Search results

At the moment, scientists can "see" a huge void in the universe: http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/070823_huge_hole.html No one's sure what it is, but my point here is that it's not certain that what we see is all there is to see. I'm just being argumentative. I don't see a...

A short life only if you accept the currently accepted cosmological model. My point is that as soon as you insert a creator, you throw science out the window and everything becomes possible, including a universe with an infinite lifespan. If the universe has existed forever in some state...

This consciousness proposition is the central dogma of intelligent design, i.e., the premise that the 2nd law of thermodynamics prevents reverse entropy in all circumstances. However, in a published scientific paper, "Evolution of Biological Information," Dr. Thomas Schneider, PH.D., proved...

My experience is that a fundamentalist Christian will use whatever evidence supports his/her theory of existence, despite any contradictions. There are fundamentalist Christian organizations that support the Discovery Institute. The trial in Dover, PA was all about Christian fundes using...

A rim equivalent would be that the universe has always been. It may be expanding now, and it may start to collapse later. But, the point is that the idea of a "beginning" is a human construct. Just because everything we observe in the universe appears to have had a beginning, doesn't mean that...

Why must the universe be the same as a coin and provide only two choices? Why can't the universe land on the rim of the coin?

Okay... The implication of #1 requires the premise of a designer. This is true, because if there are no other universes, then there is no way to compute the probability that the universe might have turned out differently. This is true, because in order to compute a probabiity, you need an...

Um, I think your explanation is incorrect, but I'll hold my tongue until I've had an opportunity to check with a couple of well-respected high-energy/theoretical physicists. Stay tuned...

I notice that you didn't deny it.

Ah, that's so much better. No sense in hiding behind a new pseudonym after you've been "outed." Welcome back.

Huh? The existence of design is quite testable. The U.S. Patent Office conducts such research every business day. I'm not being flippant, either. Something is designed if there is evidence of a designer. A primitive design will display primitive technological underpinnings (stone arrowheads...

Perhaps we should wait for a Christian to explain.

In as much as your response was entirely non-responsive, I agree that there's no point in our discussing anything on this subject. Please don't respond to my posts and I won't respond to yours.

I've always granted that there's a "chance" of design, thus you cannot require me to prove the negative, because I already concede your point. However, if design is true, then how do you explain all of the evidence in support of evolution: 1. Satan's work? 2. Deceitful creator? 3...

I asked for evidence of ID. HH insisted that I define evidence. I defined evidence. You now insist that I define test. Okay. A test is any regimen which can be repeated, and from which a result can be obtained. Now, I'll ask you again: do you have any regimen which can be repeated, the...

A verifiable test supporting the hypothesis that the original cause of living organisms on Earth is an intelligent designer. So, I'll ask again -- is there any verifiable evidence to support intelligent design?

If brilliance is measured by one's ability to avoid substantive conversation while insulting others, then Z was indeed brilliant. And, if I may say so, you are already doing an admirable job of following in his footsteps. Will you be discussing the substantive issue anytime soon, or...

:confused: (musing to self...what a curiously Z-like question. Perhaps he's not gone after all.) Since you apparently believe this is an important point, why don't you tell me what your standard is, and why it should be applied here, and maybe I'll adopt it.

Okay, then what evidence do you have that evolution is goal directed?

So, you concede that the ATP synthase could have evolved -- you just don't "think" that it did. Okay, well, the evolutionary "thinking" is summarized nicely in this video which affirmatively explains each step of the process, based upon only mutation and natural selection...