Posted on 01/23/2014 9:19:28 AM PST by Heartlander
So the ruins on Mars got there how?
They are right. They should stop looking for validation from people who don't understand the concept and just proceed with their own research. Even evolution requires an underlying formula, and information feedback loops.
A program that is self-adjusting is evidence of a master programmer. But I wouldn't waste time trying to convince someone who doesn't see it. Let them gather their data points and we'll make sense of them. You don't need their approval to proceed on the basis of what is rather self-evident after all. They are the ones looking at a 3D system in 2D. (Or would it be a 5D system in 4D?)
That assumption of orderliness, elegance and predictability is the foundation of Western scientific advancement.
In the Islamic world, assumptions of these things is considered blasphemy.
Ignoring the possibility that God created it does not preclude from figuring out how it works or got there, or whatever else the physical world can answer.
Frustrated, a researcher throws his hands up and decides God won’t give up that secret.
I don't believe that has happened very frequently, and I don't believe the good ones do that.
For all the previous 2000 years of science, most were devout believers in God. Yet they made fantastic progress.
Whachutalkinbout Willis?
I am disappointed: when I read the title, I thought he was going to propose an actual ID-based research program. I’ve been waiting for someone to hypothesize what a moment of design would look like—where, when, and how the Designer inserted himself into the process—and how we might go about looking for it. Unfortunately, the proposal here is the same old approach of using “design” to fill whatever holes in our knowledge may still exist.
For more ID papers see HERE or HERE
Excerpt from Pulitzer Prize-winning author Daniel Walker Howe’s What Hath God Wrought: The Transformation of America, 1815-1844, p. 464:
As this chapter is written in the early twenty-first century, the hypothesis that the universe reflect intelligent design has provoked a bitter debate in the United States. How very different was the intellectual world of the early nineteenth century! Then, virtually everyone believed in intelligent design. Faith in the rational design of the universe underlay the world-view of the Enlightenment, shared by Isaac Newton, John Locke, and the American Founding Fathers. Even the outspoke critics of Christianity embraced not atheism but deism, that is, belief in an impersonal, remote deity who had created the universe and designed it so perfectly that it ran along of its own accord, following natural laws without need for further divine intervention. The common used expression “the book of nature” referred to the universal practice of viewing nature as a revelation of God’s power and wisdom. Christians were fond of saying that they accepted two divine revelations: the Bible and the book of nature. For desists like Thomas Paine, the book of nature alone sufficed, rendering what he called the “fables” of the Bible superfluous. The desire to demonstrate the glory of God, whether deist or – more commonly – Christian, constituted one of the principal motivations for scientific activity in the early republic, along with national pride, the hope for useful applications, and, of course, the joy of science itself.
What ruins?
I have recently thought that evolution as a method of creation might bear some analogy to God’s giving of free will to his intelligent creations, humans and spirits both.
God apparently chose to make beings with free will who would choose to be his friends, instead of robots or dolls that would simply act out His will.
Couldn’t evolution be something similar? God sets up the parameters, initiates the process and then stands back to see what happens.
None of which takes away the possibility of his jumping back into the process to adjust it whenever He sees fit.
You can't really find anything resembling science all that much prior to 1500, and not much before 1600.
Science, if it means anything at all, refers to a method and a way of looking at the world. These were invented in Western Europe probably over the course of the 1600s.
While thinkers in the classical period and in India and China accomplished amazing things, they did it without the benefit of science, as such.
So what’s this about design? We are just bags of molecules in motion, constrained in our thoughts and actions by the laws of chemistry and physics. Free will is an illusion.
300 genes in the simplest of lifeforms, all coded to give the correct sequence of amino acids, all remarkably left-handed, to form proteins that fold just the right way, to perform needed functions. Turned on and off at the right moments. Disassembled and ejected when functions are complete.
Design? This incredible quality of assembled matter that we call life coded itself into existence, randomly generating the needed information. It was inevitable since everything is deterministic from the moment of the big bang. Time - anything can happen given enough time.
If mathematically impossible in “A” universe, it’s entirely possible, even probable, in infinite universes. We happen to be in the one out of essentially infinity where it all came together.
It’s all very scientific. Design to explain all of this? Only for the simpletons and the unscientific.
It is funny to imagine that in one of those 'infinite universes' - Richard Dawkins is a rabid creationist ; )
My Deist Grandfather thought much the same thing. From God’s perspective (from the bang event to our epoch) how many times has the Universe doubled in size? ... IIRC six going on seven times.
It was aliens.
Thanks for the ping!
Who put the miles high monolith on the Martian potato shaped moon, Phobos? Since Mankind is likely to have done so, it would be aliens, right? And after you do a search on that anomaly, you can start doing searches on ‘faces on Mars’ ... there’s more than one, and some sort of gigantic ‘lettering’, also. And yes, the data are straight from NASA photographic images.
That should have been a ‘is NOT likely to have done so’ ...
See #36 above
Would like to explain why you posted that link? Trying to ridicule and failing?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.