padib said:
Rath said:
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.
|
The age of the universe is related to evolution in that evolution requires time. The more time, the better for the theory. Chance needs an infinite amount of time to create life as we know it.
For the rest, thanks for confirming what I said, that the age of the universe is based on linear variables (i.e. false assumptions). Who was there to prove that these variables do not change over time. The same issue exists with carbon dating. From wikipedia:
"However, local eruptions of volcanoes or other events that give off large amounts of carbon dioxide can reduce local concentrations of carbon-14 and give inaccurate dates." But we know the globe has suffered global cataclisms in the past, at least with super-volcanoes, if you insist on disbelieving the biblical flood.
|
Evolution requires millions of years, the universe is billions of years old - as I said they are on quite different scales.
Also the acknowledged assumption that time is linear does not make your postulate any more correct, even if time is distorted the evidence still clearly points to everything originating in a big bang from a single point. Also carbon dating is calibrated because of the acknowledged variations of carbon in the atmosphere - to do this calibration they use things like uranium-thorium dating that cannot be done as universally but do not require calibration. Unless you're now going to claim without evidence that the half-life of uranium has changed massively over time so that it can fit in with your world view?
Finally a biblical flood would have left clear and obvious signs all over earth - notably a single large universal layer of strata matching up all over the globe. Such a strata does not exist - just like the flood that is supposed to have caused it.
