And who are these "majority of scientists"?Sorry, I need sources over your word.
The human mind is not capable of grasping the Universe. We are like a little child entering a huge library. The walls are covered to the ceilings with books in many different tongues. The child knows that someone must have written these books. It does not know who or how. It does not understand the languages in which they are written. But the child notes a definite plan in the arrangement of the books---a mysterious order which it does not comprehend, but only dimly suspects." - Albert EinsteinGeorge Ellis (British astrophysicist): "Amazing fine tuning occurs in the laws that make this [complexity] possible. Realization of the complexity of what is accomplished makes it very difficult not to use the word 'miraculous' without taking a stand as to the ontological status of the word." Paul Davies (British astrophysicist): "There is for me powerful evidence that there is something going on behind it all....It seems as though somebody has fine-tuned nature’s numbers to make the Universe....The impression of design is overwhelming". The more statistically improbable a thing is, the less we can believe that it just happened by blind chance. Super-ficially the obvious alternative to chance is an intelligent Designer. (Richard Dawkins, “The Necessity of Darwinism,” New Scientist, April 15,1982)The complexity of living organisms is matched by the elegant efficiency of their apparent design. If anyone doesn’t agree that this amount of complex design cries out for an explanation, I give up! (Richard Dawkins, The Blind Watchmaker, W.W. Norton, New York, 1986, preface)Whether one accepts or rejects the design hypothesis…there is no avoiding the conclusion that the world looks as if it has been tailored for life; it appears to have been designed. All reality appears to be a vast, coherent, teleological whole with life and mankind as its purpose and goal. (Michael Denton, Nature’s Destiny: How the Laws of Biology Reveal Purpose in the Universe, Simon & Schuster, New York, 1998, p 387, emp. in original)Once we see, however, that the probability of life originating at random is so utterly miniscule as to make the random concept absurd, it becomes sensible to think that the favourable properties of physics on which life depends, are in every respect deliberate… It is therefore almost inevitable that our own measure of intelligence must reflect in a valid way the higher intelligences…even to the extreme idealized limit of God. (Fred Hoyle and Chandra Wickramasinghe, Evolution from Space, J.M. Dent, London, 1981, pp. 141,144, emp. in orig.)Alan Sandage (winner of the Crawford prize in astronomy): "I find it quite improbable that such order came out of chaos. There has to be some organizing principle. God to me is a mystery but is the explanation for the miracle of existence, why there is something instead of nothing." George Greenstein (astronomer): "As we survey all the evidence, the thought insistently arises that some supernatural agency - or, rather, Agency - must be involved. Is it possible that suddenly, without intending to, we have stumbled upon scientific proof of the existence of a Supreme Being? Was it God who stepped in and so providentially crafted the cosmos for our benefit?" Arthur Eddington (astrophysicist): "The idea of a universal mind or Logos would be, I think, a fairly plausible inference from the present state of scientific theory." Arno Penzias (Nobel prize in physics): "Astronomy leads us to a unique event, a universe which was created out of nothing, one with the very delicate balance needed to provide exactly the conditions required to permit life, and one which has an underlying (one might say 'supernatural') plan." Roger Penrose (mathematician and author): "I would say the universe has a purpose. It's not there just somehow by chance." Tony Rothman (physicist): "When confronted with the order and beauty of the universe and the strange coincidences of nature, it's very tempting to take the leap of faith from science into religion. I am sure many physicists want to. I only wish they would admit it."Vera Kistiakowsky (MIT physicist): "The exquisite order displayed by our scientific understanding of the physical world calls for the divine." Frank Tipler (Professor of Mathematical Physics): "When I began my career as a cosmologist some twenty years ago, I was a convinced atheist. I never in my wildest dreams imagined that one day I would be writing a book purporting to show that the central claims of Judeo-Christian theology are in fact true, that these claims are straightforward deductions of the laws of physics as we now understand them. I have been forced into these conclusions by the inexorable logic of my own special branch of physics." Alexander Polyakov (Soviet mathematician): "We know that nature is described by the best of all possible mathematics because God created it."Ed Harrison (cosmologist): "Here is the cosmological proof of the existence of God – the design argument of Paley – updated and refurbished. The fine tuning of the universe provides prima facie evidence of deistic design. Take your choice: blind chance that requires multitudes of universes or design that requires only one.... Many scientists, when they admit their views, incline toward the teleological or design argument." Edward Milne (British cosmologist): "As to the cause of the Universe, in context of expansion, that is left for the reader to insert, but our picture is incomplete without Him [God]." Barry Parker (cosmologist): "Who created these laws? There is no question but that a God will always be needed." Drs. Zehavi, and Dekel (cosmologists): "This type of universe, however, seems to require a degree of fine tuning of the initial conditions that is in apparent conflict with 'common wisdom'." Arthur L. Schawlow (Professor of Physics at Stanford University, 1981 Nobel Prize in physics): "It seems to me that when confronted with the marvels of life and the universe, one must ask why and not just how. The only possible answers are religious. . . . I find a need for God in the universe and in my own life." Henry "Fritz" Schaefer (Graham Perdue Professor of Chemistry and director of the Center for Computational Quantum Chemistry at the University of Georgia): "The significance and joy in my science comes in those occasional moments of discovering something new and saying to myself, 'So that's how God did it.' My goal is to understand a little corner of God's plan." Wernher von Braun (Pioneer rocket engineer) "I find it as difficult to understand a scientist who does not acknowledge the presence of a superior rationality behind the existence of the universe as it is to comprehend a theologian who would deny the advances of science." Antony Flew (Professor of Philosophy, former atheist, author, and debater) "It now seems to me that the findings of more than fifty years of DNA research have provided materials for a new and enormously powerful argument to design."
I met a girl on the internet once. She was great, you know - smart, sexy, uninhibited...Of course when we finally arranged to meet she turned out to be a 13 year old paraplegic boy....I\'m not gonna lie, the sex was disappointing....
They have? what do you mean by that?
Semantics, semantics, semantics
Would you like more?
Heck yes....that list is tiny...unless I'm overestimating the amount of scientists there are!
Did you get it from here?:
Heck yes....that list is tiny...unless I'm overestimating the number of scientists there are!Did you get it from here?:
Also, Ngati, I hope you noticed that the majority of them are not specifically supporting either intelligent design, or fine-tuning.Another genius example of creationist propaganda and quote twisting.
Also, Ngati, I hope you noticed that the majority of them are not specifically supporting either intelligent design, or fine-tuning.
. That would be rejecting scientific evidence.
Where?Sorry, did I miss something?
If there was scientific evidence would we be discussing this?
Where?
I believe it, in terms of morals or principles to apply to my own life. In that sense I guess it does affect how I behave towards others and decisions I make. And I do believe that if I sin, there are repercussions (call it karma). As a result, do I try and avoid sinning where and when I can? Yes I do.By the same token, do I fail at avoiding sin every now and then? Yes I do.Aside from that ... maybe I don't understand the question?
You honestly believe a tornado could form a complex structure as a jumbo jet? How exactly do you come to this conclusion?
As I said, the evidence and information is out there if you are willing to seek it. How you interpet that evidence is up to you. You would most likely have to be a physicist of some kind to fully understand most of it though.
As I said, the evidence and information is out there if you are willing to seek it. How you interpet that evidence is up to you. You would most likely have to be a physicist of some kind to fully understand most of it though.Spoiler : Unless the number of electrons is equivalent to the number of protons to an accuracy of one part in 1037, or better, electromagnetic forces in the universe would have so overcome gravitational forces that galaxies, stars, and planets never would have formed. The electromagnetic coupling constant binds electrons to protons in atoms. If it was smaller, fewer electrons could be held. If it was larger, electrons would be held too tightly to bond with other atoms. Ratio of electron to proton mass (1:1836). Again, if this was larger or smaller, molecules could not form. Carbon and oxygen nuclei have finely tuned energy levels. Electromagnetic and gravitational forces are finely tuned, so the right kind of star can be stable. As it turns out, the Sun's color is just right. Light from the Sun is readily absorbed by chlorophyll, so initiating the photosynthetic process. On the other hand, the Sun's color is related to its temperature: Things heated moderately glow a dull red, but if heated yet more glow a brillant yellow. Thus the matching under consideration is between the temperature of the Sun on the one hand and the molecular structure of chlorophyll on the other. Without that matching, life could not exist upon the Earth.Nor could life exist anywhere else. It is not a matter of seeking out the correct niche--some star of the right temperature. As emphasized above, only stars made of hydrogen are suitable seats for life, and it turns out that all such stars have roughly similar colors. From the coolest to the hottest, the variation is not that great. Thus starlight impinging upon all planets, wherever they may be in the universe, but a roughly similar color. Either all stars provide good niches or more of them do.Our sun is also the right mass. If it was larger, its brightness would change too quickly and there would be too much high energy radiation. If it was smaller, the range of planetary distances able to support life would be too narrow; the right distance would be so close to the star that tidal forces would disrupt the planet’s rotational period. UV radiation would also be inadequate for photosynthesis. The earth’s distance from the sun is crucial for a stable water cycle. Too far away, and most water would freeze; too close and most water would boil. The earth’s gravity, axial tilt, rotation period, magnetic field, crust thickness, oxygen/nitrogen ratio, carbon dioxide, water vapour and ozone levels are just right. Were gravity ten times less strong, it would be doubtful whether stars and planets could form. And any appreciable weakening could mean that "all stars would be chemically homogeneous due to convective mixing and one would not get the onion-skin shell structure which characterizes pre-supernova models" hence, perhaps, no supernovae scattering heavy elements. A remarkable feature of the universe is its emptiness. Stars are extraordinarily distant from one another. However, were it not for these vast reaches of empty space, violent collisions between stars would be to frequent as to render the universe uninhabitable. The yet more frequent near-misses would detach planets from orbit about their suns, flinging them off into interstellar space where they would quickly cool to hundreds of degrees below zero.As things are, clouds the right size to form stable stars are just able to cool fast enough to avoid fragmentation. Tinkering with gravity could destroy this happy phenomenon. If the protogalaxies formed by fragmentation of larger clouds then, J. Silk has argued, this required gravity's strength to be interestingly close to its actual value. Violent events at the galactic core presumably exclude life from many galaxies. In Cygnus A "the level of hard, ionizing radiation is hundreds of times more intense than on the surface of the earth." Strengthening gravity could make every galaxy this nasty. Astrophysicist Brandon Carter has shown how the structure of stars is very delicately dependant on the exact ratio of gravitational to electromagnetic forces. Our Sun is a middling sized, yellow star, and the conditions that make life on Earth possible are closely dependent on the Sun's basic nature. If these forces were very slightly different in their relative strengths, however, all stars would be either blue giants or white dwarfs, depending on which way the balance was tilted. Stars like our Sun, which seem to be ideal at providing conditions suitable for the emergence of life, would not exist.In 1954, Hoyle realized that the only way to make carbon inside stars is if there is a resonance involving helium-4, beryllium-8, and carbon-12. The mass-energy of each nucleus is fixed and cannot change; the kinetic energy that each nucleus has depends on the temperature inside a star, which Hoyle could calculate. Using that temperature calculation, Hoyle predicted that there must be a previously undetected energy level in the carbon-12 nucleus, at an energy that would resonate with the combined energies, including kinetic energy, of its constituent parts, under the conditions prevailing inside stars. He made a precise calculation of what that energy level must be, and he cajoled Willy Fowler's somewhat sketpical nuclear physics colleagues until they carried out experiements to test his predictions. To the astonishment of everyone except Hoyle, the measurements showed that carbon-12 has an energy level just 4 per cent above the calculated energy. This is so close that the kinetic energies of the colliding nuclei can readily supply the excess. This resonance greatly increases the chances of a helium-4 and a beryllium-8 nucleus sticking together, and ensures that enough alpha particles can be fused into carbon nuclei inside stars to account for our existence. "The remarkable nature of Hoyle's successful production cannot be overemphasized. Suppose, for example, that the energy levels in carbon had turned out to be just 4 percent lower than the combined energy of helium-4 and beryllium-8. There is no way that kinetic energy could SUBTRACT rather than add the difference, so the trick simply would not have worked. This is made clear when we look at the next putative step in steller nucleosynthesis, the production of oxygen-16 from a combination of carbon-12 and helium-4. When a carbon-12 and a helium-4 molecule meet, they would fuse into oxygen if there was an appropriate resonance. But the nearest oxygen-16 resonance has one percent LESS energy than helium-4 plus carbon-12. But that one percent is all it takes to ensure that this time resonance does not occur. Sure, oxygen-15 is manufactured in stars, but only in small quantities (at least, at this early stage of a star's life) compared with carbon. If that oxygen energy level were one percent lower, then virtually all the carbon made inside stars would be processed into oxygen and then (much of it) into heavier elements still. Carbon-based life-forms like ourselves would not exist. "Most anthropic insights are made with the benefit of hindsight. We look at the Universe, notice that it is close to flat, and say, 'Oh yes, of course, it must be that way, or we wouldn't be here to notice it.' But Hoyle's prediction is different, in a class of its own. It is a genuine scientific prediction, tested and confirmed by SUBSEQUENT experiments. Hoyle said, in effect, 'since we exist, then carbon must have an energy level at 7.6 MeV.' THEN the experiments were carried out and the energy level was measured. As far as we know, this is the only genuine anthropic principle prediction; all the rest are 'predictions' that MIGHT have been made in advance of the observatios, if anyone had had the genius to make them, but that were never in fact made that way.These apparent 'coincidences' and many more like them, have convinced some scientists that the structure of the Universe we perceive is remarkably sensitive to even the most minute changes in the fundamental parameters of nature. It is as though the elaborate structure of the cosmos was the result of highly delicate fine-tuning. In particular, the existence of life, and hence intelligent observers, is especially sensitive to the high-precision 'adjustment' of our physical circumstances.References:http://philofreligion.homestead.com/files/cumulativecase.htmhttp://www.leaderu.com/truth/3truth12.htmlhttp://www.leaderu.com/offices/billcraig/docs/teleo.htmlhttp://www.leaderu.com/offices/bradley/docs/universe.html
I'm curious.If they is such insurmountable and compelling 'evidence', why is it not widely accepted in the greater scientific community?
Just the idea that every religion has experienced the same God, so it may not ultimately matter which religion you are.
please read "Climbing Mount Improbable" by Richard Dawkins - it shows how retarded the jet/tornado thing is, evolution is not random
none of that is evidence for ID, and as explained many times. can be explained in natural terms, doesn't need to be supernatural
seriously thou if your gonna tell us there evidence to support your beliefs then find it yourself dont tell us to research it ourselves, its not upto us to provide evidence for your ridiculous beliefs
Mmmhm.. I carnt udatsantd the simplerest of ideers, miss out natueral selection wen n im comparering bierlogical life too a boing 747; I dont undtsatnd simul biolergy butt want to (and thikns I have teh rite to) despute ther wurlds per-emenant sciertists.
What?
I still don't understand what you mean by 'the same God'. They don't all worship the same god. Chinese folk religion (394 million people) follow animals, and all sorts of gods and goddesses... they don't follow the same 'God' the Christians follow.
