18 Feb 17
5 edits
Originally posted by chaney3What difference would it make if I named one? So suppose I did. Then what? What would you do with it?
Are you willing to name a Phd who, through evidence of his work, sees design?
I don't personally know any such names of any of them anyway; probably because extremely few exist.
And why you disagree with his findings?
I haven't seen 'his' 'findings' but I presume it hasn't passed peer preview else we would definitely all have heard something about it as this would be sensational!
And if it hasn't passed peer preview, it probably is nonsense just like most things that fail peer preview,.
18 Feb 17
Originally posted by chaney3I'm still quite unclear what you mean exactly by "sees design." Of course there are patterns everywhere in nature. All sorts of patterns that look like a "design" of a kind. And no scientist is likely to work through a Rohrschach test with the reply "A blot of ink" to every card.
Are you willing to name a Phd who, through evidence of his work, sees design?
And why you disagree with his findings?
This is not about me, you guys will disagree with anyone who dare to see design.
18 Feb 17
Originally posted by SoothfastI am talking about a scientist who believes in a designer, through his work, that an accident of the cosmos could not be possible from his scientific view. Not just a mere pattern, nor his religious faith, if he has one, but just a certainty that from his specific field, that a designer must have been involved.
I'm still quite unclear what you mean exactly by "sees design." Of course there are patterns everywhere in nature. All sorts of patterns that look like a "design" of a kind. And no scientist is likely to work through a Rohrschach test with the reply "A blot of ink" to every card.
I will google, but thought the sheer brilliance in this forum would have been able to easily provide a scientist, and his reasons.
Denial is quite powerful here.
18 Feb 17
Originally posted by chaney3I almost thought I found one:
Are you willing to name a Phd who, through evidence of his work, sees design?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stephen_C._Meyer
However, while Meyer got a Bachelor's degree in physics, his PhD is in history and philosophy.
Here's one, though:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Behe
A biochemist. And good for him. It's not cosmology or particle physics, to be sure, but there you go. Behe's existence does not alter the debate here one way or the other: he's got his viewpoint, but it is in the minority and has not passed muster within the guidelines of the scientific method.
This is rather like the situation with climate-change deniers: out of the millions of scientists in the world, they'll cherry-pick among the tiny percent of scientists who think climate change isn't real, and most of them are scientists in fields only tangentially related to climatology.
The fact is if we all conclude that the universe was designed by an intelligence (you deviously drop the "I" word when referencing the theory of Intelligent Design), then there is no going forward. It's an untestable hypothesis. The notion of a god of any sort, by design, is vague and faith-based. A creator of natural laws that is not subject to natural laws is self-contradictory, and all arguments proposing such an entity amount to little beyond an exercise in reductio ad absurdum.
18 Feb 17
1 edit
Originally posted by chaney3It would be an act of extreme arrogance, even in the year 2017, to fancy that we've come far enough in our understanding of any area of scientific inquiry to proclaim, definitively, that an observed phenomenon can have no other explanation for its mechanism other than the invisible hand of an intelligent designer. We "god deniers" are often charged with being arrogant, or even of setting ourselves up as gods, when in reality what we are recognizing is that we don't know. We are humble. We recognize our limitations, and the limitation of our current understanding of the universe. Therefore when a biochemist, say, claims that something biochemical can only be explained by a Cosmic Mechanic hiding behind a curtain, I will certainly adopt a jaundiced view of that claim, and my hackles will go up. Prove it, pal! Or don't prove it, and instead put your nose back to the grindstone and try to find a natural answer to the puzzle.
I am talking about a scientist who believes in a designer, through his work, that an accident of the cosmos could not be possible from his scientific view. Not just a mere pattern, nor his religious faith, if he has one, but just a certainty that from his specific field, that a designer must have been involved.
Centuries ago all manners of physical phenomena, from thunder and lightning to the eruption of volcanoes, were attributed to gods by the educated priests, philosophers, and sundry authorities of the day. Then later it turned out that thunder and volcanoes could be fully explained by mundane causes after all. Oops. So, other than to help perpetuate the power of a priesthood, jumping to supernatural conclusions is of no use whatsoever, as anyone who had been sacrificed to a volcano would no doubt attest.
19 Feb 17
Originally posted by joe shmoYou can define a god into and out of the scheme of creation at will. If you define "God" to be the laws of physics, then presto, there's a God.
There may be a god...and there may not. If you are making a judgment either way about it, you assuredly are not using science to do so (at least properly)...that should be the end of the discussion.
19 Feb 17
Originally posted by joe shmoI have proven my point quite successfully, and was more than willing to let it be, because you guys will never budge anyway with your atheism, regardless of scientic proof.
There may be a god...and there may not. If you are making a judgment either way about it, you assuredly are not using science to do so (at least properly)...that should be the end of the discussion.
But, if you take notice near the bottom of page 36, both sonhouse and MarshallPrice seemed interested in hearing more from me. I am likely making progress with them?
Humy and twitehead are close as well, to seeing the light.
19 Feb 17
Originally posted by SoothfastYou don't know.
It would be an act of extreme arrogance, even in the year 2017, to fancy that we've come far enough in our understanding of any area of scientific inquiry to proclaim, definitively, that an observed phenomenon can have no other explanation for its mechanism other than the invisible hand of an intelligent designer. We "god deniers" are often charged ...[text shortened]... s is of no use whatsoever, as anyone who had been sacrificed to a volcano would no doubt attest.
You are humble.
Yet, you will always seek a 'natural answer', through science, to attempt an explanation, and never Intelligent Design.
I made a point earlier in this thread: if science does somehow prove design, that doesn't mean all labs must now be closed, and all microscopes dumped in the trash. Science can still go on, can still seek to understand.
19 Feb 17
Originally posted by chaney3There are two reasons for this: first, the scientific method is still working for scientists, with progress still being made toward unraveling mysteries of nature within the framework of natural laws; and second, to entertain Intelligent Design at this stage of scientific inquiry -- in any field -- would effect an end run around a large body of as-yet untried experimental researches that may ultimately invalidate any need for a designer. A designer is an extra moving part, above and beyond the usual physical laws (quite literally). Occam's Razor bids us to not complicate a theory with additional components until the simpler versions have been experimentally ruled out.
Yet, you will always seek a 'natural answer', through science, to attempt an explanation, and never Intelligent Design.
19 Feb 17
Originally posted by chaney3No credible scientist has ever approached me with claims that he can see design. No credible scientist has ever approached me and claimed that he has proof of God. No credible scientist has ever lied to my face, made stupid statements about eclipses, run away when challenged then lied about what I have said.
Because it's not just me you reject (with my drinking problem), but you reject any credible scientist as well.
No, its only you that I reject.
Originally posted by chaney3No, you haven't; you made no point let alone 'proven' it but merely continuously repeated the same obviously made-up moronic falsehoods and lies as if that makes them fact. Who are you trying to kid here?
I have proven my point quite successfully,.
And if you really believe that you have 'proven' something "quite successfully" then that is delusional arrogance to the extreme for not a single one of the scientists here has shown the slightest hint of being convinced by anything you said whatsoever and what you don't get is continuously repeated the same obviously completely made-up falsehoods and lies is not 'proof'.
You should also take heed we scientists don't take kindly to lies about what we say or believe and you will never get a positive response from us by doing so.
19 Feb 17
3 edits
Originally posted by chaney3Doubtless there are thousands of eclipses every year among the asteroid belt in which one asteroid casts a shadow across some other asteroid. There is nothing special about eclipses. The fact that things cast shadows on other things is no indication of intelligence at work in setting them up that way. It is the same phenomenon whether asteroids or the Earth and moon are involved.
The moon is in a perfect orbit of the earth with regards to its position.
The moon is not only the perfect size, but the perfect distance from the sun, to produce a perfect eclipse.
The odds of this being an accident of the universe are likely to be beyond calculation.
The size and postion of the moon and sun, relative to earth equals......Design.
19 Feb 17
Originally posted by moonbusYou are replying to the OP, very good. Through the course of this thread you will find I have made a substantial case for how remarkable an eclipse is, the positions of earth, sun and moon, the wonder of the human body, the magnetic shield, and uranium.
Doubtless there are thousands of eclipses every year among the asteroid belt in which one asteroid casts a shadow across some other asteroid. There is nothing special about eclipses. The fact that things cast shadows on other things is no indication of intelligence at work in setting them up that way. It is the same phenomenon whether asteroids or the Earth and moon are involved.
Design is behind it all
Thanks for your prompt reply. Please forgive me if I don't wade through the 38 pages of invective preceding.
The Earth casts a shadow all the time. Any object which passes through that shadow is in eclipse, including every bit of space dust and every gamma ray. There is nothing special or "perfect" about the moon's passage through that shadow. There would still be eclipses even if the moon were much farther away and fell outside the Earth's shadow, or if the sizes of the celestial bodies involved were very different; we just wouldn't see those other eclipses, and that is all.