Here's why Creatards might be right

[jenny1972]

Ugh. I already said I'm sick to death of seeing "theory" misunderstood and abused, as a word.

1. The judge's ruling is not proof, it is evidence because of what he says, and what he bases the proof upon, as a neutral arbiter. In fact, he was probably predisposed to believing in the ID/IC ideas because he is a Christian and one of the most conservative members of that federal district's judiciary.

2. Science (and all theories it contains) will always be open to testing, and never proved, because that's what science is.

That's what keeps science honest and lets us reasonably believe in it at all. It does not mean "this is a guess", it means that is an explanation that fits what we see, whose details survive all current abilities to test it for falsehood.

It's a method of honesty.

Taking the radical ideas of a tiny, tiny number of people, ideas which either have been tested and proven false or which are phrased in a way that is not testable and thus not science, and calling them "a theory too" is to spit in the face of every scientist who has labored lifetimes to unify and test every part of the scientific body of knowledge.

Theory is the highest praise we can heap upon an idea.

Calling somebody's random hunch a theory is to spit on the entire community of science. Just because some (a lot of) people find comfort in the way the woo-woo of those radical ideas sounds, like mystics and their Yoga-Buddhism/Hinduism woo-woo, doesn't mean they are real ideas, which is why they must be subjected to the scientific method, open for reproducible and falsifiable testing. Until that happens, it is not okay to call it "another theory".

actually its more than just one guys 'random hunch'

What is intelligent design?

Intelligent design refers to a scientific research program as well as a community of scientists, philosophers and other scholars who seek evidence of design in nature. The theory of intelligent design holds that certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection. Through the study and analysis of a system's components, a design theorist is able to determine whether various natural structures are the product of chance, natural law, intelligent design, or some combination thereof. Such research is conducted by observing the types of information produced when intelligent agents act. Scientists then seek to find objects which have those same types of informational properties which we commonly know come from intelligence. Intelligent design has applied these scientific methods to detect design in irreducibly complex biological structures, the complex and specified information content in DNA, the life-sustaining physical architecture of the universe, and the geologically rapid origin of biological diversity in the fossil record during the Cambrian explosion approximately 530 million years ago. Intelligent Design is not the same as creationism  (intelligentdesign.org)

---

no i didnt it  . was from the judges ruling from the link that RS posted

It's the sticker from the books which triggered the whole case. It's amazing that you didn't read anything other than what confirmed your biased position... which, ironically, is the reason they were there.

fine but i wasnt quoting the texbook sticker i was quoting the actual judges ruling

[Anomalocaris]

No, it is not a random hunch.  It is a piece of calculatingly deceptive bullshit designed to enable Christianity to mask its own anti-science Essence in the ages of science, and instead steal the reputation that real science had gained through resounding successes unduplicable by any thought process which can advocate "intelligent design" in the face of the successes of real science, all in order to further Christianity's own hegemony over wishthinking, ignorant, and gullible minds, such as yours.

[jenny1972]

anyways im going to bed its almost 1am here good night everyone i cant help Intelligent Design just makes more sense especially considering the fact that God exists  goodnight everyone see you all tomorrow in one thread or another here i really like all of you guys a lot im glad i came across this website

[Homeless Nutter]

anyways im going to bed its almost 1am here good night everyone i cant help Intelligent Design just makes more sense especially considering the fact that God exists  goodnight everyone

Yes, you can help it - read a book sometimes...

Good night.

[TheRocketSurgeon]

actually its more than just one guys 'random hunch'

What is intelligent design?

Intelligent design refers to a scientific research program as well as a community of scientists, philosophers and other scholars who seek evidence of design in nature. The theory of intelligent design holds that certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection. Through the study and analysis of a system's components, a design theorist is able to determine whether various natural structures are the product of chance, natural law, intelligent design, or some combination thereof. Such research is conducted by observing the types of information produced when intelligent agents act. Scientists then seek to find objects which have those same types of informational properties which we commonly know come from intelligence. Intelligent design has applied these scientific methods to detect design in irreducibly complex biological structures, the complex and specified information content in DNA, the life-sustaining physical architecture of the universe, and the geologically rapid origin of biological diversity in the fossil record during the Cambrian explosion approximately 530 million years ago. Intelligent Design is not the same as creationism  (intelligentdesign.org)

I know it's not the same as Creationism. But it's effectively the same thing, and the Creationists promote it as a "wedge" to get Creationism in the door, as they openly have admitted on many occasions. I know you've seen my posts about the Wedge Document of the Institute for Creation Research/Discovery Institute. You can see in section F of the decision, where the court considered the "Lemon test" (which is the legal standards test to see if an idea is designed to advance religion or is legitimately secular in nature), here: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/dover/ki....html#p167

Regardless of what the ID website's propaganda says, Jenny, ID is not science. They want us to think it is, by saying "community of scientists", but there's not any real science going on behind those claims. I'll cite Behe's own words, when asked about it, on the stand:

---

(Q = Attorney for the Plaintiff, A = Dr. Michael Behe on the stand, under oath.)

Q In fact, your definition of scientific theory is synonymous with hypothesis, correct?

A Partly -- it can be synonymous with hypothesis, it can also include the National Academy's definition. But in fact, the scientific community uses the word "theory" in many times as synonymous with the word "hypothesis," other times it uses the word as a synonym for the definition reached by the National Academy, and at other times it uses it in other ways.

Q But the way you are using it is synonymous with the definition of hypothesis?

A No, I would disagree. It can be used to cover hypotheses, but it can also include ideas that are in fact well substantiated and so on. So while it does include ideas that are synonymous or in fact are hypotheses, it also includes stronger senses of that term.

Q And using your definition, intelligent design is a scientific theory, correct?

A Yes.

Q Under that same definition astrology is a scientific theory under your definition, correct?

A Under my definition, a scientific theory is a proposed explanation which focuses or points to physical, observable data and logical inferences. There are many things throughout the history of science which we now think to be incorrect which nonetheless would fit that -- which would fit that definition. Yes, astrology is in fact one, and so is the ether theory of the propagation of light, and many other -- many other theories as well.

Q The ether theory of light has been discarded, correct?

A That is correct.

Q But you are clear, under your definition, the definition that sweeps in intelligent design, astrology is also a scientific theory, correct?

A Yes, that's correct. And let me explain under my definition of the word "theory," it is -- a sense of the word "theory" does not include the theory being true, it means a proposition based on physical evidence to explain some facts by logical inferences. There have been many theories throughout the history of science which looked good at the time which further progress has shown to be incorrect. Nonetheless, we can't go back and say that because they were incorrect they were not theories. So many many things that we now realized to be incorrect, incorrect theories, are nonetheless theories.

---

Internal emphases my own.

By the way, when he says, "But in fact, the scientific community uses the word "theory" in many times as synonymous with the word 'hypothesis', other times it uses the word as a synonym for the definition reached by the National Academy, and at other times it uses it in other ways.", he is lying so he doesn't look like an ass because he can't apply the National Academy of Sciences basic, used-by-everyone, definition of theory to Intelligent Design.

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/dover/da...day11pm132

[Homeless Nutter]

ok i will go study up on evolution and biology and chemistry im sure by learning how much much more complex and intricate and coordinated everything is beyond what i know already  will greatly decrease by belief that it had to be intelligently created

Yeah, you do that... We'll talk about how it will have affected your worldview AFTERWARDS. You see - that's what rational people do, as opposed to irrational ones, who go into every subject with their minds already made up...

[TheRocketSurgeon]

actually its more than just one guys 'random hunch'

What is intelligent design?

Intelligent design refers to a scientific research program as well as a community of scientists, philosophers and other scholars who seek evidence of design in nature. The theory of intelligent design holds that certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection. Through the study and analysis of a system's components, a design theorist is able to determine whether various natural structures are the product of chance, natural law, intelligent design, or some combination thereof. Such research is conducted by observing the types of information produced when intelligent agents act. Scientists then seek to find objects which have those same types of informational properties which we commonly know come from intelligence. Intelligent design has applied these scientific methods to detect design in irreducibly complex biological structures, the complex and specified information content in DNA, the life-sustaining physical architecture of the universe, and the geologically rapid origin of biological diversity in the fossil record during the Cambrian explosion approximately 530 million years ago. Intelligent Design is not the same as creationism  (intelligentdesign.org)

---

It's the sticker from the books which triggered the whole case. It's amazing that you didn't read anything other than what confirmed your biased position... which, ironically, is the reason they were there.

fine but i wasnt quoting the texbook sticker i was quoting the actual judges ruling

No, honey, you were quoting where the judge cited the sticker that was placed on the books by the Intelligent Design proponents, which was the entire reason the court was convened. He HAS to mention that statement in his ruling, because it's literally the reason they were all gathered there for him to have a trial at all.

You quite literally quoted the only part of his statement that wasn't debunking that passage under discussion!

You zoomed right to it, despite ALL the rest of the stuff the judge said against it, because you wanted to support that idea. And you tell me we're biased!?! That's not being open-minded. That's the opposite of that, like Intelligent Design "openness" is the opposite of science.

[Wyrd of Gawd]

---

actually science doesnt explain at all WHY there are different species and different organisms all living on the same earth , now if every living thing on earth was a human then natural evolution would be logical . i am on the same earth with a squirrel so why are we so different ?

---

Actually science does explain why there are different species. We have explained it to you. 

Why in the world would you expect everything on earth to become human? Humanity is not the point of evolution. Surviving to reproduce DNA is the point of evolution. There are a couple of billion variations known on how DNA has done this. It diverges, it splits, and adapts to new environments and conditions all the time. We observe this happening and can demonstrate it mathematically (this is literally the topic in the second week of any course on genetics).

The Big Bang threw out a huge cloud of expanding hydrogen atoms, with a few helium ones forming along with possibly some lithium, the lightest three elements. All the rest was formed in the hearts of ancient fusion reactors called stars, which is why Sagan talks of being "made of star-stuff". 

All of this is based entirely on gravity. When enough particles get together, gravity "smashes" them enough to cause certain ones to fuse, and in that fusion process they produce heavier elements. When the star goes nova, it throws that material across the heavens. When later stars form, they have a lot of that heavier material in their environment... as the condensing cloud spins during its collapse inward, the heavier stuff is slung outward as part of a "disc" of material that forms planets. If the planet is in a zone that allows for water to exist in liquid state, as on earth, you have conditions which are right for producing organic chemistry. From that organic chemistry emerges replicating molecules... and once you have a replicator, you have a chance for the following generations to mutate, to not be exactly like the parent generation. That is the beginning of evolution. All the rest is the result of replicating under conditions that shapes what emerges via mutation (and a couple of other chemical recombinations I won't get into here) through the process of Natural Selection, as the environment and related factors determine which recombinations replicate better than others.

In that process, you get diversification and change. That is why we see all types of "answers" to the "question" of how to best replicate on this planet. There's no one right answer... there are literally billions, and nature tries them all to see what works, so to speak. (No active intelligence is operating, just the rules of chemistry and chance.)

The main problem with the Big Bang theory as you've explained it is that the gigantic clump of hydrogen would have gone nuclear and formed a star.  Remember, the largest stars we know about are UY Canis Majoris and UY Scuti.
http://www.planetsforkids.org/news/what-...-universe/

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UY_Scuti

It's estimated that UY Canis Majoris would fill the orbit of Jupiter and that UY Scuti  might fill the orbit of Saturn.  So we know that hydrogen balls can grow to those sizes but it's an entirely different thing to think that a hydrogen ball could ever grow large enough to make the entire universe.  

A much better theory is that quantum foam creates particles that eventually morph into hydrogen atoms that clump together into giant balls that eventually go nuclear and form stars.  Eventually planets are created and the planetary processes also create elements and, under the right conditions, even life.  

We can actually see the star formation process happening throughout space.  If everything came from the Big Bang then everything would be about the same age.  

While everything evolves all animal life forms follow the basic blueprint.  So their essential structure is the same as it has always been.  Humans, pigs, dogs, horses, and gorillas pretty much have all of the same body parts in pretty much the same order.

[dyresand]

There is no evidence in the bible to prove it's true.
Creationism is false the world is old get over it.
Humans weren't created by god we are evolved great ape.
The bible is fiction.
god(s) are a creation of man.
jesus highly likely never exist.

Can we just move on from irrational thinking

[TheRocketSurgeon]

The main problem with the Big Bang theory as you've explained it is that the gigantic clump of hydrogen would have gone nuclear and formed a star.  Remember, the largest stars we know about are UY Canis Majoris and UY Scuti.
http://www.planetsforkids.org/news/what-...-universe/

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UY_Scuti

It's estimated that UY Canis Majoris would fill the orbit of Jupiter and that UY Scuti  might fill the orbit of Saturn.  So we know that hydrogen balls can grow to those sizes but it's an entirely different thing to think that a hydrogen ball could ever grow large enough to make the entire universe.  

A much better theory is that quantum foam creates particles that eventually morph into hydrogen atoms that clump together into giant balls that eventually go nuclear and form stars.  Eventually planets are created and the planetary processes also create elements and, under the right conditions, even life.  

We can actually see the star formation process happening throughout space.  If everything came from the Big Bang then everything would be about the same age.  

While everything evolves all animal life forms follow the basic blueprint.  So their essential structure is the same as it has always been.  Humans, pigs, dogs, horses, and gorillas pretty much have all of the same body parts in pretty much the same order.

I wasn't trying to fully explain the BBT. Do you really think that, if she can't envision how the hydrogen could go on to form heavier elements, it was because I failed to start with the detail of quantum physics?

None of the rest of that about large balls of hydrogen or things being the same age has anything to do with what I said.