Jump to content


Photo

Evidence Of Intelligent Design... Here!


  • This topic is locked This topic is locked
9 replies to this topic

#1 usafjay1976

usafjay1976

    Member

  • Moderator Team
  • PipPipPip
  • 345 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:New Jersey
  • Interests:Religion, Creation, Air Force, Traveling, Cooking, Movies
  • Age: 37
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • New Jersey

Posted 15 October 2012 - 02:08 AM

Taken from: http://kgov.com/lawr...s-a-creationist


The finely tuned parameters of the universe include:
- the electron to proton ratio with a standard deviation of 1 in 10 to the 37th
- the electron to proton mass ration
- the gravitational force constant
- the electromagnetic force constant
- the electromagnetic force in the right ratio to the nuclear force, and
- the ratio of the number of electrons to protons, etc.
So it is claimed that the Anthropic Principle answers why the extraordinarily unlikely precise values of these ratios exist, including the one in 10,000 decillion odds against us having a virtually perfect one-to-one electron-to-proton ratio. And for human life on Earth to exist, additional finely tuned parameters include:
- the delicately balanced quantum forces that stabilize the water molecule
- the Earth's nearly circular orbit
- the Earth-moon relationship
- the just-right ozone layer
- the Earth's spin rate
- the water cycle
- the atmospheric pressure
- our (rapidly decaying) magnetic field (decaying nearly as quickly as Mercury's)
- the liquid water that exists because the Earth is just the right distance from the Sun, etc.

My thoughts below:

The above are fine examples of Intelligent Design... Creation, a Creator, God.

How would the above examples evolve and just 'know' they had to be just where they are at in order for life to exist?

Your thoughts? By all means, add to the list as I am sure there are many, many more examples of our Creator's marvelous creation.

#2 MarkForbes

MarkForbes

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1031 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:South Africa
  • Age: 35
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Waverley

Posted 15 October 2012 - 02:07 PM

I'd say these are examples of the anthropic principle. Some of them may be examples of intelligent design. One would have to rule out that they cam be explained as just "coincidences" .
The interesting side is of course that these parameters are in an optimized relationship to each other making human life possible.

#3 usafjay1976

usafjay1976

    Member

  • Moderator Team
  • PipPipPip
  • 345 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:New Jersey
  • Interests:Religion, Creation, Air Force, Traveling, Cooking, Movies
  • Age: 37
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • New Jersey

Posted 15 October 2012 - 03:25 PM

Funny you should bring up the anthropic principle as this is mentioned in the link in post 1. It short, it states:

"But atheists are content to say that the Anthropic Principle explains all this, which is as satisfying, as Bob said to Lawrence, as a doctor saying, "The reason that your father is deaf is because he can't hear." In Krauss Part II he contradicts himself within ten seconds, claiming at six minutes into that half of the program that, "Scientists don't argue on credentials" whereas only ten seconds earlier he asked, "What department?" as a way of discrediting the hundreds of scientists who point out that much evidence that contradicts the Big Bang. Att 18 minutes into today's program, Krauss agrees: "There are many physicists who argue that the parameters of our universe are difficult to comprehend and many who predict the existence of many universes... We only exist in the universe with the parameters that allow life."

#4 MarkForbes

MarkForbes

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1031 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:South Africa
  • Age: 35
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Waverley

Posted 15 October 2012 - 03:50 PM

I just think one needs to distinguish the anthropic principle from something that has the appearance or even provable properties of design.
To me it's defined as follows:
- Anthropic principle: Settings that are optimum for human existence
- appearance of design: purposeful complex systems.
- properties of design, when it can be shown that this can not be the result of lined up coincidences or of natural law.

#5 agnophilo123

agnophilo123

    Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 206 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 26
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Ohio

Posted 12 November 2012 - 07:46 AM

If every planet were the same size, every star were the same type, every planet had the same number of moons that were the same distance away etc etc, you might be onto something. But if every planet is different, every solar system is different in a seemingly random configuration and only one that we know of support life - that's not design to me, that's a lottery.

If god designed the solar system for life, why on over 300 planets, planetoids and moons does only one planet support life? I mean I get the need for outer planets like jupiter to maybe pull meteors away from us or maintain the disk shape of the solar system so planets don't crash into each other, but shouldn't mars and venus (the two roughly "earth-like" planets) support life? Or if not, why do they even exist?

#6 gilbo12345

gilbo12345

    Honorable Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 5799 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Completed BBiotech (Honours)

    Currently studying Masters of Teaching.

    Enjoys games of tactics and strategy.
  • Age: 25
  • (private)
  • Creationist
  • Australia

Posted 12 November 2012 - 08:36 AM

1. If every planet were the same size, every star were the same type, every planet had the same number of moons that were the same distance away etc etc, you might be onto something. But if every planet is different, every solar system is different in a seemingly random configuration and only one that we know of support life - that's not design to me, that's a lottery.

2. If god designed the solar system for life, why on over 300 planets, planetoids and moons does only one planet support life? I mean I get the need for outer planets like jupiter to maybe pull meteors away from us or maintain the disk shape of the solar system so planets don't crash into each other, but shouldn't mars and venus (the two roughly "earth-like" planets) support life? Or if not, why do they even exist?


1. This is your own opinion, you are entitled to it, however please don't think that opinions are valid debate topics / responses.

2. Asking for why or how God thinks is an absurd question, we cannot possibly hope to know the mind of God so why even ask such a thing?

#7 agnophilo123

agnophilo123

    Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 206 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 26
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Ohio

Posted 12 November 2012 - 07:30 PM

1. This is your own opinion, you are entitled to it, however please don't think that opinions are valid debate topics / responses.

2. Asking for why or how God thinks is an absurd question, we cannot possibly hope to know the mind of God so why even ask such a thing?

Please act like the OP is a jerk for giving his opinion and reasoning now. And every other creationist on this forum.

This is a discussion forum, it's a place set aside on the internet specifically for opinions and discussion. If you don't like that, log off.

And if we can't possibly hope to know the mind of god, why pretend to know what is and isn't evidence of god's handiwork? Doesn't it go both ways? You seem to want to dismiss anything I say as the feeble thoughts of a mere mortal while embracing any pro-creationist argument as proof of the divine. It's a double standard.

#8 gilbo12345

gilbo12345

    Honorable Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 5799 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Completed BBiotech (Honours)

    Currently studying Masters of Teaching.

    Enjoys games of tactics and strategy.
  • Age: 25
  • (private)
  • Creationist
  • Australia

Posted 13 November 2012 - 12:10 AM

Please act like the OP is a jerk for giving his opinion and reasoning now. And every other creationist on this forum.

This is a discussion forum, it's a place set aside on the internet specifically for opinions and discussion. If you don't like that, log off.

And if we can't possibly hope to know the mind of god, why pretend to know what is and isn't evidence of god's handiwork? Doesn't it go both ways? You seem to want to dismiss anything I say as the feeble thoughts of a mere mortal while embracing any pro-creationist argument as proof of the divine. It's a double standard.


Your first point was 100% speculation, as I said you are entitled to such however you cannot then claim your speculations as evidence of anything, only your speculations....

Usafijay gave known finely tuned laws / constants however then gave the disclaimer that the following was his own thoughts... Your "rebutal" had no such disclaimer, it looked as if you were pitting your speculation as a rebuttal, speculation cannot rebutt anything.

As I said you are entitled to your opinions and please feel free to share them, however don't feel that by stating your opinion that automatically rebutts anything, (we have had many evolutionists here in the past with this mentality, whereby whatever they said was "golden" in that they needed no evidence or anything, if they said it it was truth)

#9 agnophilo123

agnophilo123

    Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 206 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 26
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Ohio

Posted 13 November 2012 - 02:00 PM

Your first point was 100% speculation, as I said you are entitled to such however you cannot then claim your speculations as evidence of anything, only your speculations....

Usafijay gave known finely tuned laws / constants however then gave the disclaimer that the following was his own thoughts... Your "rebutal" had no such disclaimer, it looked as if you were pitting your speculation as a rebuttal, speculation cannot rebutt anything.

As I said you are entitled to your opinions and please feel free to share them, however don't feel that by stating your opinion that automatically rebutts anything, (we have had many evolutionists here in the past with this mentality, whereby whatever they said was "golden" in that they needed no evidence or anything, if they said it it was truth)

I'd feel a lot more welcome to share my opinion if I weren't the only one here being repremanded for merely giving an opinion. And I did state it as an opinion, and my argument also included facts.

#10 gilbo12345

gilbo12345

    Honorable Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 5799 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Completed BBiotech (Honours)

    Currently studying Masters of Teaching.

    Enjoys games of tactics and strategy.
  • Age: 25
  • (private)
  • Creationist
  • Australia

Posted 13 November 2012 - 03:00 PM

I'd feel a lot more welcome to share my opinion if I weren't the only one here being repremanded for merely giving an opinion. And I did state it as an opinion, and my argument also included facts.



Fair enough




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users