Happy Birthday, Mr. Darwin!

deviantART: Bobbie-the-Jean's Journal: 50 Reasons I Reject Evolution

 

The Big Bang also states the universe was created from nothing, therefore created, therefore a kind of creationism...oh, now I see where you're going. Yes, based upon my findings (I did some research and discovered the Discovery Institutes role in that court case) I would side with the Justices of the Court.
That sort of ID is a zero.

 

Wow, thank you, Moxiequz for bringing your science into this debate.
Darwin wins, you are indeed from a monkey.

 

i understand where you're coming from, and i appreciate that you are trying to be rigorous. however, you can cite as many scientific pieces of literature as you like, and you can even have a science degree, but if your article is not peer reviewed it has not undergone the standard of scientific validity.

that's why, when i write a grant proposal, i submit my idea and any and all evidence FOR the idea that i can gather. does that mean i critically evaluate the two minor-journal papers i found that show data that disagree with my hypothesis? nope, i steer clear of them for purposes of my argument. now if i were to do the experiments i proposed and then submit that for review and publication, i should be called out by my reviewers and have to explain any of my data's discrepancies with the current body of literature. you see, these articles you post are not called out on this stuff. they can be as one-sided as they want, and as exclusionary as they need to be to argue their point. nobody has called them out on it- at least, not the biased websites that published them.

it's really a culture difference in what scientists accept from each other as valid vs what the public accepts as valid. i blame it on shoddy science reporting by the mainstream media and the fact that scientists don't interact with the public as often as we should.

just because we hold science degrees doesn't rid us of our biases, we're still regular people. we are just regular people who happen to be trained in the exercise of the scientific method and have knowledge of some subfield. and that's why proper experimental design (where applicable) and peer review processes are implemented in valid science applications. this isn't always the perfect system either, but it's the best thing we've managed so far.

i hope that explains why i'm not particularly convinced by the links you've posted

 

Oh Helio. You're so wrong. I'm not "from a monkey". I was actually intelligently designed by the Great Armadillo In The Sky. And a bang up job The Holy Armored One did too!

 

Galaxee,

Agreed again, though I feel you're pushing me through a pin hole. It is true there are articles that just don't hold up under scrutiny and there are indeed poor articles written by good scientists. It would take a full-time endeavor for me to peer review all of those references, I can only read the articles and use scientific judgment in comparing them. And I too am at times subject to bias, no matter how hard I try.
I had proposed the challenge of any reader to post a scientific article refuting any reference I provided, and I also provide references to which I am unaware of the authors theistic beliefs. I am being as objective as I believe possible (isn't that subjective as well?).

Again, I appreciate the validity of your point, duly noted.

 

No, not 'nothing': a singularity. They're both just as hard to see, perhaps, but there's a world - no, a universe - of difference.

I once asked a computer at a tech school fair who god was. After excusing itself for some down time due to self-diagnostics, it replied 'the creator'. When I asked who the creator was, it said 'god is the creator.' Hmm. Points for consistency, at least. When I asked who its creator was, it said 'Andy Khoo.' Buzz Lightyear, the famous intergalactic traveller, also had 'Andy' written on his foot. God's name must be Andy.

 

Depends upon your definition of "nothing." You can say I was stretching it. Pun intended.:eyebrows:

Cosmic Singularity :
One thing is clear in our framing of questions such as `How did the Universe get started?' is that the Universe was self-creating. This is not a statement on a `cause' behind the origin of the Universe, nor is it a statement on a lack of purpose or destiny. It is simply a statement that the Universe was emergent, that the actual of the Universe probably derived from a indeterminate sea of potentiality that we call the quantum vacuum, whose properties may always remain beyond our understanding.
Extrapolation from the present to the moment of Creation implies an origin of infinite density and infinite temperature (all the Universe's mass and energy pushed to a point of zero volume). Such a point is called the cosmic singularity.
Dept. of Physics, Univ of Oregon.
From NASA:


The Question

(Submitted September 12, 2001) At the center of a black hole the singularity point has zero volume and infinite density. I know that the singularity is a point in space rather than an object with specific dimensions, but how is it possible for something to have zero volume and infinite density?

The Answer

This is indeed difficult to grasp. Actually at the center of a black hole spacetime has infinite curvature and matter is crushed to infinite density under the pull of infinite gravity. At a singularity, space and time cease to exist as we know them. The laws of physics as we know them break down at a singularity, so it's not really possible to envision something with infinite density and zero volume. You might check out the web site for further information on black holes and singularities:
Virtual Trips to Black Holes and Neutron Stars Page.

And if you're feeling really ambitious:
http://lambda.gsfc.nasa.gov/product/map/dr2/pub_papers/threeyear/parameters/wmap_3yr_param.pdf

Don't forget to view George Smoot's lectures I posted from YouTube.


One more, while I'm at it. This one is fun:

A. L. I. C. E. The Artificial Linguistic Internet Computer Entity - chatbot - chat bot - chatterbots - verbots - natural language - chatterbot - bot - chat robot - chat bots - AIML - take a Turing Test - Loebner Prize - Chatterbox Challenge - enterta

 

Darwin is god, pure and simple, he proved he understood how nature works, thus he is the closest any human has gotten to god.

 

Dude, you are right, His name is Andy!

[FONT=times new roman,helvetica]What is God's name?[/FONT]

A blonde got into heaven, and when she arrived at the Golden Gates, she was asked one question: "What is God's name?" She replied, "Andy."

"Andy? Why Andy?", she was asked.

She replied, "Oh, you know, 'Andy walks with me, Andy talks with me, Andy tells me I am his own.'

 

Galaxee,

I believe this site falls more into what you would find acceptable due to its peer review:
Biology Direct

One interesting article:
Biology Direct | Full text | The Biological Big Bang model for the major transitions in evolution

 

A good article to read, and fuel for the fodder. Unfortunately it is this very reason ID is mocked with hearty laughter. It's hard for ID proponents who subscribe to a Day-Age Interpretation of Genesis, or even just the belief in a supernatural creation, to overcome the stigma created by Young-Earth Creationists, no matter how good their intentions.

Young-Earth students go on 'creation vacations' - U.S. news- msnbc.com