beyond any doubt". However, by math, astronomy, and logical deductive reasoning, we must conclude that some 13.7BYA, give or take a few million years, it happened that way. The "Preponderance of evidence" for the event as postulated is such that the event is a matter of probability to within an exceedingly close approximation of certainty; the available evidence permits no other assumption.

Quote:
How do you know that it exploded and didn't start expanding for other reasons?

"Exploded" is at best an approximation of what occurred, a linguistic convenience. Conditions as we know them did not pertain prior to the emergence of the singularity, as our universe did not exist prior to the emergence of the singularity.

Quote:
Was any of this observed and recorded, or are these inferences you have made based on what you think may have happened?

We can observe the reality of the Plank Horizon -
[url=http://www.able2know.com/forums/viewtopic.php?p=1762058#1762058]A while back, I[/url] wrote:
... (W)hile the "Big Bang" itself is and likely ever will remain unobservable, we can confirm the Plank Horizon:

*
http://scienceworld.wolfram.com/physics/pimg516.gif

where G is the universal gravitational constant, h is Planck's constant, and c is the speed of light. If h-bar is used instead of plain h, the corresponding time is

http://scienceworld.wolfram.com/physics/pimg517.gif

For those who's eyes have just glazed over, what all that amounts to is that the math works, indicating probability very closely aproaching unity that The Big Bang occurred.



*: Thanks to MathWorld-dot-Com


Further confirmation recently was provided, bringing the probability just that much closer to unity:
Quote:
NASA images offer details about design of the universe[/u][/size]
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."
0 Replies
 
Lightwizard
 
  1  
Reply Sun 9 Apr, 2006 11:14 pm
You have the patience of Job, timber. Yes, explode is semantically as close as one can come to the abstract. This is an abstraction that, as you have backed it up with scientific data, all the observable clues of cosmology points to. I shouldn't have used the term "empty Universe" as it prompted the question "How large was it?" How large is it now? Back to the limited Universe -- a fishbowl of sorts the Creator has on his kitchen table experimenting on the galaxies, stars, planets, you, me and the mailman.

Plasma could be close to or the energy source that "exploded" and created our expanding Universe.

Don't everyone get rid of their plasma TV's, though, as they don't have any chance of exploding and creating a new Universe.
0 Replies
 
WhoodaThunk
 
  1  
Reply Mon 10 Apr, 2006 04:27 am
Lightwizard wrote:
You have the patience of Job, timber.


Yes, he does ... and he gave a reply that didn't involve any namecalling ... and he managed to do it without coming off as a condescending smartass. Plus he didn't try to recycle the "plasma TV" joke which wasn't funny the first time it appeared.

He must be God. I shall fashion a golden calf in his image & worship it.
0 Replies
 
Chumly
 
  1  
Reply Mon 10 Apr, 2006 04:56 am
Hi timberlandko,
Really nicely done & worth reviewing a number of times!
0 Replies
 
Chumly
 
  1  
Reply Mon 10 Apr, 2006 05:05 am
For those who might like to read an older but still very entertaining Science Fiction perspective on the Big Bang, by my favorite author Isaac Asimov, who said: "This is by far my favorite story of all those I have written".

The Last Question
0 Replies
 
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Mon 10 Apr, 2006 05:06 am
Eorl wrote:
'Cause I keep seeing the singular (and masculine) used to describe these designers...why d'ya reckon that might be?




Eeheeheeheeheeheeheeheeheeheeheehee . . .


'K, as you were . . .
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

700 Inconsistencies in the Bible - Discussion by onevoice
Why do we deliberately fool ourselves? - Discussion by coincidence
Spirituality - Question by Miller
Oneness vs. Trinity - Discussion by Arella Mae
give you chills - Discussion by Bartikus
Evidence for Evolution! - Discussion by Bartikus
Evidence of God! - Discussion by Bartikus
One World Order?! - Discussion by Bartikus
God loves us all....!? - Discussion by Bartikus
The Preambles to Our States - Discussion by Charli
 
Copyright © 2025 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 05/10/2025 at 11:04:40