By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close
Rath on 14 July 2011
Edit Thread
padib said:
Sri Lumpa said:
padib said:

How are ID proponents similar to drunk people? Are you saying they are fabulating? 

No, in my example they are the same because neither of their theories are scientific theories and neither of them understands why scientists do not take them seriously.

Give me one theory of intelligent design that you believe is non-scientific. Here's one that is scientific: all intelligent signals require a sender, from information theory (I'm sure they have better ways to formulate it, I don't have it on hand). How is that non-scientific? We repeatedly observe it in the world around us. But when it comes to the genetic code, all of a sudden it comes by chance. When you see a finger-print, you think "Who's is that?" not "How did that come about by chance?". Even evolutionists are ready to admit that Evolution is totally non-conventional, non-trivial (i.e. it doesn't concord with the facts of life in any way). That's why it's of such "beauty".

I'll give you one from the evolutionary model that is non-scientific. The life of the universe. How is the 6 Billion years number scientific? It's based on false assumptions such as static rates (decay, erosion, time, speed of celestial bodies). That sounds to me like indoctrination, ipse dixit, more than anything. And it is taugh as fact in NatGeo, I see it all the time.

The first part isn't science because you're presenting an assumption without proof. You tell us that complex information requires an intelligent designer but you haven't given any proof for that statement.

 

As for the second part - the age of the universe is not 6 billion years, it's approximately 13.75 billion years. It is scientific as it is based on prediction, measurement and repeatability built on known scientific laws. If you're vaguely interested in how the calculation is done it's based on Hubbles laws.

(1) All objects observed in deep space (interstellar space) are found to have a doppler shift observable relative velocity to Earth, and to each other

(2) This doppler-shift-measured velocity, of various galaxies receding from the Earth, is proportional to their distance from the Earth and all other interstellar bodies.

The only real assumption made in determining the age of the universe is that time is linear.

Also how the hell is the age of the universe related to evolution? One's cosmology and the others biology - they're working on way different scales.

 

Edit: @Padib. There is already more than enough proof of evolution, the big bang, plate tectonics etc, that the Genesis account is clearly wrong. The earth simply isn't a few thousand years old. I find it hard to believe that you have an open mind to science if you still believe that it is.