| timmah said: DNA: When scientists look for proof of intelligent life in outer space, they point their radio telescopes at the sky and search for ANY repeating, logical 'code' in the radio waves. It could even be a simple code, but science says even that would be solid evidence for intelligent life, as nature cannot produce such codes on it's own. DNA, on the other hand is the most complex code known to man, how then, is that not concidered to indicate the possiblity of intelligence behind the code? |
There is a big difference between a chain of polypeptides which have a proven method for selecting beneficial combinations and a radio signal that can both naturally reach across the galaxy and naturally contains a repeating pattern. But you of course completely overstate the scientific position as a straw man. Scientists would not simply take a repeating radio signal as proof of other life by itself, there would have to be something more because quite simply we don't know if there are things capable of producing such a signal. Although if such natural signal producers existed it would be quite odd that we hadn't picked them up yet considering all of the natural signals we do pick up already and none of them have a pattern.
In short, the DNA code isn't considered ID because we can show basic simple rules that are fundamental to the laws of physics that produces that evolution and increasing complexity. The radio signal would be widely considered as proof because we don't know of a way it can be done...although any scientist worth his salt would tell you that alone is not proof.
| timmah said: The laws of physics: Newton's first law of motion: This states that 'an object at rest will stay at rest, and an object in motion will stay in motion UNLESS something acts upon it. The 'big bang' theory has absolutely no way of explaining this. It claims that an infinitely small, infinitely compact ball of matter exploded WITHOUT anything acting upon it, on it's own. This is completely contradictory to this well known law of physics. Newton's third law of motion: This states (in a nutshell) that For every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction. In other words, for a 4000 pound load to be lifted, it would have to have a force of 4000 pounds or more pulling it upwards. Where, then is the action that caused the 'big bang' to happen?? Where did the infinite energy required to explode a stagnent object of infinite density that had been there for an infinite amount of time come from without some kind of 'creator' force?? Physics cannot answer this without the inclusion of an infinite amount of energy at one end of the formula to create the energy at the other. |
For both of these points you're proving quite ignorant on the topic and I mean that in the strictest sense. I don't believe you've even made a good faith attempt to understand what the current (or even former) big bang theories truly state. The piece you are so clearly missing is that the big bang's biggest weakness according even to the scientist who aspouse it is that they cannot explain what causes it...they don't say it has no causal event..only that they cannot explain it. Although it is fair to say that there are two theories for a causal event which are being tested. Neither of those theories break Newton's third or first law. So really the issue here was that you hadn't done enough research but were playing the critic anyways.
| timmah said: The law of entropy: This law is fully accepted in the scientific community, and states that nature takes a natural course from order to disorder (stars go from burning fission reactions to dead and lifeless over time) without the introduction of an outside force (such as life, a plant turning random molecules into it's cells, or humans turning dirt into bricks into buildings). By this law, it should be impossible for life (perfect order) to come from non-living nature (pure disorder, chaos). Entropy also states that all differences in energy will equalize themselves naturally over time, eventually becoming inert. (If you turn the heat off in your house at night, it will cool inside to the temperature outside). This makes the big bang impossible without a HUGE outside energy source that is completely independant. Since time is concidered to be infinite, the matter at the center of the 'big bang' would have to be there for an infinite amount of time before exploding. The law of entropy says that the mass would have been in complete equilibrium, no one part would have been at a different energy level/temperature than another, making a reaction or explosion impossible without outside force. |
I'm not entirely sure that you have a good grasp on what entropy truly is. Generally speaking the principle of entropy is usually applied to thermodynamics. I see the direction you are trying to take however and I have to ask how did you go from "without the introduction of an outside force" to the requirement that that outside force be something alive in the first place?
As for your big bang require an outside energy source I think if you read up on the current theories I mentioned above you'll find that a multiversal approach is precisely the one scientists have taken. As for timing being considered infinite I think you need to check your facts, to my knowledge there have never been experiments done that prove time is infinte and no scientists relies on this information because it is unproven. But that portion is a secondary topic in this discussion since the outside force is precisely what the top scientists from around the world are attempting to prove. Again I would urge you to read up on these things before you make statements you are woefully uninformed about.
| timmah said: This is just a brief synopsis of the many credible arguments that can be made for intelligent design. It's not possible to 'prove' either theory, because nobody (but God if you believe in him) was there to see & document what actually happened, but reasonable arguments can be made for either belief. But I'm apparantly stupid, just like all other 'creationists', so just keep thinking like you do. It's virtually impossible to have an intelligent, civil discussion with people who think of themselves or their group to be superior. |
None of these arguments are crediable, and while you're correct that there will never be enough proof for the diehards on either side you are actually incorrect if you think that only a "God" could have documented the events. In fact with our recent replacement of the hubble telescope with the JWST we are recieving information and data about periods of time only a few hundred million years after the big bang, a period of time before even our sun was formed. With better equipment it is not only possible, but likely, that in the future we will be getting similar data from only a few million years after and potentially even within a few years with good enough equipment.
Stay tuned, things will get exciting!
 |
| To Each Man, Responsibility |
