Intelligent Design is not creationism

[jem]

Quote from james_bond_3rd:

You don't even understand where your problem is. It is illogical to ask what is before time starts. If there is no time, there is no "before" or "after." You're reading Hawking wrong. I don't need a source to confirm my "speculation." You can go read the past 20 years of Physical Review and the Astrophysics Journal. If you don't want to or don't understand it, I don't have the obligation to teach you.

The so-called "current laws" is a fleeting boundary. New discoveries are changing it everyday. Your fixation of Hawking's 20 year old comment shows your ignorance of science.

Oh you are acting like a child, I think must be a new name for the same old fool with whom I used to get in these arguments.

When this debate started I specifically stated that it is not illogical because something happened before time started. I understand the problem of trying to understand chronoligical order.

It is the arugment I used months ago on a thread where stu or someone like stu stated if God made the big bang who made God.

I replied - outside of time we might not need someone to come before a Creator.

Now back to your baloney.

I will take it that you have no physics to support your speculations.

Too bad I thought you might have a desire to back up your beliefs.

Your argument about science improving its understanding is seperate and distinct from physics saying time goes back to the very first moment. I have seen no support for that claim and you have not produced any.

I will provide you with some real speculation. I suspect there is a period of time that science can not define because that period of time is probably on the inside of the horizon of the black hole. for instance when do you say the bang happened. During the expansion of the mass or when it escapes the horizon of the hole.

Next the first things to leave the black hole might not necesarily be triggers for time to begin.

There are myraid reasons why you should back up your idle speculation. Until then i think the wise thing to do is to stick with the real physicists and not trust you unsupported speculation.

 

[stu]

Quote from Teleologist:

The ID approach is much like searching for man-made objects found in places where man could never had made them. Similar to SETI. When confronted with such objects, scientists would conclude they were designed by an agent with a human-like intelligence. They wouldn't deny intelligent design over concerns about infinite regress or the inability to identify the designer(s).

It seems to me your ID argument has lost its direction altogether. Now by what you say,it is relying upon searching for stuff in places where it could never be. Is that what ID comes down to? For that you suggest it should be scientifically pursued!!...and the toaster on jupiter? that too??!!

ID similar to SETI ? what? By your own description ID is nothing like SETI. SETI is searching for something where it could be.

Making up outlandish concepts about ID because objects which look human made might be found somewhere, such as something that vaguely looks like Mt Rushmore, a few breakfast Toasters on other planets or perhaps the odd muffin that looks like Jesus, is not about to excite scientists into any conclusions, apart from all such notions are equally as barmy and a waste of time as the other.

 

[stu]

you're a poor loser jem... always have been

 

[jem]

Yes, I must be a poor loser from the perspective of a man who never wins the argument.

 

[stu]

Quote from jem:

Yes, I must be a poor loser from the perspective of a man who never wins the argument.

that will be from your own perspective then

 

[stu]

Quote from jem:

I understand the problem of trying to understand chronoligical order.

sure you do...

Well we taught you how to spell cite instead of "site", now let's do time. The big hand and the little one are both at 12
So then Einstein, if it was 12:00 at the beginning of time, what time was it before time began. You know, when there was no time?

 

[james_bond_3rd]

jem: Here is a clue. Go to wikipedia and search for "Big Bang."

You're just like a typical American child. Not only you refuse to learn. You think you're being clever by not learning.

 

[Teleologist]

TradeNik wrote:

I have already suggested my own theory. It is the Green Cheesian Theory. It holds that the Moon is made of Green Cheese. Before you condemn me for being a sarcastic atheist, please note - there is exactly the same amount of proof for my theory as there is for ID. That is none, zero, nada, none whatsoever.

Where is the proof of abiogenesis? There is none, zero, nada. Yet scientists are absolutely convinced it happened. Why? They have nothing more than a suspicion. And they are following up their suspicion with an investigation. How is this different from ID?

 

[james_bond_3rd]

Quote from Teleologist:

TradeNik wrote:


Where is the proof of abiogenesis? There is none, zero, nada. Yet scientists are absolutely convinced it happened, right? Why? They have nothing more than a suspicion. And they are following up their suspicion with an investigation. How is this different from ID?

The street is clean. A guy walks a dog on the street. After he and the dog pass, there is poop on the street. Choose one from the following:
1. The dog left the poop.
2. The man left the poop.
3. The poop was put there by Invisible Freddie.
4. The poop had always been there.
And you're telling me that I have nothing more than a suspicion?

There was no life on earth 4 billion years ago. There is life on earth today. Choose one from the following:
1. Life started spontaneously on earth.
2. Life was put here by alien spacecraft. And the alien life was put on their planet by another alien spacecraft. And that alien life was put on their planet by...
3. Life was started by Invisible Freddie.
4. There had always been life on earth, even before when there was earth...
Which one of the answers would your ID theory pick?

 

[stu]

let me guess.. would it would be the poop but in the shape of Mt Rushore?