I think you miss the point. It is one thing to say I believe that God, the Father, and God the Son existed before the start of time and they created the universe. I can base this belief on quotes from the new testament and old. However I can't expert someone who does not read the bible the way I do to think I have offerend them any proof. However, to examine the cosmological constant or other constants and say wow that force is amazingly fine tuned to allow life. If it were slightly more or less powerful the universe would have blown apart of collapsed. I wonder what the odds of that force falling just within these fined tuned parameters is. It is over 100s of billions to one. Is there any chance the universe hit those parameters randomly. Scientists from hawking to susskind say without some other physical explanation the answer is no it can not be randomly the odds are way to slim. So now we are seeing science create unprovable theories to to combat the design inference. Mind you that is not proof of the divinity of Jesus Christ or God and who knows maybe someday they will prove a second universe or even billions but for now I am quite content knowing top scientists have to consider design as a possible reason for our existence.
What point am I missing? So far as I can tell...your point, if there is one...is not clear. You can't expert someone???? You lost me on that. And...I have to read the bible the way you do? How do you read the bible, if you read it? You offered proof? Where? First...the cosmological constant you refer to...who or what made that constant, constant? You have completely lost me with this because frankly...it's not clear what side you're on here. If it? Who or what is the "it" you refer to? And what fine tuned parameters are you talking about, because what you said sounded like jibberish to me. It made no sense. Help me figure it out. Please. And I like how the scientists you are so eager to quote, say without this (theory) ______ parameters, there's no other explanation. This means then that just because they can't explain it, their current hypothesis must be correct? Are you kidding? Surely if you follow the "scientists" as much as you seem to profess here, you'd know that their theories change like the direction of the wind. Theories they had years ago have been altered and adjusted according to "new data" and is everchanging and "evolving". Yet you choose to believe in something so obviously fallable by their own admissions via the constant change in their theories, and constant statements like: "without some other physical explanation..." Recognize...it's all a belief system. You choose, apparently, to hold to the theology of imperfect man as self sufficient, because dependancy is a scary thing for most people. Your theory and belief then, is that everything is a cosmic accident in which you have no control, and if you feel secure in that, more power to you. I'd rather recognize and be linked to the One who is actually in control, because then I know that my life is directed, versus a random series of cosmic accidents as I stumble blindly along. It's simple really.
I wasn't aware that alcohol consumption was permitted in Bradenton on Sundays. That's very good news for you, I'm sure. Edit: I just have to acknowledge your comment about quantum mechanics being used to send space ships into orbit around other planets. That's spectacularly funny! Either you are on your second 5th of Bushmills/Jameson, or you're 15 years old.
James Bond wrote: One of the possibilities for why something looks designed is that it may in fact be designed. There is no reason why the suspicion of design can't guide an investigation based on observations, logic, and testing.
... and when you do actually investigate observe, use logic and test, design looks exactly like evolution.
Excellent point. Let's try the gedanken: Suppose that today, Lenny Susskind walks into Fermilab and tells the engineers that he has developed a testable hypothesis for the creation of a new universe, which can be tested in the super collider. As part of the hypothesis, the collisions can be set up to theoretically determine the cosmological constant of the new universe in advance: if the constant is set too high the universe will expand and no coalescence of matter will take place; if the constant is set too low the universe will collapse back in on itself. But (as the baby bear said to the mommy and daddy bears), if the constant is set "just right," the new universe will evolve galaxies, stars, planets, fundamental elements similar to that of our own universe, and even biological life might eventually evolve under suitable conditions. There is just one little problem. While we can measure the moment of first existence and expansion of this new universe, we can never measure the interior, nor can anyone or anything on the interior of the new universe, ever measure anything external to it. This is because the new universe is created in a new space-time continuum, such that information from each respective universe can never reach the other. So, the engineers proceed with the experiment, and from everything that we are able to measure, Dr. Susskind's hypothesis is confirmed -- and so we "infer" that the new universe will evolve somewhat like our own -- and call the experiment a qualified success. Now, let's switch places and put ourselves INSIDE this new universe. What do we observe: 1. A big bang. 2. The evolution of galaxies, stars, planets, elements, life, us. 3. A cosmological constant which appears consistent with a small range of values which will permit life such as ours to eventually evolve and observe the cosmological constant as we measure it. 4. No evidence of design. So, in our experiment the universe is actually designed, but we only see evolution, because we simply cannot view what is beyond our universe's event horizon to prove otherwise. Scientifically, all we can observe is the result: an evolving universe which evolves us as a reasonable outcome of existence. And, here's where, if you're a design advocate, you shout, "EUREKA@! Thank you for proving that design is possible." My response is as follows: 1. So what? It is still no more nor less likely that what I have just described actually happened, because it is impossible to calculate the probability of this having actually happened, given the lack of knowledge about what actually preceded our own big bang. 2. In this little thought experiment, the "creator" is Dr. Leonard Susskind, not "God," and this begs the question of, "Where did the good doctor come from?" Are we merely the creation of the scientific experiment of an unknown number of previous mortal creators from other universes, all of whom owe their respective existence to some prime creator who has existed forever? Maybe so, but once again, so what? We can't prove it either way. Or, are we the product of the occasional increase in entropy which occurs in certain locales as a part of the natural turbulence which exists in any universe? Can't prove this, either. And, at some point, we may reasonably ask which is the simpler answer: (a) that somewhere and somewhen, there was an original creator who has existed eternally and who started the whole ball rolling from a point of maximum complexity, or (b) that universes have existed forever and the occasional turbulence which is inherent within a universe, occasionally evolves into a thinking being who is capable of observing the universe in which he/she/it exists? Everyone here gets to answer this question for him/herself. But, no one can prove either answer, scientifically, because we are not capable of conducting a verifiable experiment beyond the confines of our own event horizon. Should this situation ever change, then we can investigate scientifically. Until then, it's all just speculation. Some of it is very interesting and thoughtful speculation, which hypothesizes quantum field measurements that may (and, I emphasize, may) someday be able to push back the information event horizon to slightly before the moment of the big bang. But today it's just speculation -- not science -- and there is simply no scientific proof favoring any particular answer over another.
Stu wrote: But are we observing design by evolution or evolution by design? Evolution and design can co-exist. Things can be designed to evolve. Evolution can be designed. Evolution can be used by design.
But you can't prove design from observation. Whether or not it co-exists with evolution is irrelevant to science. To get back to the original topic, design = creation.
Not exactly. Better to say: Design = Made, as in, made up Whatever is made will pass away: The time, the space, the stars, the worlds. Whatever is Created remains forever, unchanged, unchangeable. Evolution is of design because it's about change, adaptation, learning. You will find a common design: to die. None of it truly makes any sense. Design is not made more real by the millions/billions of years it persists. Time is relative, and it will end. Space and time are the evidence of faith, "proof" of things not seen. When faith is withdrawn from them, they disappear. Then faith itself will disappear, having been part of the "design". The "designer" is the Son of God, asleep. All that has been proven is that the Son of God is capable of long, drawn out, detail oriented, persistent dreams. Relative to reality, it happened in an instant, was given a remedy, and is long gone. It is finished. Jesus
James Bond wrote: I never claimed design could be proved by observation. James Bond wrote: Anything that can be investigated via the scientific method is relevant to science.