Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Xenjin
Then whence came the big bang theory?
|
Georges Lemaître
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Xenjin
That's an assumption you've made. You don't know that nothing pre-existed the Big bang. If the big bang happened, then something caused it. Furthermore your argument is not quite logical. Time (as we understand it) is just a tool for our puny human brains to comprehend the passage of moments. Time is not a thing in and of itself. Therefore it does not functionally determine anything in the universe or anything before it.
|
no assumption - time is a requirement of pre-existence. measurments and calculations show that time would not exist.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Xenjin
Such is science - until it is inexorably proven wrong by some later discovery. This doesn't stop people from believing in it. Does it? Certainly not. So my argument still stands. You have faith in the evidence. But the evidence could be misinterpreted, couldn't it? Even you must admit that this happens in science all the time.
|
again, wrong. all claims in science must be supported by evidence, and be able to withstand peer review. otherwise, it is just a belief and not a theory or explanation. and no, i have no faith in anything. faith is a belief without, or in spite of, supprting evidence.
if the evidence is misinterpreted, sooner or later new evidence will show that - then we are free to change our ideas; but it will always be based on the evidence.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Xenjin
- Oh? 9 million hits in Google sez you're wrong.
|
google in no way is representative of the scientific community. to qualify as a theory, the model has to meet certain criteria. it must be well supported by evidence, be falsifiable, explain a natural phenomenon, make accurate testable predictions, be in accordance with all revelevant facts, be contradicted by none, and - in the event of being a replacement theory - be in accordance with the correspondence principle. intelligent design meets none of these criteria. quite frankly, it can't even fit into a scientific discipline.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Xenjin
- Not because you can prove it's wrong, but because you are compelled in your own mind to believe it is.
|
again wrong. every alledged instance of 'irreducible complexity' has been successfully demonstrated to be able to come from simpler systems
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Xenjin
- You're actually proving my point. Thanks.  |
only if your point is that blaming the supernatural is scientifically worthless
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Xenjin
- Now you're missing the point of this whole discussion. What if the positive evidence is being wrongly interpreted? You should note that one of the many fallacies in science was to assume that sequence implied causation. This has been disproven many, many times. So who's to say that our assumptions on what we think we know now is positive evidence? I still need an answer to my question. What if we're wrong?
|
if we're wrong, later evidence will discover it and we'll change our views. until then, an unsubstantiated idea that is not supported by any evidence is not a viable replacement. even if we're provent wrong, unsubstantiated ideas not supported with evidence will not make a viable replacement. so, back to my question - what evidence do you have to support intelligent design?