Well what gets me is that the universe is constantly expanding through the use of energy, and also supplying dark energy with this expansion. I will leave your belief be though. One love bud
The laws that are in place had to be in place because if they weren't the universe wouldn't be as it is. It's an anthropic argument and the most common.
Yes, I believe it is infinite. I guess what I'm saying is this infiniti created the laws, whether you believe this infiniti is our higher power or not. (I've always believed infiniti=source) Remember though, just as our universe is infinite but started somewhere, I believe it all started somewhere, but constantly (infinitely) expands.
Fail Infinity did not create the "laws" go look over what these laws are go over the basics of energy, what is happening on the fundamental level. I am not saying I know everything or even more then you, it just sounds to me like you have some reading you need to do. We can make conjectures all day but until we start using critical thought and investigating it as thoroughly as our humble minds can handle we will not come to any closer truths, which we should actually be having this conversation in S&P.
I respect your decision to base faith on others findings entropywins. I however, find it silly in some cases to believe what others are guessing to be true. I realise that is what you think I am doing, but I just wanted to show you it goes both ways. It all comes down to what makes sense (but who's sense? hmmm ), right? What created the possibility for this indifference? Nature (our higher power). I know that what I see (physically) as reality, is my truth. I could care less if others want to analyse how/why (infinite cause and effect), for I have already answered that in MY reality. Energy. The infinite source of energy is my "god". We agree energy causes these laws, so we can also agree energy had to be the ultimate cause for the big bang, or whatever caused these laws to begin, correct? I'd like to ask everyone: if you believe it is possible to learn EVERYTHING science has to offer, does that make us "god"? I mean then we could create our own universe, or alter reality however we'd like... just a thought. It is my belief that if we could answer what created us, or how the universe exists, we would inevitably destroy ourselves. One love all
CSC - Peer-Reviewed & Peer-Edited Scientific Publications Supporting the Theory of Intelligent Design (Annotated) CSC - Intelligent Design: The Origin of Biological Information and the Higher Taxonomic Categories Simulating evolution by gene duplication of protein features that require multiple amino acid residues http://evoinfo.org/papers/vivisection_of_ev.pdf http://www.lehigh.edu/~inbios/pdf/Behe/QRB_paper.pdf http://marksmannet.com/RobertMarks/REPRINTS/2010-EfficientPerQueryInformationExtraction.pdf ...
Ok I checked out where those first two papers came from CSC which is a Discovery Institute funded project Hmm! Thats your first problem man come on!!! here is an excerpt from talkorigins.com that pretty much completely shoots these down. The papers and books cited by the Discovery Institute do not make a good case for peer-reviewed intelligent design for one or more reasons. Many of the papers do not talk about design. Some do not even attempt to. For example: Axe (2000) finds that changing 20 percent of the external amino acids in a couple proteins causes them to lose their original function, even though individual amino acid changes did not. There was no investigation of change of function. Axe's paper is not even a challenge to Darwinian evolution, much less support for intelligent design. Axe himself has said that he has not attempted to make an argument for design in any of his publications (Forrest and Gross 2004, 42). Behe and Snoke (2004) argues against one common genetic mechanism of evolution. It says nothing at all in support of design. Its assumptions and conclusion have been rebutted (M. Lynch 2005). Lönnig and Saedler (2002) cite Behe and Dembski only in a couple long lists of references indicating a variety of different options. Neither author is singled out; nor is the word "design" used. Denton and Marshall (2001) and Denton et al. (2002) deal with non-Darwinian evolutionary processes, but they do not support intelligent design. In fact, Denton et al. (2002) explicitly refers to natural law. Chiu and Lui (2002) mention complex specified information in passing, but go on to develop another method of pattern analysis. The peer-review that the works were subject to was often weak or absent. The sort of review which books receive is quite different from the stringent peer review of journal articles. There are no formal review standards for trade and university presses, and often no standards at all for popular presses. Dembski has commented that he prefers writing books in part because he gets faster turnaround than by submitting to journals (McMurtrie 2001). Anthologies and conference proceedings do not have well-defined peer review standards, either. Here are some other examples of weak peer review: Dembski (1998) was reviewed by philosophers, not biologists. Meyer (2004) apparently subverted the peer-review process for the sole purpose of getting an "intelligent design" article in a respectable journal that would never have accepted it otherwise. Even notwithstanding its poor quality (Gishlick et al. 2004, Elsberry 2004a), the article is clearly not appropriate for the almost purely taxonomic content of the Proceedings of the Biological Society of Washington, and the Biological Society of Washington repudiated it (BSW n.d., NCSE 2004). For more information, see Elsberry (2004b). Wells (2005) was published in Rivista di Biologia, a journal which caters to papers which are speculative and controversial to the point of crackpottery (J. M. Lynch 2005). Its editor, Giuseppe Sermonti, is a Darwin denier sympathetic to the Discovery Institute. With some of the claims for peer review, notably Campbell and Meyer (2003) and the e-journal PCID, the reviewers are themselves ardent supporters of intelligent design. The purpose of peer review is to expose errors, weaknesses, and significant omissions in fact and argument. That purpose is not served if the reviewers are uncritical. This same criticism applies to any reviewers who are "true believers" of any aspect of biology. However, mainstream scientists recognize that science grows stronger through criticism, not through mere agreement, because criticism helps weed out the bad science. Most any evolutionary biologist can attest that supporting evolution is not enough to get a paper accepted; the paper has to describe sound science, too. Publishing is not an end in itself. Scientific ideas mean nothing unless they can withstand criticism and be built upon. None of the "intelligent design" publications have led to any productive work. Most have had their main ideas rebutted (e.g. Behe 1996, Dembski 1998, Dembski 2002, Gonzalez and Richards 2004). Good job
That excerpt covers most if not all claimed peer reviewed work for ID, they are so flimsy and few it does not help your case to bring them up (even though you where asked to) just look into most of the controversy surrounding these papers from the real scientific community.
Everyone can twist facts for there liking. You act like creationists are the only one that does this?
My fact still holds to me though. I exist. I was created (by nature), therefore nature is my higher power. OK, I'm done arguing. Peace
Hardly a long list when we know that ID's entire output is minute You haven't read Entropy's post and considered what it means, or my request to you, There are no proper peer reviewed studies and the place you got your list from lies. Of that list, what you have to do is now remove the studies I describe below, I'm sure you uderstand why. Remove: 1) All those that do not mention ID, creationism or god, if they make no links, you can't. Only a mere handful do, leaving about 6 links in all. Take out too: 2) All the self-referential work, such as that issued via University books. That isn't real peer review. 3) All works that are 'peer reviewed' by those with an agenda, such as the Institue of Creation Research, or 'Answers' or 'WitPress Journals', as these are christian ID institutes set up to help validate creationist research by giving it 'peer reviews'. Take a look at the criteria for submission for all of them, they ask for pro-creationist science ONLY. "In the call for papers, Papers can be in any scientific, or social scientific, field, but must be from a young-earth perspective and aim to assist the development of the creation model of origins." And the three or more people who reviewer each paper are advised that each paper must "provide evidence of faithfulness to the grammatico-historical/normative interpretation of scripture." Not biased then.... 4) Also remove those that allude to science that has since become outdated or the questions raised by it solved. 5) Remove those papers too that concern theory about ID rather than actual research. 6) And finally, remove those studies that haveonly been validated by the author of the paper and that have not been investigated or validated by another source. [SIZE=2][COLOR=black]Finally, of those papers that meet these criteria (none as far as I can see) [SIZE=2][COLOR=black][SIZE=2][COLOR=black][SIZE=2]post [I]one [/I]link to any research within it that has resulted in [I]proof [/I]of god (not unvalidated conjecture) or any kind of data that would point in 'his' direction. [/SIZE][/COLOR][/SIZE][/COLOR][/SIZE][/COLOR][/SIZE] Having done that you now have to take into account exactly what 'peer-reviewed' means. it doesn't mean that any of the ideas within an accepted paper have been proven and that they're now accepted fact or even true, it's not validation. It's a first step, and religion can't even make that first step towards validation after over 2, 000 years of trying.. There's only one ID paper that found its way into a serious journal, and now that has been withdrawn as the person who authorised publication was found to be biased and to know the author. Also, remember the Dover Case in just 2005? The Big hoo-ha creationists made that creationist research was being ignored by schools and science? The court asked for a list of all creationist peer-reviewed papers or research up to that time; - and what did they find? There were none. The case collapsed and creationism became a laughing stock. Six years ago there was nothing in the way of ID research. Now there are 'peer review' companies for creationists. If it weren't so funny it would be sad. Why does any religion keep needing to lie to survive? Why should it need to go to the extent of setting up its own bodies to validate itself? That actually worries me. Does it inspire faith in anyone alse here? Doesn't it make you wonder how many other lies they've told over the years and whether it's nasty old science that's holding back a happy co-operative society or fundamental religious beliefs such as creationism? "...On December 20, 2005, Judge Jones issued his 139-page findings of fact and decision ruling that the Dover mandate which required the statement to be read in class was unconstitutional. The ruling concluded that intelligent design is not science, and permanently barred the board from "maintaining the ID Policy in any school within the Dover Area School District, from requiring teachers to denigrate or disparage the scientific theory of evolution, and from requiring teachers to refer to a religious, alternative theory known as ID."[7] The eight Dover school board members who voted for the intelligent design requirement were all defeated in a November 8, 2005 election by challengers who opposed the teaching of intelligent design in a science class, and the school board president stated that the board did not intend to appeal the ruling.[FONT=Arial].." Post a link to real peer reviewed work, and we can discuss its contents. I'm happy to.[/FONT] MelT .
You require him to do this because that is how you see it. Facts are facts. Not everyone will agree with the cause. Some have one opinion, another has a separate opinion. Who says who is wrong and who is right? Obviously science can go both ways..
I think the biggest issue here is the masquerading around in the cloak of science when in reality its wishful thinking. When someone tries to use scientific proofs for a false claim, they are going to get factually turn apart. As far as evolution and god the best way I have seen it put is evolution diminishes gods role in the universe the same way the scientific explanation for lightning diminished thor's role.
Just because you want something to be true, or think it would be cool if something were true, doesn't mean it is. You're entitled to have an opinion, but don't you think you should educate yourself on the matter? At least gain a basic understanding of what science accepts as fact? Because right now, all you're saying is "I don't want to listen to all those scientific 'facts' you guys have. I think energy created nature which is a higher power that causes my energy to be one with the energy of nature. What? Facts? I don't have time for those."