Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login
Site Notices
9/22/2017 12:11:25 AM
Posted: 12/12/2005 9:19:58 AM EDT
interesting concept

www.seedmagazine.com/news/2005/11/message_in_the_sky.php

If you could make a universe, would you leave a message for its inhabitants to find? Putting the fight between evolution and creationism aside for a moment, a pair of theoretical physicists says it might be worth looking for such a transmission in our universe.

"It's a crazy assumption that there's a supreme being that wants to send us a message," said Steve Hsu, an associate professor at the University of Oregon, admitting that believing in a message involves a leap of faith. "But, if you could create a universe in your laboratory, wouldn't you want to leave a message inside?"

A recent paper that Hsu coauthored suggested that fluctuations in cosmic microwave background radiation found throughout the universe could house a communiqué from our universe's creator. The microwave background is a relic of the Big Bang forged during "decoupling," the early point in the universe's history when matter and energy became distinct.
Advertisement

The paper's other author, Tony Zee, a physics professor at the University of California Santa Barbara, said that variations in the cosmic background would have been set before the decoupling. "That's most appealing to physicists," said Zee, "because we physicists obviously do not want to have divine intervention after the universe got going."

This idea, which was posted to the non-peer-reviewed site arxiv.org, would not be so alluring if its two authors weren't so respected in their field. Hsu is the author of over 70 peer-reviewed journal articles; Zee has authored over 200. Zee is also a Pulitzer Prize-nominated author of popular science books.

The esteemed physicists have not only proposed this hypothesis—they've also described methods to decode the statement.

By creating a map of temperature differences in the cosmic radiation, it would be possible to obtain a message in a string of bits, zeros and ones. As many as 100,000 of these binary bits could be read, but Hsu said it would require another generation of satellites and another 15 years to achieve the resolution to perceive it, but it would be a message that could be read by all inhabitants of the universe.

And what do Hsu and Zee expect it to say?

The researchers are hoping for an informative nugget, one that describes the fundamental forces of physics. Hsu said that once scientists find a key to the message, a sort of cosmic decoder ring, they could stumble upon answers to the biggest questions in physics, for example, the elusive theory of everything.

Searching for evidence of a creator using physics seems less like science fiction when you consider that scientists are already implementing eccentric models and approaches to solving other problems: The anthropic principle is being employed to describe string theory, arbitrary numbers are being inserted into Drake's equation to determine the probability that we are not alone in the universe and radio wave data is being parsed in order to search for alien life using screensavers like SETI@home.

"I think the payoff is higher than SETI," Hsu said about the search for a lingering message.

Comparing his new crusade to the search for extraterrestrials, Hsu added, "In terms of more philosophical consequences, I would be even more interested to know whether some higher entity was influencing this universe at its very creation."

Link Posted: 12/13/2005 12:42:43 PM EDT

Very interesting. Hiding a message that only 21st century scientist would think to look for? [tinfoil hat]It's a fun idea but I think scientists are looking for ways to disprove God while disguised as a sincere attempt to find God.[/tinfoil hat]

A supreme being, God, sent alot of messages. Its called the Bible.

Shok
Link Posted: 12/13/2005 2:43:46 PM EDT

Originally Posted By QShok:
Very interesting. Hiding a message that only 21st century scientist would think to look for? [tinfoil hat]It's a fun idea but I think scientists are looking for ways to disprove God while disguised as a sincere attempt to find God.[/tinfoil hat]

A supreme being, God, sent alot of messages. Its called the Bible.

Shok




There's an even bigger one than that! It's called LIFE. Or all of creation! Look at the picture of the quarter-size spot in the dark sky that Hubble took. There are countless galaxies in that little spot of sky. And then tell me that it all just sort of "happened". I get a kick out of scientists who think religious folk are dillusional because of their faith that a creator must have created such a mind-blowingly vast universe. I think that any sceintist who thinks it all just happened on its own is dillusional!

God's message is in every GOOD thing you see. And in the love of the eyes of your parents and your children. I can see it plain as day when I choose to quit thinking only of myself. Every time I ponder the vastness of the universe and the omnipotence of the supreme being who created it, my mind is literally blown. I can only think those kind of DEEP thoughts for a short time because it's like a riddle that turns your mind inside-out. My mind just goes blank after a while. It's actually a very good thing to do and humbles you and makes you realize WHO we really are.
Link Posted: 12/13/2005 2:55:09 PM EDT
Silly idea, IMHO. In every generation of believers, there are those who think that their generation is special. Jesus is coming back in their lifetime, God left them a message that only now do we have the technology to understand, etc.
Link Posted: 12/15/2005 4:46:11 AM EDT

Originally Posted By Red_Label:

Originally Posted By QShok:
Very interesting. Hiding a message that only 21st century scientist would think to look for? [tinfoil hat]It's a fun idea but I think scientists are looking for ways to disprove God while disguised as a sincere attempt to find God.[/tinfoil hat]

A supreme being, God, sent alot of messages. Its called the Bible.

Shok




There's an even bigger one than that! It's called LIFE. Or all of creation! Look at the picture of the quarter-size spot in the dark sky that Hubble took. There are countless galaxies in that little spot of sky. And then tell me that it all just sort of "happened". I get a kick out of scientists who think religious folk are dillusional because of their faith that a creator must have created such a mind-blowingly vast universe. I think that any sceintist who thinks it all just happened on its own is dillusional!

God's message is in every GOOD thing you see. And in the love of the eyes of your parents and your children. I can see it plain as day when I choose to quit thinking only of myself. Every time I ponder the vastness of the universe and the omnipotence of the supreme being who created it, my mind is literally blown. I can only think those kind of DEEP thoughts for a short time because it's like a riddle that turns your mind inside-out. My mind just goes blank after a while. It's actually a very good thing to do and humbles you and makes you realize WHO we really are.

Link Posted: 12/15/2005 4:48:42 AM EDT
Sorry, I'm not comp lit enough to figure out the Quote thing yey. But Red label has it down" when I quite thinking about myself.."
Link Posted: 12/15/2005 6:39:57 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 12/15/2005 6:44:00 AM EDT by garandman]

Originally Posted By Red_Label:

Originally Posted By QShok:
A supreme being, God, sent alot of messages. Its called the Bible.

Shok




There's an even bigger one than that! It's called LIFE. Or all of creation! .



Yup.


Romans 1
19Because that which may be known of God is manifest in them; for God hath shewed it unto them.

20For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse:

21Because that, when they knew God, they glorified him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened.



God sent lots of messages to man - His word, creation, humanity itself.

This whole thing sounds like trying to re-invent the wheel.

Perhaps no message from God is more important than Jesus Christ


Link Posted: 12/15/2005 7:24:26 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 12/15/2005 7:35:07 AM EDT by garandman]

Originally Posted By Dino:
"That's most appealing to physicists," said Zee, "because we physicists obviously do not want to have divine intervention after the universe got going."





yeah, no agenda there.

Just pure science.



Sounds more like an anti God religion to me.

Amazing how "scientists" who WANT a particular outcome usually get it.



Link Posted: 12/15/2005 7:38:29 AM EDT

Originally Posted By Dino:
"It's a crazy assumption that there's a supreme being that wants to send us a message," said Steve Hsu, an associate professor at the University of Oregon,



More "lack of bias" there.

To say a wholly unfalsifiable proposition (existence of a Supreme Being) is "crazy" is to say you CAN falsify the unfalsifiable.

Hsu is either insane, or HUGELY biased, and ANOTHER scientists who magically arrives at what he "wants" to be the outcome.

The scientific emperor(s) have no clothes.



Link Posted: 12/15/2005 7:39:20 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 12/18/2005 3:27:39 AM EDT by garandman]
Thanx for posting this article Dino, showing TWO (2) scientists imprisoned by personal bias and agenda.

So am I, but they pretend not to be.

And the congregation of science worshippers think they themselves aren't either.



Link Posted: 12/15/2005 1:01:23 PM EDT

Originally Posted By garandman:
So am I, but they pretend not to be.




DITTO. There's NO doubt in my mind or heart that God exists. So these men of science and "facts" would have a tough time proving otherwise to me. But at least I don't claim to be unbiased and only searching for THE TRUTH. I already know THE TRUTH. Always did.
Link Posted: 12/16/2005 4:18:52 AM EDT
I am surprised none of our Arfcom practitioners of religious science have stepped up to defend the religious assertions made by these two religious scientists.

Link Posted: 12/16/2005 5:41:49 PM EDT
Come on - no one is gonna defend these "scientists"???

Link Posted: 12/17/2005 8:42:48 PM EDT
There is a message from the Creator. It is being sent to each of us. The question is not whether there is a message - the question is how to receive it. He himself said, "Seek, and ye shall find. Knock, and it shall be opened unto you."

There's more:
Doctrine & Covenants 88:5-11

5 Which glory is that of the church of the Firstborn, even of God, the holiest of all, through Jesus Christ his Son÷
6 He that ascended up on high, as also he descended below all things, in that he comprehended all things, that he might be in all and through all things, the light of truth;
7 Which truth shineth. This is the light of Christ. As also he is in the sun, and the light of the sun, and the power thereof by which it was made.
8 As also he is in the moon, and is the light of the moon, and the power thereof by which it was made;
9 As also the light of the stars, and the power thereof by which they were made;
10 And the earth also, and the power thereof, even the earth upon which you stand.
11 And the light which shineth, which giveth you light, is through him who enlighteneth your eyes, which is the same light that quickeneth your understandings;

Here we learn that communication from the Holy Ghost is like light. The electromagnetic spectrum is wider than science now understands, just like it was prior to the 1890s when X-rays were discovered. Our spirits have the ability to receive truth from God in this manner. Just like we have to tune a radio to receive a particular communication, we need to tune our spirits to receive communication from God. Jesus pointed this out by saying that if we do the will of the Father, we would know if the doctrine is true. By obedience and seeking to do the will of the Father inall things, we align ourselves with Him and then truth will begin to flow into our minds.

-grommet
Link Posted: 12/17/2005 8:47:36 PM EDT
Link Posted: 12/18/2005 3:30:23 AM EDT
Still waiting to hear from the religious science crowd (those who place their faith in scientists who are but mere men)

Link Posted: 12/18/2005 2:34:51 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 12/18/2005 6:22:55 PM EDT by Vangeon]

Originally Posted By garandman:
Still waiting to hear from the religious science crowd (those who place their faith in scientists who are but mere men)




As opposed to those who place their faith in a book, written and handed down by mere men? I think you are going to have a hard time finding someone who thinks an infallible scientist exists.


Edit: fixed typo. There goes my infallibility
Link Posted: 12/18/2005 5:43:55 PM EDT

Originally Posted By Vangeon:

Originally Posted By garandman:
Still waiting to hear from the religious science crowd (those who place their faith in scientists who are but mere men)




As opposed to those who place their faith in a book, written and handed down by mere men? I think you are going to have a hard time finding someone who thanks an infallible scientist exists.



Not around here.
Link Posted: 12/18/2005 8:25:01 PM EDT

Originally Posted By garandman:

Originally Posted By Dino:
"It's a crazy assumption that there's a supreme being that wants to send us a message," said Steve Hsu, an associate professor at the University of Oregon,



More "lack of bias" there.

To say a wholly unfalsifiable proposition (existence of a Supreme Being) is "crazy" is to say you CAN falsify the unfalsifiable.

Hsu is either insane, or HUGELY biased, and ANOTHER scientists who magically arrives at what he "wants" to be the outcome.

The scientific emperor(s) have no clothes.



I found it interesting that you assumed they were anti-religious scientists.

I assumed they were pro-religious and used the language they did to head off criticism by more atheistically inclined scientists.

It seem we both have our own prejudices that determined the way we interpreted the data. Which may be a HUGE part of why religion is currently such a divisive issue in our country.

We are both educated, relatively intelligent people and we each had an entirely different take on what at first glance would appear to be a completely straightforward statement.

My original post was meant to provoke discussion on whether such a message would be something God would have left us. It would be interesting to views from different religious perspectives. I found the way it has developed to be pretty interesting though.

Link Posted: 12/18/2005 8:38:11 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 12/18/2005 8:39:45 PM EDT by Dino]

Originally Posted By garandman:
Thanx for posting this article Dino, showing TWO (2) scientists imprisoned by personal bias and agenda.

So am I, but they pretend not to be.

And the congregation of science worshippers think they themselves aren't either.






Np, but as I said before I found your interpretation fascinating. I had to go back and reread to make sure I hadn't missed something.

Truthfully, it seems to me as if you have take the worse possible interpretation of their remarks.

For instance:


The paper's other author, Tony Zee, a physics professor at the University of California Santa Barbara, said that variations in the cosmic background would have been set before the decoupling. "That's most appealing to physicists," said Zee, "because we physicists obviously do not want to have divine intervention after the universe got going."



Thats a straitforward declaration that some physicists would prefer Deism to more active forms of Theism.

I think the phrase most easily twisted would be

"It's a crazy assumption that there's a supreme being that wants to send us a message," said Steve Hsu, an associate professor at the University of Oregon, admitting that believing in a message involves a leap of faith. "But, if you could create a universe in your laboratory, wouldn't you want to leave a message inside?"


That could mean that the assumption is crazy or it could be tailored fora skeptical audience (like scientists)

IDers alter their language to suit their audience, who is to say these are men are not IDers trying to (finally) get their message before peer review.

This is the first instance I have seen of a theory that has the possibility of being testable.
If they don't find a message, it proves nothing. Perhaps God didn't leave a message in that manner. BUT, if there is such a message, then it would be the smoking gun IDers need to convince people like me.

I am a bit surprised at the hostility towards people I had tagged as IDers, but the more theistic types seem to view them as rabid atheists.

I'd urge those who read it in a particular frame of mind to reread it and take it from the view they are IDers who are trying to convince skeptical colleauges. See if it makes any difference to your interpretation.

Link Posted: 12/19/2005 4:01:25 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 12/19/2005 4:06:48 AM EDT by garandman]

Originally Posted By Vangeon:

Originally Posted By garandman:
Still waiting to hear from the religious science crowd (those who place their faith in scientists who are but mere men)




As opposed to those who place their faith in a book, written and handed down by mere men? I think you are going to have a hard time finding someone who thinks an infallible scientist exists.


Edit: fixed typo. There goes my infallibility



I've engaged in this debate HUNDREDS of times in this forum. Based on what I've observed, people place a deistic faith in science. That science is conducted by men. Ergo, they place a deistic faith in scientists - not any one per se, but in the scientific community as a whole.


Far as placing faith in the Word of God, NO CHRISTIAN is so arrogant as to say their world view is NOT based on faith. But that's NOT the point.

The point is the blindness and arrogance of the deistic science community to deceive themselves into thinking their world view is NOT based on faith.


Link Posted: 12/19/2005 4:10:46 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 12/19/2005 4:12:16 AM EDT by garandman]

Originally Posted By Dino:

I found it interesting that you assumed they were anti-religious scientists.

We are both educated, relatively intelligent people and we each had an entirely different take on what at first glance would appear to be a completely straightforward statement.




Of course, I can't know this individuals entire world view.

But I found it SCARY that a scientist would express a "want" in his scientific research.

An extreme example of that would be the "experiments" German "scientists" conducted on Jewish children, WANTING to find them genetically inferior, for the purpose of validating Hitlers devilish designs against them.

Pure science CANNOT have any pre-conceived "wants."

I don't know ANYTHING about this particular guy. But ANYONE who claims to value sicence CANNOT EVER "want" any pre-determined outcome.

Period.

He apparently does. ANd THAT is VERY dangerous. EVEN IF he somehow comes down on the side of Scripture. As a Scripturist myself, I don't want any such "scientific" support.

Link Posted: 12/19/2005 5:33:27 AM EDT

Originally Posted By garandman:

Originally Posted By Dino:

I found it interesting that you assumed they were anti-religious scientists.

We are both educated, relatively intelligent people and we each had an entirely different take on what at first glance would appear to be a completely straightforward statement.




Of course, I can't know this individuals entire world view.

But I found it SCARY that a scientist would express a "want" in his scientific research.

An extreme example of that would be the "experiments" German "scientists" conducted on Jewish children, WANTING to find them genetically inferior, for the purpose of validating Hitlers devilish designs against them.

Pure science CANNOT have any pre-conceived "wants."

I don't know ANYTHING about this particular guy. But ANYONE who claims to value sicence CANNOT EVER "want" any pre-determined outcome.

Period.

He apparently does. ANd THAT is VERY dangerous. EVEN IF he somehow comes down on the side of Scripture. As a Scripturist myself, I don't want any such "scientific" support.




I'd say that was asking a bit much of a human being. Its hard to get people to admit when their theories are wrong, it is why we have peer review. I'd be willing to bet most scientists who conduct experiments have a specific end in mind.

Peer review is the manner in which science compensates for human failing. Without it things like cold fusion and the current iteration of ID would be "science".

Even if you don't like these people, the experiment they are suggesting is exactly what the ID movement needs to do to be taken seriously.



Link Posted: 12/19/2005 5:57:39 AM EDT

Originally Posted By Dino:

I'd say that was asking a bit much of a human being. Its hard to get people to admit when their theories are wrong, it is why we have peer review. I'd be willing to bet most scientists who conduct experiments have a specific end in mind.





I'm NOT talking about scientists PREDICTING an outcome. I'm talking about them WANTING an outcome - which is what this clown said. READ HIS STATEMENT, MAN. He said "We physicists don't WANT...."

At that point, he invalidated anything else he said from a scientific standpoint.


We ALL hold a faith based position - me in God and Scripture, religion of science folks in mortal man, and his limited ability to observe tiny portions of his universe, and immensely limited mental capacity to understand the infinitessimally small portion he has observed..

Don't you see?

As a Christian, I expect my science to be DEVOID of desired outcome. Prediction is one thing, and an acceptable part of the scientific method. But to "not want" an outcome is NOT science.

And lacking any other evidence, I'd dismiss this guy as a quack.



Even if you don't like these people, the experiment they are suggesting is exactly what the ID movement needs to do to be taken seriously.


Not really.

The ID movement is already performing experiements on MUCH more tangible items than some nebulous message in a bottle.

The ID movement is doing what it needs to do. The religion of science movement needs to open their eyes to acknowledge that fact.


Link Posted: 12/19/2005 10:50:24 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 12/19/2005 10:51:21 AM EDT by Dino]

Originally Posted By garandman:


Dino: Even if you don't like these people, the experiment they are suggesting is exactly what the ID movement needs to do to be taken seriously.


Not really.

The ID movement is already performing experiements on MUCH more tangible items than some nebulous message in a bottle.

The ID movement is doing what it needs to do. The religion of science movement needs to open their eyes to acknowledge that fact.





The problem is Gman, science doesn't see it that way. Even IDers admit the big problem is a lack of a cogent theory. Currently, ID is little more than attacks on evolution.

If IDers want to be taken seriouisly they have to convince scientist by proposing a theory that is testable.

p.s. if you know of some actual experiments taking place, could you post some links? thanks!



Link Posted: 12/19/2005 11:30:11 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 12/19/2005 11:31:26 AM EDT by garandman]

Originally Posted By Dino:
The problem is Gman, science doesn't see it that way. Even IDers admit the big problem is a lack of a cogent theory. Currently, ID is little more than attacks on evolution.

If IDers want to be taken seriouisly they have to convince scientist by proposing a theory that is testable.



The problem is, I have OVER AND OVER presented testable hypostheses in this forum, but the religion of science crowd dismisses it out of hand. Mostly because, in their own words, it could possibly lead to the conclusion an intelligent designer exists.

This all falls RIGHT IN LINE with the above physicist who expressed what he "wants" his research to conclude.

Everything I've given as a testable hypothesis they reject out of hand - BECAUSE, as they have said, it could lead to the unacceptable conclusion. They have a desired conclusion, and anything that might lead away from that conclusion gets dismissed.

I'm serious. Happens all the time round here.





p.s. if you know of some actual experiments taking place, could you post some links? thanks!




For the reasons stated above, I've tired of trying to provide such experimentation.

You can google it as well as I can.

But generically, ANY scientific experiment that the religions of science crowd has conducted will do. Just stop short of their conclusion.

Link Posted: 12/19/2005 11:37:49 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 12/19/2005 11:38:26 AM EDT by Dino]

Originally Posted By garandman:

Originally Posted By Dino:
The problem is Gman, science doesn't see it that way. Even IDers admit the big problem is a lack of a cogent theory. Currently, ID is little more than attacks on evolution.

If IDers want to be taken seriouisly they have to convince scientist by proposing a theory that is testable.



The problem is, I have OVER AND OVER presented testable hypostheses in this forum, but the religion of science crowd dismisses it out of hand. Mostly because, in their own words, it could possibly lead to the conclusion an intelligent designer exists.

This all falls RIGHT IN LINE with the above physicist who expressed what he "wants" his research to conclude.

Everything I've given as a testable hypothesis they reject out of hand - BECAUSE, as they have said, it could lead to the unacceptable conclusion. They have a desired conclusion, and anything that might lead away from that conclusion gets dismissed.

I'm serious. Happens all the time round here.





p.s. if you know of some actual experiments taking place, could you post some links? thanks!




For the reasons stated above, I've tired of trying to provide such experimentation.

You can google it as well as I can.

But generically, ANY scientific experiment that the religions of science crowd has conducted will do. Just stop short of their conclusion.




I have googled and there is currently no scientific experiment that is testing a hypothesis for the ID camp.

It doesn't matter if you view it as a testable theory Gman, science has to agree it is testable. The reason I made the OP was it was the first example of a testable theory that I have personally seen.

You seem to be saying there is some kind of conspiracy among scientists to keep this information hidden. Do you really believe that this is possible? The majority of scientists are religious and a large portion of them are Chrisitan. Why would they suppress the information?

Link Posted: 12/19/2005 11:41:47 AM EDT

Originally Posted By Dino:
The majority of scientists are religious and a large portion of them are Chrisitan.



Source?
Link Posted: 12/19/2005 11:43:14 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 12/19/2005 11:44:47 AM EDT by garandman]

Originally Posted By Dino:
You seem to be saying there is some kind of conspiracy among scientists to keep this information hidden. Do you really believe that this is possible?



By merely using your article, let's look at teh evidence.

One physicist WANTS his experimentation to go a certain way.

The other scientist calls an untestable hypothesis, namely, existence of a supreme being, to be a "crazy assumption."

You can assign motives, I'll merely point out HOW unscientific their biases have shown them to be.

I can give you MANY more examples like these two clowns.

Link Posted: 12/19/2005 11:44:08 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 12/19/2005 11:58:13 AM EDT by garandman]

Originally Posted By fizassist:

Originally Posted By Dino:
The majority of scientists are religious and a large portion of them are Chrisitan.



Source?



Yeah, I had to skip over that whopper.

Dawkins? Hawking? Darwin?

I guess by "Christian" he means "non cannibal."



Link Posted: 12/19/2005 11:57:37 AM EDT

Originally Posted By Dino:
I have googled and there is currently no scientific experiment that is testing a hypothesis for the ID camp.





So its your assertion that NO EXPERIMENTATION has ever been done, or is currently being done, to see if organisms evidence intelligent design?

Dude, come on.

EVERY experiment ever conducted tests for that.

Otherwise, prediction, a key part of the scientific method, would be impossible.

The whole concept of prediction - that an organism will respond in a certain way, if a certain stimuli is applied - is evidence of intelligent design.

The very concept of prediction almost makes it self-evident intelligent design is plausible.

Link Posted: 12/19/2005 1:03:56 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 12/19/2005 1:04:19 PM EDT by Vangeon]
If intelligent design is correct, then what about all of the things in nature that do not work? Why do so many of us get cancer? What about the appendix, which does not seem to have any purpose but to explode randomly? What about all of the animals that have gone extinct? Why would a designer create them and put them in an environment in which they cannot survive?


So, is there really any other evidence of intelligent design besides probability calculations with arbitrary variables and "Come on, dude!"?
Link Posted: 12/19/2005 1:07:44 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 12/19/2005 1:08:46 PM EDT by Dino]

Originally Posted By garandman:

Originally Posted By Dino:
I have googled and there is currently no scientific experiment that is testing a hypothesis for the ID camp.





So its your assertion that NO EXPERIMENTATION has ever been done, or is currently being done, to see if organisms evidence intelligent design?

Dude, come on.

EVERY experiment ever conducted tests for that.

Otherwise, prediction, a key part of the scientific method, would be impossible.

The whole concept of prediction - that an organism will respond in a certain way, if a certain stimuli is applied - is evidence of intelligent design.

The very concept of prediction almost makes it self-evident intelligent design is plausible.




wow, you're so misinformed on this subject I don't even know where to begin. So now the scientific method is itself proof of intelligent design.

You may want to argue things from a religious perspective, at least then you won't appear so foolish. Even champions of ID like Behe admit the big issue is ID is a solution in search of a problem.

Link Posted: 12/19/2005 1:14:08 PM EDT

Originally Posted By Dino:

wow, you're so misinformed on this subject I don't even know where to begin. So now the scientific method is itself proof of intelligent design.

You may want to argue things from a religious perspective, at least then you won't appear so foolish. Even champions of ID like Behe admit the big issue is ID is a solution in search of a problem.




As usual, these threads end up with a personal attack madeagainst me, something akin to "You are too stupid to live." (For the record, I enjoy the personal attacks. )

Were that true, that I am soooo stoopit, it would be simple to prove me wrong.

But they never even try. They just say "You are so ignorant...blah blah blah."

But my points are NEVER refuted.

Good to know there are some things you can count on in life.



Link Posted: 12/19/2005 1:15:00 PM EDT

Originally Posted By Vangeon:
If intelligent design is correct, then what about all of the things in nature that do not work? Why do so many of us get cancer? What about the appendix, which does not seem to have any purpose but to explode randomly? What about all of the animals that have gone extinct? Why would a designer create them and put them in an environment in which they cannot survive?





Sin.

Next question?

Link Posted: 12/19/2005 1:19:55 PM EDT

Originally Posted By garandman:

Originally Posted By fizassist:

Originally Posted By Dino:
The majority of scientists are religious and a large portion of them are Chrisitan.



Source?



Yeah, I had to skip over that whopper.

Dawkins? Hawking? Darwin?

I guess by "Christian" he means "non cannibal."






I'm trying to find the survey now where they listed scientists by religious affiliation. Currently I can only find the theist/nontheist survey and not the religious affiliation.

I'll post it if I can find it again. Most scientists surveyed belonged to a recognized religion. Christians were in the 40's IIRC and were the single largest group.



Link Posted: 12/19/2005 1:45:06 PM EDT

Originally Posted By garandman:

But my points are NEVER refuted.

Good to know there are some things you can count on in life.




I believe in invisible unicorns and my points are NEVER refuted.


Originally Posted By garandman:
Sin.

Next question?



Of course, because the Bible says so, right?
Link Posted: 12/19/2005 1:49:01 PM EDT

Originally Posted By garandman:
(For the record, I enjoy the personal attacks. )



You suck!

­

<­BR>



(just trying to help)
Link Posted: 12/19/2005 2:14:24 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 12/19/2005 2:18:55 PM EDT by Dino]

Originally Posted By garandman:

Originally Posted By Dino:

wow, you're so misinformed on this subject I don't even know where to begin. So now the scientific method is itself proof of intelligent design.

You may want to argue things from a religious perspective, at least then you won't appear so foolish. Even champions of ID like Behe admit the big issue is ID is a solution in search of a problem.




As usual, these threads end up with a personal attack madeagainst me, something akin to "You are too stupid to live." (For the record, I enjoy the personal attacks. )

Were that true, that I am soooo stoopit, it would be simple to prove me wrong.

But they never even try. They just say "You are so ignorant...blah blah blah."

But my points are NEVER refuted.

Good to know there are some things you can count on in life.






ignorance and superstition being 2 of them

I said you were misinformed, not stupid.

You just said sin is the reason we have cancer. Thats not much different than saying storks bring babies. It IS ignorant and superstitious.

btw had you made a cogent point, we might have bothered to refute it. I asked you to show me a scientific experiment being conducted by IDers and you chose not to do so (because you can't).

Instead you posted the following:


So its your assertion that NO EXPERIMENTATION has ever been done, or is currently being done, to see if organisms evidence intelligent design?

Dude, come on.

EVERY experiment ever conducted tests for that.

Otherwise, prediction, a key part of the scientific method, would be impossible.



Currently, there is no test for design. Irreducible complexity is a theoretic way to do so, but noone (not even Behe) has promoted a method to actually do it. We test man made theories and laws that approximate nature. We don't test for an intelligence behind nature. To think otherwise shows an extremely basic misunderstanding of both science and the scientific method.

You are using vapid arguments and emotional appeals to make your points. Thats fine from the standpoing of apologetics, but not from the standpoint of science.



ETA: Gman, i'm not asking you to tell me why you believe what you do about God or the world. I'm asking you to show me how ID is being tested scientifically. You say there are experiments, show them to me. I posted an example of a proposed experiment that can be tested, the reason I did so is that it is the first example of an actual scientific experiment that would lend credence to the ID position.

If there is real objective evidence out there, I would love to see it.
Link Posted: 12/19/2005 5:31:20 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 12/19/2005 5:33:22 PM EDT by garandman]

Originally Posted By Dino:
Currently, there is no test for design. Irreducible complexity is a theoretic way to do so, but noone (not even Behe) has promoted a method to actually do it. We test man made theories and laws that approximate nature. We don't test for an intelligence behind nature. To think otherwise shows an extremely basic misunderstanding of both science and the scientific method.

You are using vapid arguments and emotional appeals to make your points. Thats fine from the standpoing of apologetics, but not from the standpoint of science.



ETA: Gman, i'm not asking you to tell me why you believe what you do about God or the world. I'm asking you to show me how ID is being tested scientifically. You say there are experiments, show them to me. I posted an example of a proposed experiment that can be tested, the reason I did so is that it is the first example of an actual scientific experiment that would lend credence to the ID position.

If there is real objective evidence out there, I would love to see it.



You act as if there has to be some earth shatterring, ground breaking test for design.

There doesn't.

A simple experiment like observing plants response to different types of music can evidence design.

It has been scientifically shown plants universally resond postively to certain types of music, and poorly to others. That very consistency is evidence of design.

Just as the fact that every time you turn your right turn signal on in your car, teh right side directional makers will blink is evidence of design. HAS ANY CAR EVER ACHEIVED SUCH PREDICTABLE BHAVIOR WITHOUT DESIGN? Obviously, no.

By itself the plant experiment does prove anything. But test any of a hundred thousand other organisims, to see if they produce consistent predictable results.

NOTHING on the planet, from cars, to toothpicks, to houses to telephones to specially bred animals to hybrid plants produces any predictable repeatable results without intelligent design.

Then ask this question "If randomness is how speciation is achieved, and the ONLY observed mutation is over VERY short periods of time, often just minutes, how do organism EVER produce predictable repeatable results?"

Simple: Intelligent design.

Its so simple, you'll proceed to dismiss it out of hand (if past experience with Arfcom is any guide) . "Its GOTTA be more complex than that" is the thinking. My observation in life is that the simple answer is usually the right one.

Stop making things more complex than they need to be.



Link Posted: 12/19/2005 7:44:36 PM EDT

Originally Posted By garandman:
It has been scientifically shown plants universally resond postively to certain types of music, and poorly to others. That very consistency is evidence of design.




post hoc, ergo propter hoc

Is the fact that different species of wood rot at predictable, yet different rates given the same environment evidence of design, or simply a result of the physical properties of the wood under attack. By your above statement, you seem to imply a belief that said decay is a result of a greater 'plan' for the wood, as opposed to the rather unromantic fact that the wood is simply being seen as food by mold, insects, & microbes. After all, with such predictable decay rates, it has to be by design, eh?
Link Posted: 12/19/2005 8:56:35 PM EDT

Originally Posted By garandman:

Its so simple, you'll proceed to dismiss it out of hand (if past experience with Arfcom is any guide) . "Its GOTTA be more complex than that" is the thinking. My observation in life is that the simple answer is usually the right one.

Stop making things more complex than they need to be.




Click for full size:
http://img471.imageshack.us/img471/1109/elementssa9sr.th.jpg



Do you even know what intelligent design is about? Intelligent design advocates state that certain components of organisms are too complex to have evolved on their own, and thus must have been designed by some entity. They still believe that evolution occured, and that all the organisms we see today evolved over millions of years from organisms with those basic components. They don't name the entity that created these complex components: it could have been Zeus, the Great Spirit, Christian God, or space aliens.

What you advocate is young Earth creationism, and neither it nor intelligent design is considered science.

You really have to ignore a lot of scientific evidence to deny the age of the universe and evolution.
Link Posted: 12/20/2005 4:15:47 AM EDT

Originally Posted By Vangeon:

What you advocate is young Earth creationism, and neither it nor intelligent design is considered science.

You really have to ignore a lot of scientific evidence to deny the age of the universe and evolution.



I advocate creationism, but I make no assertions about teh age of teh earth. In fact, Scripture indicates a formless earth may well have existed for eons of time before the six 24-hour days of creation.

But I am amused by the ENDLESS ranks of the unwashed who love to tell me what I believe.

Link Posted: 12/20/2005 4:17:52 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 12/20/2005 5:39:47 AM EDT by garandman]

Originally Posted By DriftPunch:

Is the fact that different species of wood rot at predictable, yet different rates given the same environment evidence of design, or simply a result of the physical properties of the wood under attack. By your above statement, you seem to imply a belief that said decay is a result of a greater 'plan' for the wood, as opposed to the rather unromantic fact that the wood is simply being seen as food by mold, insects, & microbes. After all, with such predictable decay rates, it has to be by design, eh?



Rot is decay, and as such is not evidencing order, but rather chaos, and decreasing order.

Your example would be like me taking a sickly, least fit of the species and making you defend evolutionary claims based on it.

As such, it doesn't really fall under the ID theory.

But then it doesn't really fall under progressive order thru selective speciation either.
Link Posted: 12/20/2005 4:47:29 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 12/20/2005 4:49:37 AM EDT by Dino]

Originally Posted By garandman:

Originally Posted By Dino:
Currently, there is no test for design. Irreducible complexity is a theoretic way to do so, but noone (not even Behe) has promoted a method to actually do it. We test man made theories and laws that approximate nature. We don't test for an intelligence behind nature. To think otherwise shows an extremely basic misunderstanding of both science and the scientific method.

You are using vapid arguments and emotional appeals to make your points. Thats fine from the standpoing of apologetics, but not from the standpoint of science.



ETA: Gman, i'm not asking you to tell me why you believe what you do about God or the world. I'm asking you to show me how ID is being tested scientifically. You say there are experiments, show them to me. I posted an example of a proposed experiment that can be tested, the reason I did so is that it is the first example of an actual scientific experiment that would lend credence to the ID position.

If there is real objective evidence out there, I would love to see it.



You act as if there has to be some earth shatterring, ground breaking test for design.

There doesn't.

A simple experiment like observing plants response to different types of music can evidence design.

It has been scientifically shown plants universally resond postively to certain types of music, and poorly to others. That very consistency is evidence of design.

Just as the fact that every time you turn your right turn signal on in your car, teh right side directional makers will blink is evidence of design. HAS ANY CAR EVER ACHEIVED SUCH PREDICTABLE BHAVIOR WITHOUT DESIGN? Obviously, no.

By itself the plant experiment does prove anything. But test any of a hundred thousand other organisims, to see if they produce consistent predictable results.

NOTHING on the planet, from cars, to toothpicks, to houses to telephones to specially bred animals to hybrid plants produces any predictable repeatable results without intelligent design.

Then ask this question "If randomness is how speciation is achieved, and the ONLY observed mutation is over VERY short periods of time, often just minutes, how do organism EVER produce predictable repeatable results?"

Simple: Intelligent design.

Its so simple, you'll proceed to dismiss it out of hand (if past experience with Arfcom is any guide) . "Its GOTTA be more complex than that" is the thinking. My observation in life is that the simple answer is usually the right one.

Stop making things more complex than they need to be.






Gman, what you have just done is connect 2 things without any evidence. If need be I can do research and prove when that car was manufactured. You're making a philosophical argument, not a scientific argument.

I will agree from a philosophical standpoint that your argument has merit. The problem is a scientist needs to determine a scientific experiment to find design. So far things like irreducible complexity are still at the philosophy stage and have no scientific merit (yet).

Here is the other issue. Evolution allows for outside supernatural guidance. All scientific theories do. Theistic evolution is a perfectly valid philosophy that melds a belief in a personal creator God with the scientific theory of evolution.

So far, God has been outside of the realm of science. If we can find a way to test for God (something I doubt is possible, if He doesn't want to be found how will we find Him?) then we would still have God and evolution. If you want to overturn evolution you need a scientific theory that explains things better than evolution. ID doesn't do it yet. I don't think it ever will, but I can't rule it out.

Btw as far as making things more complex than they have to be. Adding in a all powerful deity to a scientific theory is making it more complex than it has to be....

Link Posted: 12/20/2005 5:19:17 AM EDT

Originally Posted By Dino:
Gman, what you have just done is connect 2 things without any evidence. If need be I can do research and prove when that car was manufactured. You're making a philosophical argument, not a scientific argument.

I will agree from a philosophical standpoint that your argument has merit. The problem is a scientist needs to determine a scientific experiment to find design. So far things like irreducible complexity are still at the philosophy stage and have no scientific merit (yet).



Admittedly, I am making an unproven connection.

The general assertion is this - since EVERYTHING (every organism, every process, every chemical reaction) we can observe produces a positive outcome ONLY via the intervention of a sentient being, we can hypothesize that ALL unobserved positive outcomes also happen via some intelligent designer.

Then you simply construct experiments to falsify that position. You go and test EVERYTHING, to see if postive outcomes EVER happen without sentient oversight. You compare random breeding of animals vs. controlled breeding, and see which produces positive (beneficial) results. Same for plant life and chemical reactions.

You test, and test, and test.

Then you develop your scientific theory.



Here is the other issue. Evolution allows for outside supernatural guidance. All scientific theories do. Theistic evolution is a perfectly valid philosophy that melds a belief in a personal creator God with the scientific theory of evolution.


Except where theistic evolutionary theory violates known tenets of Scripture.


So far, God has been outside of the realm of science. If we can find a way to test for God (something I doubt is possible, if He doesn't want to be found how will we find Him?) then we would still have God and evolution. If you want to overturn evolution you need a scientific theory that explains things better than evolution. ID doesn't do it yet. I don't think it ever will, but I can't rule it out.




Scripture indicates God DOES want to be found.

All we need are scientists open to the possibility God is deeply involved in science.

Judging From the religion of science crowd represented here at Arfcom, they reject the possibility out of hand. Then call ME "closeminded."

Link Posted: 12/20/2005 6:18:05 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 12/20/2005 6:19:43 AM EDT by Dino]

Originally Posted By garandman:

Here is the other issue. Evolution allows for outside supernatural guidance. All scientific theories do. Theistic evolution is a perfectly valid philosophy that melds a belief in a personal creator God with the scientific theory of evolution.


Except where theistic evolutionary theory violates known tenets of Scripture.



Gman, the known tenets of scripture vary depending on which person you are talking to. There are plenty of Christians who find no contradiction between the Bible and the scientific theory of evolution. Some people take evolution too far and try to use it to prove their beliefs on religion, but they are as wrong as someone who tries to use the Bible to place limitations on sciences scope.

It sounds to me that you wouldn't accept any proof of evolution, no matter how well researched and documented. If it conflicts with scripture, its obviously wrong. Is that your view?


Originally Posted By garandman:

So far, God has been outside of the realm of science. If we can find a way to test for God (something I doubt is possible, if He doesn't want to be found how will we find Him?) then we would still have God and evolution. If you want to overturn evolution you need a scientific theory that explains things better than evolution. ID doesn't do it yet. I don't think it ever will, but I can't rule it out.



Scripture indicates God DOES want to be found.

All we need are scientists open to the possibility God is deeply involved in science.

Judging From the religion of science crowd represented here at Arfcom, they reject the possibility out of hand. Then call ME "closeminded."





Hmm as I recall, scripture indicates God wants us to have faith and not require proof.

We have scientists who believe in God and view what they do as learning "how God did it". They view evolution as God's handiwork. That is also the view of the Catholic Church, a Christian organization the last I checked.

I'm going to leave the closeminded thing up to you. If the quote in red is something you agree with, then you are closeminded. If you believe your interpretation of scripture could not be wrong, then you are closeminded. Period.


Link Posted: 12/20/2005 6:46:25 AM EDT

Originally Posted By garandman:

Originally Posted By Dino:

I'd say that was asking a bit much of a human being. Its hard to get people to admit when their theories are wrong, it is why we have peer review. I'd be willing to bet most scientists who conduct experiments have a specific end in mind.





I'm NOT talking about scientists PREDICTING an outcome. I'm talking about them WANTING an outcome - which is what this clown said. READ HIS STATEMENT, MAN. He said "We physicists don't WANT...."

At that point, he invalidated anything else he said from a scientific standpoint.


We ALL hold a faith based position - me in God and Scripture, religion of science folks in mortal man, and his limited ability to observe tiny portions of his universe, and immensely limited mental capacity to understand the infinitessimally small portion he has observed..

Don't you see?

As a Christian, I expect my science to be DEVOID of desired outcome. Prediction is one thing, and an acceptable part of the scientific method. But to "not want" an outcome is NOT science.

And lacking any other evidence, I'd dismiss this guy as a quack.




This is from an article Belloc posted earlier, I thought it more clearly explained what I was trying to say about research for a desired outcome.


Opponents of teaching ID in schools may acknowledge my above contentions in principle, yet still protest that ID is not a genuinely scientific alternative to Neo-Darwinism. They often castigate it as "agenda-driven science," an irredeemably biased venture unworthy of serious consideration. I think this complaint rests on unsustainable picture of "real science" as an entirely objective enterprise, pristinely untouched by scientists’ personal beliefs about the nature of reality. An honest appraisal of how major scientific advances were arrived at in the past will reveal the mythical character of that image. Copernicus developed heliocentrism because he wanted to place the great light of the sun at the center of the universe, where his Neoplatonism demanded it ought to be. Kepler was dissatisfied with the Ptolemaic and Copernican models of the solar system, involving planetary orbits with their centers offset from the central body (the Earth or the Sun, respectively), because he believed that the angelic intelligences guiding the planets through the heavens could not steer them around an empty point in space. Galileo was notorious, and in the end suffered, for his propensity towards propaganda and his tendency to defend his positions with impressive rhetoric instead of solid evidence. Newton sought an alternative to the popular Cartesian physics of his time because it seemed to leave no place for an active God after His initial act of creation. Einstein famously rejected the "Copenhagen" interpretation of quantum mechanics because he thought that "God does not play dice" with the physical universe. Most great scientists and most great scientific advances have been inspired by a passionately held vision of the fundamental character of the world we inhabit. That is true of the defenders of Neo-Darwinism no less than it is of the proponents of Intelligent Design, despite the gulf separating their respective visions: the Neo-Darwinists take such umbrage at their critics because of their pre-scientific commitment to a mechanistic worldview.


Link Posted: 12/20/2005 7:36:47 AM EDT

Originally Posted By Dino:
If it conflicts with scripture, its obviously wrong. Is that your view?




I'd change that to say "If it conflicts with Scripture, I believe it is wrong. "Obviously wrong" is far too strong a term here.




Hmm as I recall, scripture indicates God wants us to have faith and not require proof.


Faith is a key component.

But Scripture says


Isa 55: 6Seek ye the LORD while he may be found, call ye upon him while he is near:

Matt 11:29 - Take my yoke upon you, and learn of me; for I am meek and lowly in heart

Deut 4:29 - But if from thence thou shalt seek the LORD thy God, thou shalt find him, if thou seek him with all thy heart and with all thy soul.

Eze 35:11 - Therefore, as I live, saith the Lord GOD, ...I will make myself known among them





God WANTS men to seek AND FIND Him. He wants to be known of men.

All scientists should take heart in this.



We have scientists who believe in God and view what they do as learning "how God did it". They view evolution as God's handiwork. That is also the view of the Catholic Church, a Christian organization the last I checked.


The question is "Do these scientists hold to Scripture as divinely inspired and authoritative.?"

Many "religious" men have done many evil works. The devil and his angels beelive in God.




I'm going to leave the closeminded thing up to you. If the quote in red is something you agree with, then you are closeminded. If you believe your interpretation of scripture could not be wrong, then you are closeminded. Period.





My interpretation of Scripture COULD be wrong. But on the specific points I have made here at Arfcom, I belive myself on fairly solid Biblical standing.

Which is why I opted against the "obviously wrong" descriptor.


Top Top