0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
HERE ARE A FEW MORE FACTORS THAT SUGGEST THAT THE UNIVERSE WAS DESIGNEDThe mass and size of this planet are just right. If it was 10% larger or smaller, life would not be possible upon this planet. It is just the right distance from the sun for heat and cold. Farther and we would freeze, closer and we would be baked.Consider the tilt of the axis of the earth. No other planet has our 23 degree tilt. This enables all parts of the surface to have sun light. Without this, the poles would build up enormous ice and the equator would become intensely hot.Consider the moon. Without the tides created by the moon, all our harbors and shores would become one stench pool of garbage. The tides and waves based upon the moon's movement and gravitational pull aerate the oceans and provide oxygen for the plankton, which is the very foundation of the food chain of our world. Without plankton, there would not be oxygen and man would not be able to live on the earth. The moon is the right size and the right distance from the earth. Reduced
Again, you're looking at it from the wrong perspective - it's not "these things happened/exist so that we can exist", but these things happened/exist and so we exist - the final outcome is not the reason for the history, it's the consequence thereof. It's good that these conditions exist, as that has led to our evolution and our ability to discuss it here and now, but there is no reason to think that it happened in order for us to exist. Basically, you're saying that humans exist and so the universe must have been designed - this doesn't make sense.
I don't know if the universe was created by an intelligent designer, but there are lots of things that we do not know, and I do not feel that postulating a designer to explain things we can't explain is useful. I do not assume the existence of any such being, and so this explanation would, in fact, create more questions for me than it answers. So I choose to accept that the universe was almost certainly not created by an intelligent designer, and resign myself to the fact that I may never know the details of the origin of the universe.
Maybe the small changes we see in the tiny progressive evololusionary advantageous mutations, might be just nudges by this ID. Maybe it is experimenting with us, looking down on its equivalent of a petre dish.
If a stem cell knows what to do it's because of it's genetic programming - it doesn't know anything - it's just a machine.
If I were the ID who created this planet (and the rest of the universe) I think I would have put right all bits that I got wrong by now.For example, I created this piece of beautyYet I also created this piece of beautyOne will eat the other. What point is there in that, from a creators point of view? Would it not be better to have a stable population of all animals and plants etc. and let them all feed on minerals?What is the point of creating volcanos, they just mess up my creation. Our planet could be described as more of an experiment than a creation, so why doesn't the Intelligent Scientist pop in to view the results of the experiment once in while. Or are we a petri dish he forgot about?
If a stem cell knows what to do it's because of it's genetic programming - it doesn't know anything - it's just a machine.
QuoteIf a stem cell knows what to do it's because of it's genetic programming - it doesn't know anything - it's just a machine.so you are extending that stem cells are not only intelligent and engineered but also programed and they do all this themselves? clever little cells, sorry machine.Do you think it correct to call stem cells a machine?How many of these machines do we each have in our bodies.If you are correct in calling them machines it might be easier for others to accept that the universe was made by a mechine and therfore your comment ads to my "Intelligent design Theory".
As I mentioned science likes to humanise a 'creator/designer' in the theory of "intelligent deign" so I suppose whether it is god and alien or a machine it does just that.Has the big bang theory been tested?
Has the theory of bacteria developing into another species that then turns into yet another species been tested?I'm not a scientist but I would love to read about such tests.
Again it is difficult for some to take out the "human GOD factor" of intelligent design. Open your mind and think of intelligent design as maybe one of those little machines that programes itself and has intelligently engineered itself to develop into whatever it wants to be, I'm talking about a stem cell of course.Maye there is somethig more to the stem cell something we have not discovered yet?
Take out the human factor, the god favtor or what ever blocks your mind to make it think that this wonderful place, just happened.
Ben V - Please tell me the person, god or other who programmed the stem cell. Is your statement above fact or theory? I dont mean to be rude I am just interested in learning.
I agree, our existence is more than we can comprehend.So therefore I think that we should not block the thoughts and suggestions that may lead to a better understanding.I believe that beside "the big bang theory" we should include "intelligent design" keeping human/god/alien and machine out of it. We all need to look much deeper.But what i am sure of is this wonderful universe being so well coordinated and self sustainable, didn't 'just happen' and until science can say without any doubt how it did happen then our own inability to test the point where our universe came into existence and establish yet another theory, should not be hindered by some trying to bring religion or other mind blocking, prejudice thoughts into the argument.
Nope - I'm not saying they are intelligent.
Nope - I'm not saying they are engineered -
Yes, I think it's reasonable to call them a machine.
has the big bang been tested?
Not directly, in as much as that is impossible - however, the theory of the big bang makes predictions based on existing observations that have since been shown to be true. It may yet be wrong, but right now it's our best model.
Well, we have seen bacteria evolving new characteristics (characteristics that take the strain away from the defining characteristics of the existing species of bacteria), all in a lab under little selection pressure. The theory of evolution also, again, makes predictions that have since been shown to be true. It's our best explanation of the diversity of life on Earth.
In essence, I agree. I agree that religion has no place in science, and I agree that the origin of the universe is a very difficult question to answer, and we may never arrive at a solution.
QuoteNope - I'm not saying they are intelligent.no you didn't a scientist working with stem cells didQuoteNope - I'm not saying they are engineered -no you didn't a scientist working with stem cells did
QuoteNope - I'm not saying they are intelligent. no you didn't a scientist working with stem cells did QuoteNope - I'm not saying they are engineered - no you didn't a scientist working with stem cells did QuoteYes, I think it's reasonable to call them a machine. on what authorityA machine that is genetically engineered to change itself! Wow.
Quotehas the big bang been tested? I askedQuoteNot directly, in as much as that is impossible - however, the theory of the big bang makes predictions based on existing observations that have since been shown to be true. It may yet be wrong, but right now it's our best model. theories based on predictions, hmm.You told me here that a theory had to be able to be tested!!!! now you are changing your mind.Is the 'Big Bang a theory or not?
QuoteWell, we have seen bacteria evolving new characteristics (characteristics that take the strain away from the defining characteristics of the existing species of bacteria), all in a lab under little selection pressure. The theory of evolution also, again, makes predictions that have since been shown to be true. It's our best explanation of the diversity of life on Earth. Are you saying that one species can evolve into another?When I go to New Zealand I begin to talk like them too. When I go to the beach I come home with a tan..........when I have the flu I develop antibodies....... forever changing, adapting or as you put it evolving, not back to an ape I hope.
I read in a science journal that humans have 89% same genetic make up as plants
QuoteIn essence, I agree. I agree that religion has no place in science, and I agree that the origin of the universe is a very difficult question to answer, and we may never arrive at a solution. so if the big bang cant be tested and it is a theory and stem cells are intelligent, engineered and a machine and can alter their appearance to create a new.
Maybe intelligent, engineered design should be a valid option as it is already proven with stem cell research
"differnet genes based on the environment" but that is what eveolution is,,,,,
but stem cell scientist said they are intelligent and engineered to develop.........so could evolution be based on intelligent engineering?
QuoteQuoteNope - I'm not saying they are intelligent.no you didn't a scientist working with stem cells didQuoteNope - I'm not saying they are engineered -no you didn't a scientist working with stem cells did QuoteWow. An actual SCIENTIST said it! That's the ultimate authority.Stephen Badylak was the personCan someone tell me about him?
Wow. An actual SCIENTIST said it! That's the ultimate authority.
and they are not engineered, but arrived at by evolution.
We really need to know who it was and what he said, as you may have misunderstood him, he may have been taken out of context, or he may have just poorly communicated what he meant. Stem cells are not thought of as intelligent, and they are not engineered, but arrived at by evolution. So no, evolution is not based on intelligent engineering.
I like the idea that if things weren't so perfect there would be nothing to observe it and therefore it wouldn't technically exist. It reminds me of quantum mechanics. Perhaps the universe, our quantum branch anyway, settled on these friendly constants because it's the only possible way it could exist and be observed. Any extreme combinations wouldn't result in anythin able to contemplate its creepiness and it would simply be a froth of possibilities.
I read a very good book today (long haul flight from canada) called "13 things that dont make sense". One topic was life and the other was death. Very very deep and clever stuff. Another topic raised was the constants of the universe.
Quoteand they are not engineered, but arrived at by evolution. you do mean the 'theory' of Evolution dont you? I wouldn't want to think that people dont say what they mean.
The Second Law of Thermodynamics is often stated as the law of increasing entropy: "A natural process always takes place in such a direction as to cause an increase in the entropy of the universe." (John Williams, "Modern Physics," Page 210). The effect of this law is that unless there is a purposeful source of energy operating in a system, the various parts, molecules, etc., become less and less organized and more and more random. Thus the only means to maintain the theory of evolution in light of the Second Law of Thermodynamics is to conclude that, while chance combinations of simple molecules into very complex ones would be extremely rare, given enough time, it could happen.
Alan, that's not an answer, it's just an assertion with argument from authority, which is a logical fallacy. In fact, the whole "Argument from Design" has been shown to be completely vacuous time after time even through simple logic. It's mind-numbing to see it repeated so many times
AMcDSo where did this intelligent designer come from?You have just offset the problem.
Stefan the question or title of the tread was "could there be as case for an intelligent designer?" and my answer is "yes there could be an intelligent designer" "not there is an intelligent designer" there is a great difference to these two answers!!There "could be an ID" "not there is an ID"
echochartruse:Where is the significance of the word "intelligent"? Why are you nitpicking about the use of that word?Humans are intelligent - so are Chimps. Many other organisms display intelligence. If someone described stem cells as behaving intelligently - so what?
The two really mean the same thing. Neither is any more true than the statement, "There are faeries at the bottom of my garden", or "I regularly ride my Invisible Pink Talking Flying Unicorn
Yes, but the universe seems to run by simple rules. An 'intelligent designer' would have to be much more complex than that.That's where Occam's razor kicks in, right there.Because science is based on Occam's razor, an intelligent designer is never realistically going to be the default position; unless there's some serious, reproducible God activity going down; and personally I'll believe that when I see it (I'm not holding by breath).In fact even if there was evidence of something that looked exactly like a God, Occam's razor would force you to consider every other possible simpler explanation first.
Now random mutations may refer to stem cells growing the same as their host- changing from one type to another
"But Dr. McFadden is pulling a bait-and-switch: he is using relatively trivial examples of evolution #1 to bolster more controversial definitions of "evolution." Thus if by "evolution" one means universal common descent (evolution #2), or neo-Darwinian evolution (evolution #3), where the primary adaptive force building the complexity of life is unguided natural selection acting upon random mutations, then many scientists would argue that such "evolution" most certainly is not a fact."http://www.evolutionnews.org/2008/07/is_evolution_a_theory_or_fact_2.htmlI think that evolution being a fact is still being disputed in the scientific world, see above link.Now random mutations may refer to stem cells growing the same as their host- changing from one type to another.Anyway I just want to open your minds. I believe scientists should be creative thinking and not stop thinking just becasue someone thinks it is now 'FACT'
Highly intelligent people always try to get the simperlest answer to a question, so why do you suppose an ID would not do the same?I disagree with your statement that the universe is sustained by simple rules, in fact the universe is unimaginably complexCan you fathom supestring theory where there is a micro world of string particles that only Ed Witten can comprehend
I think that evolution being a fact is still being disputed in the scientific world, see above link.
Yes, but the universe seems to run by simple rules. An 'intelligent designer' would have to be much more complex than that.That's where Ockham's razor kicks in, right there.
Occam's razor, also Ockham's razor, is a principle attributed to the 14th-century English logician and Franciscan friar, William of Ockham. The principle states that the explanation of any phenomenon should make as few assumptions as possible, eliminating those that make no difference in the observable predictions of the explanatory hypothesis or theory. The principle is often expressed in Latin as the lex parsimoniae ("law of parsimony", "law of economy", or "law of succinctness"): entia non sunt multiplicanda praeter necessitatem, roughly translated as "entities must not be multiplied beyond necessity." An alternative version Pluralitas non est ponenda sine necessitate translates "plurality should not be posited without necessity." When multiple competing hypotheses are equal in other respects, the principle recommends selecting the hypothesis that introduces the fewest assumptions and postulates the fewest entities. It is in this sense that Occam's razor is usually understood.Originally a tenet of the reductionist philosophy of nominalism, it is more often taken today as an heuristic maxim (rule of thumb) that advises economy, parsimony, or simplicity, often or especially in scientific theories. Here the same caveat applies to confounding topicality with mere simplicity. (A superficially simple phenomenon may have a complex mechanism behind it. A simple explanation would be simplistic if it failed to capture all the essential and relevant parts.)
There is no reason to assume a designer, other than the fact that you want to.
BenVQuoteThere is no reason to assume a designer, other than the fact that you want to.And like wise there is no reason to assume that "the universe is not the act of a great intellect". Even Einstein(I repeat) said that although in reality he was an atheistThere is no reason to disbelieve the possibilty of an ID other than the fact that you want toAlan