So please answer the question. What would it take to satisfy "scientific" proof, apart from meeting the Designer or finding plans that predated (LMAO, again) the Universe? Seriously, show me the test that is required to falsify the assertion that the Universe is a product of design and not non design... Simply saying "we can't see a Designer" or "we don't see the plans that existed prior to life coming into being" is hardly a scientific rebuttal. No one argues that the laws of nature themselves are an evolving situation, quite the contrary. The entire concept of non ID is based upon and founded upon the assumption of an unchanging condition of the laws and tendencies observed in nature. The essential "nature" of life itself is based on principles that life itself doesn't change, it evolves into different forms of the same essential life force. All living beings have some things in common, i.e. they are born, they live, they die, and they attempt to survive along the way. They adapt to the best of their ability to survive. So there is a fundamental notion of something at work that is eternal and unchanging that is the foundation of life. So we have "eternal" laws of nature (I say eternal because I have seen no proof that they came into being from non being, or that there was a condition prior to their existence in which laws of nature did not exist) and we have everything else, which includes both living and non living things. We have matter, we have energy, and we have these "forces" that give shape to the movement in a pretty darn predictable manner. Except this concept of "random spontaneous change for no reason" which can't be predicted as to when it will happen, if it will happen, but is underlying the entire concept of non ID. So where did all of this come from? These eternal (meaning they exist forever within time) aspects of the universe just popped out of nowhere, by no known force that "popped them out" of nothing? That really is magic... The non ID crowd believes in magic, obviously...
Who or what designed the force of this "random" natural behavior? Turtles of nothingness all the way down... An infinite regression of nothingness, how very stuey...
yip1997 said: Who is trying to prove ID? ID is an inference. The best a design proponent can do is find data that strengthens the design inference and use it to guide scientific research. The only thing that would prove design to the critics is seeing the designer designing.
ZTroll: < ... computer generated table of random numbers? If you know a whit about computer programming, you'll know that the above is a absolute oxymoron. computer generated random numbers always come from a seed and are never truly random. JB
That really is magic... That is why it attracts so many of us including believers, non-believers to try to understand that magic. When we don't understand the underlying principle, it is magic. Once we understand how it can be done, it becomes laws of nature.
Randomness in nature might not be random. When we don't understand the underlying principle, it appears random to us. Once we discover the law, it becomes the nature. A sequence of a "random" number appears random to me. However once I discover it is generated by my computer code, it is not. A time series of stock price looks pure random to someone, but appears predictable to some traders. So when I said "designed randomness", I meant to design a behavior that appears random, but not truly random. That is why i call the designer intelligent.
What is computer programming? Gee, I don't know anything about that. Really I don't. Really, truly. You are so smart to know about computer programming, to know that random number tables are generated by computers and are therefore not producing something that is actually random. Could have fooled me. Again, you are so smart, living such a full life, observing nature and knowing that the actions of nature are not following the programming of some formula that appears to generate random events, a formula that you know for a fact was not designed with a purpose to generate the appearance of randomness. You are just so damn smart, really, you know I mean that... Since you can't perceive events and can't find any relationship of the events then we have enough to know with complete scientific certainty that the events are indeed purely random and disconnected from the overall universe itself that does appear non random. After all, you are like that guy in the Dos Equis Cerveza commercial when it comes to this stuff, you speak, and scientific truth follows. You are the most interesting man in the world! Maybe you are that guy in that commercial: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8Bc0WjTT0Ps Who needs scientific thought, schools, common sense, etc. when we have you to tell us what computer programming of random numbers are? All this time, I thought those random number tables just appeared randomly from thin air, boy was I wrong. I nominate you to host your own TV show, the new Mr. Wizard for our age, who can take on the mysterious subjects like random numbers and what is computer programming to explain these things to the common people. Next, you can explain to the work what the word oxymoron means. The way you explained random numbers, well, just genius. They came from a seed, just like a tree comes from a seed? Wow, I did not know that. So Johnny Appleseed never planted a seed randomly, fascinating. He planned to just throw them here and there with no plan at all, but that was his plan!. He wanted to give the appearance of random trees growing to fool people into thinking that the trees grew naturally in the wild without human intervention. He too was a genius, like those computer programmers, fooling the mortal souls along the way. Hats off to you for the most brilliant post ever. I keep thinking you can't come up with anything greater than all the other posts, but this one, by far the greatest ever from the greatest and smartest and best-est ET member ever, ever, ever, ever, ever...