Judge Rules Against Intelligent Design

[julianw]

a lot of the stuff they said made me really frustrated because they supposedly represent the same God i do.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Actually I disagree with that statement. These quotes certainly do not represent the same God you believe in and these people are not good representatives for Christianity either. Trust me, Christ will probably be 10 times more ashamed of them Himself.

Edited December 22, 2005 by julianw

[Marka Ragnos]

and if black holes exist, how did they get away from eachother to start with? if they were created later, what the heck could create that and get away from the other thing that could create another one of that?

 

i don't know anything about this, but i am just trying to ask common sense questions that haven't been explained to me about this theory.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

black holes are stars that collapsed in on themselves and became so dense they turned into black holes or somesuch.

[Judge Hades]

Those are the types of Christians I have dealt with here in Iowa. They are why I have such a dislike for Christians.

[Dark Moth]

You know, I seem to have this uncanny ability to be gone every time someone posts a religious thread.

 

So, I guess our plans for world domination will have to be postponed?

Edited December 23, 2005 by Mothman

[random evil guy]

Intelligent design is pseudoscience. Therefore, it shouldn't be taught at the same level as true science.

 

The need for a legal ruling is flabbergasting, though.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

you're right, but considering the current situation a ruling was needed. i read some of the verdict and it is pretty good reading. the judge tore the creationists a new one.... such fun!

:D

Edited December 23, 2005 by random evil guy

[tarna]

but why would the gravity of the whole universe in one spot have any potential energy shooting away from it? Would it not just be pulling itself into itself into an infinitismal singularity that nothing would escape, similar to a black hole? the whole universe' mass i am talking about, in one spot. dang, that is sooooooo much gravity. potential energy? isn't it all being shot into the singularity?

 

so this explosion of the universe would have to be strong enough to escape the whole universe' gravity.

 

why would it do that?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Quantum disruption. A mass compresses enough that it's own atomic bonds are stripped of it's valence shells ( electron orbits ). The mass compresses even further. At some point even the building blocks of matter have had enough and you get disruption. Matter converts to energy per the Law of Conservation and Matter and Energy. Mass becomes energy ( similar to an atomic explosion where only about 1/2%-1% of mass converts to energy blasting the remaining mass away quickly enough that it escapes conversion ) blasting the remaining, unconverted mass outward. Since the mass is no longer 'critical' but does have momentum, it travels outward untill momentum is depleted and the matter then begins to condense into recognizable matter again. Quasars throw out huge amounts on energy and some matter but the particles must slow down before they can become recognizable matter again.

 

Alright you physics majors...that was off the cuff. Did I get it right?

[WITHTEETH]

I believe the universe kernal had to give way, and the only reason it took so long to finally explode was because the Higgs field was on top of a plataue supercooled, when it finally fell..... BANG!

 

How can something become supercooled? If you purify water then it finally freezes at a lower temperature.

Edited December 23, 2005 by WITHTEETH

[tarna]

How can something become supercooled? If you purify water then it finally freezes at a lower temperature.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Energy converts to mass under the gravitational field of such a mass?

No energy=zero enthalpy=abs zero

[213374U]

Quantum disruption. A mass compresses enough that it's own atomic bonds are stripped of it's valence shells ( electron orbits ). The mass compresses even further. At some point even the building blocks of matter have had enough and you get disruption. Matter converts to energy per the Law of Conservation and Matter and Energy. Mass becomes energy ( similar to an atomic explosion where only about 1/2%-1% of mass converts to energy blasting the remaining mass away quickly enough that it escapes conversion ) blasting the remaining, unconverted mass outward. Since the mass is no longer 'critical' but does have momentum, it travels outward untill momentum is depleted and the matter then begins to condense into recognizable matter again. Quasars throw out huge amounts on energy and some matter but the particles must slow down before they can become recognizable matter again.

 

Alright you physics majors...that was off the cuff. Did I get it right?

As far as I know, that's applying the current laws of physics to a reality in which those laws might not hold true. For starters, it's space-time itself that's expanding, not just matter.

Not only that, but the Big Bang theory also predicts that in the early moments of the Universe, a lot of weird stuff is going on (matter/antimatter proportions, spatial geometry...), which requires a lot of fine-tuning to explain and fit into the theory.

 

Fine-tuning is usually the mark of sloppy scientific work, but given the fact that we don't even have a unification theory, I'd say this is normal.

However, I'd say it's still a bit early to take the Big Bang as gospel, forgive the bad pun.

[WITHTEETH]

How can something become supercooled? If you purify water then it finally freezes at a lower temperature.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Energy converts to mass under the gravitational field of such a mass?

No energy=zero enthalpy=abs zero

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

 

Whats abs stand for?

[tarna]

No energy=zero enthalpy=abs zero

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Whats abs stand for?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Sorry about that. I use absolute values in some of my calculations and don't always pay attention to what I'm writing.

 

Absolute zero=0 deg R=0 deg K=-460 deg F ( I don't remember the celsius equivelent )

[Calax]

also going to toss this in... The Black holes are not permanent... over time their mass/gravitational effects start to wane and eventually it just becomes another piece of space.

[Judge Hades]

Zero degree kelvin is equal to -273.15 degree Celsius.

Zero degree kelvin is equal to -459.67 degree Fahrenheit.

Zero degree kelvin is equal to -218.52 degree Reaumur.

Zero degree kelvin is equal to 0 degree Rankine.

[Reveilled]

Complaining about the Big Bang being inaccurate as a point in the favour of creationism seems rather ironic to me, considering that some atheist scientists rejected it on the basis that it required there to exist a creator for a universe that was at come point created.

 

To further add to the irony, the most prominent (atheist) cosmologist who denied the Big Bang theory, Fred Hoyle, was the one to coin the common creationist argument that the "chances that life just occurred are about as unlikely as a typhoon blowing through a junkyard and constructing a Boeing-747", yet was actually arguing that this proved that life originated in space and arrived here on comets before beginning the process of evolution!

 

 

Oh, and zero degrees Kelvin is just the average temperature on a winter's day in Glasgow, where Lord Kelvin lived. That it also equals absolute zero is purely coincidental.

Edited December 23, 2005 by Reveilled

[moreKOTORplz]

How can something become supercooled? If you purify water then it finally freezes at a lower temperature.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Energy converts to mass under the gravitational field of such a mass?

No energy=zero enthalpy=abs zero

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

no kinetic energy correct? zero movement of particles

[Vashanti]

Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster

 

[moreKOTORplz]

ahhh i miss the old avatar vash

 

those poor kansas kids

[WITHTEETH]

Complaining about the Big Bang being inaccurate as a point in the favour of creationism seems rather ironic to me, considering that some atheist scientists rejected it on the basis that it required there to exist a creator for a universe that was at come point created.

 

To further add to the irony, the most prominent (atheist) cosmologist who denied the Big Bang theory, Fred Hoyle, was the one to coin the common creationist argument that the "chances that life just occurred are about as unlikely as a typhoon blowing through a junkyard and constructing a Boeing-747", yet was actually arguing that this proved that life originated in space and arrived here on comets before beginning the process of evolution!

 

 

Oh, and zero degrees Kelvin is just the average temperature on a winter's day in Glasgow, where Lord Kelvin lived.  That it also equals absolute zero is purely coincidental.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Bahumbug, Fred hoyle is a Physicst so everyone knows hes smarter then the rest of the science community! Fred Hoyle knew nothing about DNA or the genome sequence. A physicist now couldn't budge a biologist, the attack would have to come within the biology community.

[tarna]

No energy=zero enthalpy=abs zero

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

no kinetic energy correct? zero movement of particles

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Without energy, no movement or any chemical reaction is possible. At absolute zero there is no energy ( enthalpy ) what-so-ever. Even electrons stop orbiting their nucleus.

[Blank]

Oh, and zero degrees Kelvin...

Zero degree kelvin is equal to...

ha, you hotshots thinking you know everything. i know something that you don't know:

[quote name='Copyright

Edited December 24, 2005 by Blank

[Judge Hades]

Close enough for hand grenades.

[Cantousent]

Ahh, the precise art of hand grenades!

[SteveThaiBinh]

Can anyone link me to a pro-Intelligent Design webpage that sets the 'theory' out clearly for the uninitiated? I've heard a lot of talk about it, without really getting down to what it actually is.

[Reveilled]

Can anyone link me to a pro-Intelligent Design webpage that sets the 'theory' out clearly for the uninitiated?  I've heard a lot of talk about it, without really getting down to what it actually is.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

I'm afraid I don't have a link, but the basic idea is that the universe is so complex that it would have to have a designer. At the most basic level, then, it actually says nothing about how the universe was created or how complex life came into being, and so is perfectly compatible with modern scientific thought on these issues.

 

However, it's never quite so simple as all that. What was originally a theological argument, was adapted by Creationists to form an anti-scientific argument, and the original idea which posited a non-descript creator creating through what was probably the processes the scientific community agrees on was replaced by a very specific literalist interpretation of the Christian creation story.

 

What I do have is a link to some of the arguments made for intelligent design. Here. Someone else might have a better link that explains it.

[SteveThaiBinh]

What I do have is a link to some of the arguments made for intelligent design.  Here.  Someone else might have a better link that explains it.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Bless them, they think I'm an idiot. Thanks, Reveilled, that was a pretty good (if unpersuasive) introduction. It seems to be rooted entirely in the idea that complex things must have designers. Anyone who's played around with LifeGenesis can easily understand that complexity can indeed arise from very simple beginnings. Does anyone know of a working web-based version of LifeGenesis, by the way?

 

I think I'll save my concern for the Vardy Foundation for the moment.