I suppose this is as good a place to put this.

As some of you know, I believe in Intelligent Design. I find that the universe is too ordered and coincidental at times to have been created by accident or by random chance. However, this does not mean I'm religious. I don't think God created the universe, I merely think that something must have designed it.

Of course, this has gotten me called a Creationist by many a person, which is pure poppycock, as I am no religious nutjob. Creationism holds that God created the universe in six 24-hour periods roughly six thousand years ago. It's commonly known as the "Young Earth Theory". Intelligent Design, however, holds that some greater being (possibly from outside our universe/dimension) designed and then implemented the universe. No God. No Creation story. The universe was created immediately following the Big Bang ten billion years ago. ID theory also leaves room for evolution. ID and evolution are not mutually exclusive, contrary to what some closed-minded scientists will tell you.

Now, I pose this question to the scientific folks out there: why is Intelligent Design so unscientific? I've been told many times that because I believe that something designed the universe, I have no drive to discover anything new about the universe. More bullsh*t. As I said earlier, I'm not a Creationist. I'm not content to say, "Oh, I don't need to know about the state of the universe. I have God!" or any other nonsense. Instead, I am on a mission to learn all I can about the universe so I can either prove or disprove my theory. Science, if you'll note, is all about that. ID currently has little proof to distinguish it from Creationism (unfortunately), so I will try to find that proof. Unscientific indeed...

Ironically, I've also been labeled an atheist by many Creationists because I don't include God in my version of ID theory. It seems that ID is derided for being both too religious (by the scientists) and too scientific (by the religious). Funny how that works out, eh?

I see why risk does not like him (rugar)

quote:

You have lost me. Confused
I've never heard of such.
Does that me that it doesn't exist?

Wait...let me try to follow that odd logic. You don't know about something, therefore it doesn't exist. Do you know what gravity is? Thermodynamics? Relativity? If you don't, does that mean they too don't exist? If so, why do the laws they represent still hold? Why, it must mean that they do exist, despite your ignorance of them! What a concept!

Intelligent Design
You have lost me.
I've never heard of such.
Does that me that it doesn't exist?

quote:

Just to poke in mass in a blackhole's case is not physical mass even though they are very large they are mainly talking bout gravity style physics. so the gravitational mass of a black hole is much stronger then say our suns gravitational mass.

Hmm. Forgot about that. I'm 'tarded.

quote:

some sort of extradimensional being who likes to play with space-time, or something equally out there.

sounds good to me and likely we just gave something out there a label and worshipped it that does not nesscarily mean something omni whatever it could just appear that way to our understanding

quote:

Or that God is nothing itself and is on a different plane altogether?

Thats one of the theorys I've heard and liked and I find that plausible and most people would as well if they thought about it we are mearly human and as such must try to understand God or whatever you call it on our level when really no matter how God created the universe wether with thought or divine will or a big pool cue he created a FREAKIN UNIVERSE!!! there is no way we can ever full understand that type of sheer incredible power not to mention the force, person whatever that controls it! I mean it's not a matter of God being a dimensonal flight of stairs above us but he is working in the sub-basment from the penthouse suite of the dimensional universe.

quote:

Or that God is nothing itself and is on a different plane altogether? I find the latter most believable.

I do too, actually. I find the best explanation for the creation of the universe from almost nothing at all to be some sort of extradimensional being who likes to play with space-time, or something equally out there. Or I may just be insane.

quote:

God created the universe and science is how he lets us under stand what he did.

But this is where I'm stuck already. THough clpo said that the question is not how God got there, I believe it is. If God is the "Unmoving Mover," then are you saying that the creator is a constant even in nothingness? Or that God is nothing itself and is on a different plane altogether? I find the latter most believable.

quote:

The real truth is more complex everyone talks as if only one theory can possibly be true but really they can (mostly)all be true for example evolution is not proof of the lack of God or an intelligent designer seen propelry evolution is the tool of that higher power.

You are correct in saying that the theory of evolution neither proves or disproves the existance of a God, but the beginnings of evolution if you accept that a God was involved is as complicated as accepting the Big Bang theory, with or without a God.

One can believe in a higher power without believing he/she kick-started the universe, can they not?

Just to poke in mass in a blackhole's case is not physical mass even though they are very large they are mainly talking bout gravity style physics. so the gravitational mass of a black hole is much stronger then say our suns gravitational mass.

Now Some one respond to my last post and give me a good argument!

quote:

You came to the Twin Cities on a trip, are you at school here?

Nope. Still in North Dakota.

Started from west of Bismarck. That will tell you about how long a trip it was. Fortunately, we were given a charter bus to rest our longsuffering behinds in (softer, slightly reclining seats).

Oh, yeah... If any member of your local school faculty says to tell them about absences in advance, do so. Just a bit of advice.(I didn't keep track of how far away on the calendar the trip was, and I got a nice pretty Faberge goose egg on an exam.

And, back to post responses...

quote:

Just for your info, the mass of an average black hole is millions of times the mass of our sun.

I was going to type something else, but it occurred to me that... Aren't most black holes said to form from one star collapsing? Would it still have millions of times more mass or would it have millions of times more density? (I'm making assumptions here, btw, so tell me if I am wrong.)

quote:

went there on a school field trip - from this officially small college to an officially equal-sized-to-my college to an event sponsored by the actual Nobel people!)

You came to the Twin Cities on a trip, are you at school here?

quote:

But the thing, amp, is that we don't have evidence for a God that put the universe into motion or just some other scientific explanation. But then, where did the God come from? What set him/her into motion?

Okay hers the awnser to the above the name that aquinas gave to God in his theory explains it he called what we call God the "unmoving mover" in other words he described God as a force that acted upon an object, setting it in ot motion with out actually being in motion. thus the "unmoving mover".

Now some bonus material the reason that ID is squashed on by both sides it it dosen't ascribe to a tradtional "God" and is attacked by the scicom is squashs it is that it subscribes to a higher power at all. The thing neither side is willing to admit is that God and Science are not exclusive this is the way I see it. God created the universe and science is how he lets us under stand what he did. Now most of the people who hate science as an enemy of God are people I personally hate because all though they are christian they use God to blind themselves to the wonders and mystery that is the universe. We call these people fundamentalists as they wont except any thing beyond the written word of the bible as possible being true. The real truth is more complex everyone talks as if only one theory can possibly be true but really they can (mostly)all be true for example evolution is not proof of the lack of God or an intelligent designer seen propelry evolution is the tool of that higher power.

okay I'm done for now.

Nice to know that I don't know ****. Don't assume. It's unbecoming.

Read my ****ing words

did i say i was smarter?

did i say i knew more physics?

NO


I just said you dont know ****.....

I dont know **** either....but i know enough **** to know it is fruitless debating quantum field theory or something like the thoery of everything

I dont know modern physics...im still learning mechanics...im also not a college professor...and i certainly dont try to talk like one


last i checked this was a debate about id......id is not a science, but if it were i suppose it would stay within the realm of biology



you cant jump into physics without doing ur time in the trenches....pseudo philosiphers never find the answers, they just nod and say "hmm yes"

AMF, you're as bad as FML with all this "I'm smarter than you so don't talk," sh*t. Seriously, cut it out. You obviously have nothing to add to the discussion so let us talk about our "physics" in peace.

And I apologize for not mastering classical physics. I've only been taking AP Physics now for a few weeks (my first physics-related course). What'd you expect? We're teens, not college professors.

You can't debate this level of physics without including some seriously rocky math....I am not seeing any equations of any sort.

Do you understand that to debate modern physics and cosmology, you must first master classical physics?

relaying the user friendly writings of Steven Hawkings's popular books is not discussing physics.

Sorry, FML, but who am I going to believe, you or a Nobel Prize-winning Physicist? (went there on a school field trip - from this officially small college to an officially equal-sized-to-my college to an event sponsored by the actual Nobel people!)

But, since I don't remember who it was from there who said it, I'll send you to just about the next best thing.

quote:

While a great deal is known about the properties of gravity, the ultimate cause of the gravitational force remains an open question. General relativity is the most successful theory of gravitation to date. [...] Steven Weinberg noted that we would still build a suspension bridge to modern gravity theory with Newton's laws. Newton's theory is much simpler than general relativity, and used very often, so it is usually taught first.

Darn. I feel evil now...

quote:

Sorry for being off-topic, but the Law of Gravity is considered a theory.

AAAHHHHH. It is not! It is a law. Theory of relativity, law of gravity. Understand! Take a frickin science class.

faith is more than "proof" to me but thats off the topic, so i guess it should be dropped now.

That is a big problem you run into when you say infinite in regards to time. If time had a beginning, it must have an end. I don't know too much about the subject, though. Stephen Hawking's book can only go so far.