Intelligent Design is just the latest God of the Gaps idea.
I.D. is not empirical and cannot be tested from a scientific standpoint, so it's not good science, plus with the scientific method you use only what is physically available to you to explain something. In science you don't insert things that you don't need or have to completely make up in order to explain something.
Dec 5, 2013 2:46 PM CST Evolution VS God.Or can Evolution be part of Intelliegent Design?
CmdrMercutioRickmansworth, UK, Hertfordshire, England UK2 Threads139 Posts
CmdrMercutioRickmansworth, UK, Hertfordshire, England UK139 posts
memory_alpha: Intelligent Design is just the latest God of the Gaps idea.
I.D. is not empirical and cannot be tested from a scientific standpoint, so it's not good science, plus with the scientific method you use only what is physically available to you to explain something. In science you don't insert things that you don't need or have to completely make up in order to explain something.
Exactly. Intelligent Design is the invention of people who arent happy for people to believe or not believe as makes sense to them, but want to force the issue. Its fundamentally dishonest from a religious point of view as well as that of science.
tomcatwarneOcean City, Plumouth, Devon, England UK17,106 posts
(PhysOrg.com) -- By looking far out into space and observing what’s going on there, scientists have been led to theorize that it all started with a Big Bang, immediately followed by a brief period of super-accelerated expansion called inflation. Perhaps this was the beginning of everything, but lately a few scientists have been wondering if something could have come before that, setting up the initial conditions for the birth of our universe.
In the most recent study on pre-Big Bang science posted at arXiv.org, a team of researchers from the UK, Canada, and the US, Stephen M. Feeney, et al, have revealed that they have discovered four statistically unlikely circular patterns in the cosmic microwave background (CMB). The researchers think that these marks could be “bruises” that our universe has incurred from being bumped four times by other universes. If they turn out to be correct, it would be the first evidence that universes other than ours do exist.
The idea that there are many other universes out there is not new, as scientists have previously suggested that we live in a “multiverse” consisting of an infinite number of universes. The multiverse concept stems from the idea of eternal inflation, in which the inflationary period that our universe went through right after the Big Bang was just one of many inflationary periods that different parts of space were and are still undergoing. When one part of space undergoes one of these dramatic growth spurts, it balloons into its own universe with its own physical properties. As its name suggests, eternal inflation occurs an infinite number of times, creating an infinite number of universes, resulting in the multiverse.
These infinite universes are sometimes called bubble universes even though they are irregular-shaped, not round. The bubble universes can move around and occasionally collide with other bubble universes. As Feeney, et al., explain in their paper, these collisions produce inhomogeneities in the inner-bubble cosmology, which could appear in the CMB. The scientists developed an algorithm to search for bubble collisions in the CMB with specific properties, which led them to find the four circular patterns.
Still, the scientists acknowledge that it is rather easy to find a variety of statistically unlikely properties in a large dataset like the CMB. The researchers emphasize that more work is needed to confirm this claim, which could come in short time from the Planck satellite, which has a resolution three times better than that of WMAP (where the current data comes from), as well as an order of magnitude greater sensitivity. Nevertheless, they hope that the search for bubble collisions could provide some insight into the history of our universe, whether or not the collisions turn out to be real.
“The conclusive non-detection of a bubble collision can be used to place stringent limits on theories giving rise to eternal inflation; however, if a bubble collision is verified by future data, then we will gain an insight not only into our own universe but a multiverse beyond,” the researchers write in their study.
This is the second study in the past month that has used CMB data to search for what could have occurred before the Big Bang. In the first study, Roger Penrose and Vahe Gurzadyan found concentric circles with lower-than-average temperature variation in the CMB, which could be evidence for a cyclic cosmology in which Big Bangs occur over and over.
Leo_7: Science say 4 fundamental forces is the beginning of the universe.if u have argument then u should argue with the science. They r Gravity ,Electromagnetism,Weak force and Strong Force.Science have accepted it.
tomcatwarne: (PhysOrg.com) -- By looking far out into space and observing what’s going on there, scientists have been led to theorize that it all started with a Big Bang, immediately followed by a brief period of super-accelerated expansion called inflation. Perhaps this was the beginning of everything, but lately a few scientists have been wondering if something could have come before that, setting up the initial conditions for the birth of our universe.In the most recent study on pre-Big Bang science posted at arXiv.org, a team of researchers from the UK, Canada, and the US, Stephen M. Feeney, et al, have revealed that they have discovered four statistically unlikely circular patterns in the cosmic microwave background (CMB). The researchers think that these marks could be “bruises” that our universe has incurred from being bumped four times by other universes. If they turn out to be correct, it would be the first evidence that universes other than ours do exist.
The idea that there are many other universes out there is not new, as scientists have previously suggested that we live in a “multiverse” consisting of an infinite number of universes. The multiverse concept stems from the idea of eternal inflation, in which the inflationary period that our universe went through right after the Big Bang was just one of many inflationary periods that different parts of space were and are still undergoing. When one part of space undergoes one of these dramatic growth spurts, it balloons into its own universe with its own physical properties. As its name suggests, eternal inflation occurs an infinite number of times, creating an infinite number of universes, resulting in the multiverse.
These infinite universes are sometimes called bubble universes even though they are irregular-shaped, not round. The bubble universes can move around and occasionally collide with other bubble universes. As Feeney, et al., explain in their paper, these collisions produce inhomogeneities in the inner-bubble cosmology, which could appear in the CMB. The scientists developed an algorithm to search for bubble collisions in the CMB with specific properties, which led them to find the four circular patterns.
Still, the scientists acknowledge that it is rather easy to find a variety of statistically unlikely properties in a large dataset like the CMB. The researchers emphasize that more work is needed to confirm this claim, which could come in short time from the Planck satellite, which has a resolution three times better than that of WMAP (where the current data comes from), as well as an order of magnitude greater sensitivity. Nevertheless, they hope that the search for bubble collisions could provide some insight into the history of our universe, whether or not the collisions turn out to be real.
“The conclusive non-detection of a bubble collision can be used to place stringent limits on theories giving rise to eternal inflation; however, if a bubble collision is verified by future data, then we will gain an insight not only into our own universe but a multiverse beyond,” the researchers write in their study.
This is the second study in the past month that has used CMB data to search for what could have occurred before the Big Bang. In the first study, Roger Penrose and Vahe Gurzadyan found concentric circles with lower-than-average temperature variation in the CMB, which could be evidence for a cyclic cosmology in which Big Bangs occur over and over.
Most religious people state that GOD was never created, and the He always existed from Alpha and Omega.
Hence, often wonder why couldn't life always have existed without being created?
That is, there is no design in nature just as wind on the desert making designs of art in the sand was not drawn by an artist.
Nature is a battlefield of survival, and I do not believe a GOD would design nature to be so cruel.
Mankind is also cruel and in constant battle within each other for only the strong survive just as man has gained thinking ability required to survive over other creatures where they did not develop our thought process.
ForrestFire: Most religious people state that GOD was never created, and the He always existed from Alpha and Omega.
Hence, often wonder why couldn't life always have existed without being created?
That is, there is no design in nature just as wind on the desert making designs of art in the sand was not drawn by an artist.
Nature is a battlefield of survival, and I do not believe a GOD would design nature to be so cruel.
Mankind is also cruel and in constant battle within each other for only the strong survive just as man has gained thinking ability required to survive over other creatures where they did not develop our thought process.
My guess is that some people believe that we deserve to live in a harsh climate globally, with constant threat of death from nature in all it's forms, because we deserve it.
It's just reality, the planet and animals will do what they need to do to survive, despite mankind's varied efforts to control it. We're getting better at it, controlling our "environment", but still, globally, it's drops in a bucket.
Life has always existed, although man's means of describing it, as well as it's meaning, has changed. We'll only survive until the next "superior" species takes over, and I think it'll be viruses and bacteria, although I think that's happened before, until they died out.
kidatheart: My guess is that some people believe that we deserve to live in a harsh climate globally, with constant threat of death from nature in all it's forms, because we deserve it.
It's just reality, the planet and animals will do what they need to do to survive, despite mankind's varied efforts to control it. We're getting better at it, controlling our "environment", but still, globally, it's drops in a bucket.
Life has always existed, although man's means of describing it, as well as it's meaning, has changed. We'll only survive until the next "superior" species takes over, and I think it'll be viruses and bacteria, although I think that's happened before, until they died out.
The circle of life has no specified diameters. Me
I don’t think humans will ever go extinct on this planet because our technology evolves faster now then any viruses or diseases. With all this stem research going on cancers will be a thing of past, so will Down syndrome or any other human imperfection. You could say we are only now minutes away from having full control of biology on this planet.
ForrestFire: Most religious people state that GOD was never created, and the He always existed from Alpha and Omega.
Hence, often wonder why couldn't life always have existed without being created?
That is, there is no design in nature just as wind on the desert making designs of art in the sand was not drawn by an artist.
Nature is a battlefield of survival, and I do not believe a GOD would design nature to be so cruel.
Mankind is also cruel and in constant battle within each other for only the strong survive just as man has gained thinking ability required to survive over other creatures where they did not develop our thought process.
If the universe has a starting point then NO it would be impossible for life to exist from the beginning.
Report threads that break rules, are offensive, or contain fighting. Staff may not be aware of the forum abuse, and cannot do anything about it unless you tell us about it. click to report forum abuse »
If one of the comments is offensive, please report the comment instead (there is a link in each comment to report it).
I.D. is not empirical and cannot be tested from a scientific standpoint, so it's not good science, plus with the scientific method you use only what is physically available to you to explain something. In science you don't insert things that you don't need or have to completely make up in order to explain something.