Why do people say intelligent design is not scientific?

reply to post by Outlawstar

I didint MEAN in scientific terms, Im not short-sighted enough to pretend something is validated that has not been, my point ws rather more ethereal, simply that the actual concept in terms of just that

Then I misunderstood what you meant by perfectly validated.

isint, at least in my view, as far-fetched a belief as some others may feel, however like I said, blind faith is the wrong way to go,

I agree, blind faith is detrimental to science and discovery.

and again Im NOT implying some sort of deity, the lone wolf type, no,

I'm aware of that from previous discussion about this with you in this thread.

if ID is ever defined I believe it will be defined as a sort of mutuallly beneficial "intelligence", a sort of feedback mechanism that neither side is truly aware of, which perhaps in the fractal and holgraphic universe sense, is propogated ad infinitum, perhaps akin to the billions of creatures who consider the human body home, we benefit each other,

Bacterium are not individually intelligent in the same capacity that the human species is intelligent. Neither does this aspect of your idea give rise to any indication of where life itself arose from in the beginning.

we both allow the other to exist, however in the case of the creatures, and tbh most humans , we are blissfully unaware, just a thought and NOTHING more.

It's an interesting thought, but a wrong thought nonetheless. I'm not trying to be an a**, just simply pointing out that this line of thought is leaving more questions than answers.

I think a lot, so sometimes I come up with some pretty wacky stuff^___^

I think we all do to be honest lol. You should see the amount of notes of different idea's I've come up with over the years, pure insanity some of them are lol.

Then I misunderstood what you meant by perfectly validated.

Its cool.

Bacterium are not individually intelligent in the same capacity that the human species is intelligent. Neither does this aspect of your idea give rise to any indication of where life itself arose from in the beginning.

But isint that the point, they are therefore unaware of us, by that line fo thought whatever this macrocosmic entity could be, or many of them, perhaps like the Brahma of India for instance is also of a relatively larger state of being, in terms of intelligence perception etc.

Also, modern science cant explain where or how life itself arose either, so I think were even there.

It's an interesting thought, but a wrong thought nonetheless. I'm not trying to be an a**, just simply pointing out that this line of thought is leaving more questions than answers.

I know your not trying to be an a##, but to discount a thought because it promotes more questions than answers is surely absurd, and the exact opposite of what science(at least in theory) stands for.

I think we all do to be honest lol. You should see the amount of notes of different idea's I've come up with over the years, pure insanity some of them are lol.

Hehe, Im the same^__^

reply to post by Outlawstar

But isint that the point, they are therefore unaware of us, by that line fo thought whatever this macrocosmic entity could be, or many of them, perhaps like the Brahma of India for instance is also of a relatively larger state of being, in terms of intelligence perception etc.

The physics of the universe doesn't allow for what you suggest, nor does biology itself.

Also, modern science cant explain where or how life itself arose either, so I think were even there.

Modern science is getting closer to an understanding rather than allowing itself to give up and lay claim that some other outside force must of done it.

I know your not trying to be an a##, but to discount a thought because it promotes more questions than answers is surely absurd, and the exact opposite of what science(at least in theory) stands for.

Not to be rude, but learn more about the scientific method. It would be wise to understand what science is and what science is not. Your thought technically goes against everything science has already discovered while at the same time giving rise to more questions. That isn't science at all, it's just speculating.

The physics of the universe doesn't allow for what you suggest, nor does biology itself.

Implying a theory of everything has been astablished, which of course it has not!!

Modern science is getting closer to an understanding rather than allowing itself to give up and lay claim that some other outside force must of done it.

If you ask me, we are conversely getting further away, while also getting closer, as science becomes more and more polariesed in terms of thinking, but hey lets just leave that point to bed, it will go around in circles

Not to be rude, but learn more about the scientific method. It would be wise to understand what science is and what science is not. Your thought technically goes against everything science has already discovered while at the same time giving rise to more questions. That isn't science at all, it's just speculating.

Wow, so your saying because something goes against what is established, it shoulidnt be considered? How do you think we have gotten to where we are now?, Sure I cant set up an experiment, and I understand your angle, but know that we have things in textbooks today, as was alluded to earlier, which are pure speculation, and occasionally outright lies, like I said science is nothing if not prediction, prediction is a fundamental part of the scientific method.

Science is FULL of your "specualtion", that is a fact.

reply to post by Outlawstar

Implying a theory of everything has been astablished, which of course it has not!!

The quoted statement doesn't imply that at all. You can't demand something to exist where it doesn't explicitly exist. As it stand's, current physics and biology honestly does not allow for what you describe.

If you ask me, we are conversely getting further away, while also getting closer, as science becomes more and more polariesed in terms of thinking, but hey lets just leave that point to bed, it will go around in circles

I would rather not leave it to bed myself. The statement you gave is contradictory; How is science getting further away and closer at the same time?

Wow, so your saying because something goes against what is established, it shoulidnt be considered? How do you think we have gotten to where we are now?, Sure I cant set up an experiment, and I understand your angle, but know that we have things in textbooks today, as was alluded to earlier, which are pure speculation, and occasionally outright lies, like I said science is nothing if not prediction, prediction is a fundamental part of the scientific method.

OK, but what your are speculating/predicting has already been discovered. Case in point, evolution as an observation is a fact as it is an observable phenomena in nature. With that in mind, we can then predict other thing's that have also been proven. Yet somehow you want the science to be wrong and to include some outside force without giving any testable predictions or evidences for this outside force. You can't wish science to be wrong, you have to *show* science is wrong. As it stands, speculating is not proving anything wrong.

The quoted statement doesn't imply that at all. You can't demand something to exist where it doesn't explicitly exist. As it stand's, current physics and biology honestly does not allow for what you describe.

Okay, fair enough, circles will probably ensue here too.

I would rather not leave it to bed myself. The statement you gave is contradictory; How is science getting further away and closer at the same time?

Pretty simple really, like most human institutions, polarisation is inevitable, there isint one set path to take in science, even within the same fields, there are competing paradigms within the same fields, both cant be right, so inevitably regression and progression happen side by side.

Wow, so your saying because something goes against what is established, it shoulidnt be considered? How do you think we have gotten to where we are now?, Sure I cant set up an experiment, and I understand your angle, but know that we have things in textbooks today, as was alluded to earlier, which are pure speculation, and occasionally outright lies, like I said science is nothing if not prediction, prediction is a fundamental part of the scientific method.

OK, but what your are speculating/predicting has already been discovered. Case in point, evolution as an observation is a fact as it is an observable phenomena in nature. With that in mind, we can then predict other thing's that have also been proven. Yet somehow you want the science to be wrong and to include some outside force without giving any testable predictions or evidences for this outside force. You can't wish science to be wrong, you have to *show* science is wrong. As it stands, speculating is not proving anything wrong.

Hey come on modern science is full of your "outside forces" which are backed at best by dogmatic beliefs too, as for evolution being observable in nature, lets not debate evolution too much, Im not particularly convinced on many parts of evolution, but at the same time its a stand up theory that does well in explaining a lot, to me the real question is what drives evolution and why, I dont buy random mutation at the moment, the statistics are frankly close to impossible.

I know we all want answers too these questions and the lack of answers is no reason to condemn modern science, however I am worried about the lack of research into such subjects at LEAST without the pre-conception that such things as ID are impossible.

I mean a study of information theory itself provides interesting evidence for somethng akin to ID if not actually explaining how or why!

In the last 30 years a number of prominent scientists have attempted to calculate the odds that a free-living, single-celled organism, such as a bacterium, might result by the chance combining of pre-existent building blocks. Harold Morowitz calculated the odds as one chance in 10100,000,000,000. Sir Fred Hoyle calculated the odds of only the proteins of an amoebae arising by chance as one chance in 1040,000. ...the odds calculated by Morowitz and Hoyle are staggering. The odds led Fred Hoyle to state that the probability of spontaneous generation 'is about the same as the probability that a tornado sweeping through a junk yard could assemble a Boeing 747 from the contents therein.' Mathematicians tell us that any event with an improbability greater than one chance in 1050 is in the realm of metaphysics -- i.e. a miracle.1


The improbability involved in generating even one bacterium is so large that it reduces all considerations of time and space to nothingness. Given such odds, the time until the black holes evaporate and the space to the ends of the universe would make no difference at all. If we were to wait, we would truly be waiting for a miracle.3 Sir Fred Hoyle



These are just points to consider, NOT me presenting my iron clad beliefs!

Oh and just wanna say thanks for engaging a rare on this site civilised debate with me, Im taking on board what you say!!

reply to post by Outlawstar

Pretty simple really, like most human institutions, polarisation is inevitable, there isint one set path to take in science, even within the same fields, there are competing paradigms within the same fields, both cant be right, so inevitably regression and progression happen side by side.

I agree, two different theories both can't be right, but at the same time those theories exist to describe an observed natural phenomena. We can't argue *against what is seen*, we can only argue against how we think it occurs. Like with evolution or gravity, they are both observed to occur, but there are competing theories attempting to describe them. Yet, to demand an outside force for evolution without evidence or observation of that force is not inherently science just because you speculate on the possibility. We can speculate on many possibilities as being real. For example, I speculate that the entire universe was created by an all powerful coffee mug, but because I have no evidence for it, it isn't science.

Hey come on modern science is full of your "outside forces" which are backed at best by dogmatic beliefs too, as for evolution being observable in nature, lets not debate evolution too much, Im not particularly convinced on many parts of evolution, but at the same time its a stand up theory that does well in explaining a lot, to me the real question is what drives evolution and why, I dont buy random mutation at the moment, the statistics are frankly close to impossible.

This whole discussion is technically about questioning the validity of ID over evolution. Where IDer's get their statistical numbers from is beyond me. As it stands, statistically that chances of life occurring under the right conditions are 1:1. I bring forth our own planet as evidence for this. As to what drives evolution, your statement implies that what is driving it *must* be some outside intelligent force. Yet the answer to your question is physics, biology and chemistry is what drive evolution. There does not appear to be anything outside of those three that drive evolution.

I know we all want answers too these questions and the lack of answers is no reason to condemn modern science, however I am worried about the lack of research into such subjects at LEAST without the pre-conception that such things as ID are impossible.

Science is not against ID at all, but as it stands there is no evidence for ID either for science to even investigate. You simply can't go "Gee, I don't see how that could have evolved, must of been a designer who made it. Just simply to complex for me to understand it." and then call that science.

I mean a study of information theory itself provides interesting evidence for somethng akin to ID if not actually explaining how or why!

I actually disagree with that idea. Chance is just a term indicating extant causes not perceived or recognized. In the case of life, it may appear to be chance, only because we lack recognition of the exact variable required for self replicating molecules to form and eventually evolve into multi-cellular organisms. If we don't know those variables, we can't just say it was a designer without having evidence for a designer. Yet we can observe life multiplying and creating new life by taking outside sources of energy in order to do so, all naturally without an unseen designer.

Oh and just wanna say thanks for engaging a rare on this site civilised debate with me, Im taking on board what you say!!

Your welcome.

Keep in mind also that Intelligent Design was never intended to be a genuine scientific conjecture.

The discovery institute made up the phrase “intelligent design” to replace the phrase “creation science.”

The reason the discovery institute wanted to go with the phrase “intelligent design” was an attempt to make the concept sound like it has no religious underpinnings.

This is a paragraph lifted straight from the discovery institute’s wedge strategy document:

“We are building on this momentum, broadening the wedge with a positive scientific alternative to materialistic scientific theories, which has come to be called the theory of intelligent design (ID). Design theory promises to reverse the stifling dominance of the materialist worldview, and to replace it with a science consonant with Christian and theistic convictions.”

Here are some direct quotes from Phillip E. Johnson, the main guy behind the discovery institute. These quotes were all in context of him discussing the wedge strategy:

"So the question is: "How to win?" That’s when I began to develop what you now see full-fledged in the "wedge" strategy: "Stick with the most important thing" —the mechanism and the building up of information. Get the Bible and the Book of Genesis out of the debate because you do not want to raise the so-called Bible-science dichotomy. Phrase the argument in such a way that you can get it heard in the secular academy and in a way that tends to unify the religious dissenters. That means concentrating on, "Do you need a Creator to do the creating, or can nature do it on its own?" and refusing to get sidetracked onto other issues, which people are always trying to do.”

"Our strategy has been to change the subject a bit so that we can get the issue of intelligent design, which really means the reality of God, before the academic world and into the schools."

This isn't really, and never has been a debate about science. Its about religion and philosophy.

Here is another quote lifted from the wedge strategy document.

“…Other activities include production of a PBS documentary on intelligent design and its implications, and popular op-ed publishing. Alongside a focus on influential opinion-makers, we also seek to build up a popular base of support among our natural constituency, namely, Chnstians…”

Note the last sentence “…we also seek to build up a popular base of support among our natural constituency, namely, Chnstians.”

The concept of intelligent design was given to the Christian community knowing that, if they were told by their leaders to believe it, they would.

But, again, ID was NEVER a genuine scientific conjecture. It was invented by the discovery institute only as an attempt to hide the fact that they were talking about religion.

EVERYONE who continues to argue that ID is a scientific conjecture is being manipulated by the discovery institute.

Dude, you guys are being used by a group of people attempting to force the scientific community to become a religious community.

Look at all the technology we take for granted today. How much of that technology is a result of pure secular science? How much of it is a result of religious dogma?

And you ID fellers WANT to go back to situation where all science has to meet the criteria set forth by current Christian religious beliefs?

Good luck with that.


[edit on 6-11-2009 by hlesterjerome]

I agree, two different theories both can't be right, but at the same time those theories exist to describe an observed natural phenomena. We can't argue *against what is seen*, we can only argue against how we think it occurs. Like with evolution or gravity, they are both observed to occur, but there are competing theories attempting to describe them. Yet, to demand an outside force for evolution without evidence or observation of that force is not inherently science just because you speculate on the possibility. We can speculate on many possibilities as being real. For example, I speculate that the entire universe was created by an all powerful coffee mug, but because I have no evidence for it, it isn't science.

Im not demanding an outside force, only speculating on the possibility, ALL science starts with simple curiosity, you dont need evidence to be curious, and saying "an outside force" makes it seem so impossible and anthropogises(is that even a word) things, to speculate on an outside force that has some sort of inherent reasoning is not unscientific, Einstein himself thought as much
.

This whole discussion is technically about questioning the validity of ID over evolution. Where IDer's get their statistical numbers from is beyond me. As it stands, statistically that chances of life occurring under the right conditions are 1:1. I bring forth our own planet as evidence for this. As to what drives evolution, your statement implies that what is driving it *must* be some outside intelligent force. Yet the answer to your question is physics, biology and chemistry is what drive evolution. There does not appear to be anything outside of those three that drive evolution.

Likewise that statistic seems pretty bogus, as for your quantification of everything with the the prominent fields of science, I always say just because you can quantify something doesint make it any less significant or even amazing, I mean YOU are in that sense nothing more than a combination of those 3 forces acting
, but that of course doesint imply you are not intelligent or capable of reasoning.

Science is not against ID at all, but as it stands there is no evidence for ID either for science to even investigate. You simply can't go "Gee, I don't see how that could have evolved, must of been a designer who made it. Just simply to complex for me to understand it." and then call that science.

Lucky I didint then^__^
And please thee is a human factor in the generalizing term "science".



I actually disagree with that idea. Chance is just a term indicating extant causes not perceived or recognized. In the case of life, it may appear to be chance, only because we lack recognition of the exact variable required for self replicating molecules to form and eventually evolve into multi-cellular organisms. If we don't know those variables, we can't just say it was a designer without having evidence for a designer. Yet we can observe life multiplying and creating new life by taking outside sources of energy in order to do so, all naturally without an unseen designer.


But thats the point whether there is a designer or perhaps reasoning force, it itself is inherently "natural", its not some crazy "outside force", we just havint factored it in yet, as you said there is no such thing as chance, which I wholeheartedly agree with, but where does that leaves random mutation?Scientist are pretty clear that process is random

But, again, ID was NEVER a genuine scientific conjecture. It was invented by the discovery institute only as an attempt to hide the fact that they were talking about religion. EVERYONE who continues to argue that ID is a scientific conjecture is being manipulated by the discovery institute. Dude, you guys are being used by a group of people attempting to force the scientific community to become a religious community. Look at all the technology we take for granted today. How much of that technology is a result of pure secular science? How much of it is a result of religious dogma? And you ID fellers WANT to go back to situation where all science has to meet the criteria set forth by current Christian religious beliefs? Good luck with that. [edit on 6-11-2009 by hlesterjerome]

Listen Im all ears there but seriously the name ID is all that was invented, the concept is THOUSANDS of years old, believe me I know all bout how religion has abused its power to commit horrific acts, however, as I said earlier, science is getting there now, we are starting to see the emergence of a religio-scientific sub community, Im by NO means condemning the establishment as a whole or even implying there isint a political will factor behind the action of some scientists, however my point still stands.

Again, I am defending a curiosity, not a belief, who know in the future I may experiment with some things myself^___^

[edit on 6-11-2009 by Outlawstar]

reply to post by Outlawstar

Im not demanding an outside force, only speculating on the possibility, ALL science starts with simple curiosity, you dont need evidence to be curious, and saying "an outside force" makes it seem so impossible and anthropogises(is that even a word) things, to speculate on an outside force that has some sort of inherent reasoning is not unscientific, Einstein himself thought as much

Like I said, speculation is not science. Science has no room for just speculation alone, it requires evidence and testable predictions. In the case of ID, neither exist, be it God or aliens from Tau Ceti.

Likewise that statistic seems pretty bogus, as for your quantification of everything with the the prominent fields of science, I always say just because you can quantify something doesint make it any less significant or even amazing, I mean YOU are in that sense nothing more than a combination of those 3 forces acting
, but that of course doesint imply you are not intelligent or capable of reasoning.

That seems pretty contradictory to me to be honest. You cite some bogus statistical number based on speculation as a valid point of argument, but then you call a real statistical number with evidence to substantiate the number as bogus. We only have one planet where life exists, so statistically the possibility of life is 1:1, we can't call that bogus because here we are.

But thats the point whether there is a designer or perhaps reasoning force, it itself is inherently "natural", its not some crazy "outside force", we just havint factored it in yet, as you said there is no such thing as chance, which I wholeheartedly agree with, but where does that leaves random mutation?Scientist are pretty clear that process is random

There is no such thing as random mutation, random is no different than chance. Everything existent within the boundaries of this universe inherently follow the laws of physics, we know of nothing that breaks those laws. With that in mind, thing's are acting accordingly to those laws. Biology follows chemistry and chemistry follows physics. It isn't inherently random. Random itself doesn't even exist, we can't create something that creates randomness. We can approximate randomness, but never achieve it as it doesn't exist.

reply to post by resonance

"There is no life in the abstract only living things." Biology
Biology obviously has difficulty differentiating between the intelligent and the inanimate. The man from mud theory has about as much validity as the statement that "A tornadoe blowing through a junk yard has assembled by accident a 747 Jumbo jet!" "I got my head shaved by a Jumbo Jet."
People think that because the normalcy for society is very low.
People dont get it when you say something like phenomena or nonordinary and thus people need Anthony Robbins Transformational Vocabulary from Awaken the Giant within. People just do not have a clue when you make a statement like: "The imprtant thing is not to stop questioning. Curiosity has its own reason for existing. One cannot help but be in awe when he contemplates the mysteries of eternity of life of the marvelous structure of reality. It is enough if one merely tries to comprehend a little of this mystery every day. Never lose a holy curiosity." A.E. 1879-1955 "Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind." A. E. 1879-1955

reply to post by ELECTRICkoolaidZOMBIEtest


"Yep they explain evolution away as something that just all of a sudden happened." I think that the chineese said something similar: Existence can be likened to a flower blooming as something that just happens. And if you think otherwise it is considered to be serious psycho bable. As if it were a stretch of the imagination. Indeed.

reply to post by ELECTRICkoolaidZOMBIEtest


ID is not necessarly religious just because the search for the absolute infinite is a form of the souls quest for GOD. Our search for God is our search for each other. I was looking for God one day and found someone else.

Like I said, speculation is not science. Science has no room for just speculation alone, it requires evidence and testable predictions. In the case of ID, neither exist, be it God or aliens from Tau Ceti.

And like I said Im not saying speculation is science, I am saying it is an inherent part of the first steps toward a hypothesis!

That seems pretty contradictory to me to be honest. You cite some bogus statistical number based on speculation as a valid point of argument, but then you call a real statistical number with evidence to substantiate the number as bogus. We only have one planet where life exists, so statistically the possibility of life is 1:1, we can't call that bogus because here we are.

Your "real statistical number" is completely a seperate issue, and in all likelihood a naive and utterly wrong one, and thats not factoring in the possibility that we have already discovered life yet havint disclosed it, see the Brookings Report, that itself is speculation, whether or not the evidence supports it.

But thats the point whether there is a designer or perhaps reasoning force, it itself is inherently "natural", its not some crazy "outside force", we just havint factored it in yet, as you said there is no such thing as chance, which I wholeheartedly agree with, but where does that leaves random mutation?Scientist are pretty clear that process is random

There is no such thing as random mutation, random is no different than chance. Everything existent within the boundaries of this universe inherently follow the laws of physics, we know of nothing that breaks those laws. With that in mind, thing's are acting accordingly to those laws. Biology follows chemistry and chemistry follows physics. It isn't inherently random. Random itself doesn't even exist, we can't create something that creates randomness. We can approximate randomness, but never achieve it as it doesn't exist.




I agree with that, that was my point^_^

You say we know nothing that breaks those laws, Im sorry but your wrong, there are many phenomena unexplainable by our current theories, surely you know this!!

reply to post by Outlawstar

And like I said Im not saying speculation is science, I am saying it is an inherent part of the first steps toward a hypothesis!

Sort of; We'll look towards evolution here for an example. We see evolution occur in nature as a fact, not as a speculation or hypothesis. The speculation that arises here is the theory on how evolution works. Yet, when we bring ID to the same table as science, we see no observed occurrence of ID in nature, just the speculation that it must occur because the theory of evolution doesn't inherently describe the whole process right off the bat. ID as speculation only exists because IDer's demand that the theories involved should have all the answers without discovery and learning. ID doesn't exist because it, in itself has been observed in nature.

Your "real statistical number" is completely a seperate issue, and in all likelihood a naive and utterly wrong one,

So you disagree that we have discovered life on our planet leading to a 1:1 statistical chance for it occurring in the entire universe?

and thats not factoring in the possibility that we have already discovered life yet havint disclosed it, see the Brookings Report, that itself is speculation, whether or not the evidence supports it.

Let's use a little brain power here, please. Your implying that one space agency is speaking for all space agencies and all private endeavors. Regardless, the Brookings Report doesn't explicitly state that it will cover up discovery of life out there. It simply states that it may do so considering the nature of contact. It give's example of some societies that have collapsed when encountering more advanced societies here on our own planet. If, given the nature of contact we find hostility towards our planet, then yes a cover up would be wise because the last thing we need is the total breakdown of all social systems leading to total chaos. Do you not agree, or would you rather see the world thrown into chaos?

You say we know nothing that breaks those laws, Im sorry but your wrong, there are many phenomena unexplainable by our current theories, surely you know this!!

I know of no proven phenomena that breaks the law of physics.

Sort of; We'll look towards evolution here for an example. We see evolution occur in nature as a fact, not as a speculation or hypothesis. The speculation that arises here is the theory on how evolution works. Yet, when we bring ID to the same table as science, we see no observed occurrence of ID in nature, just the speculation that it must occur because the theory of evolution doesn't inherently describe the whole process right off the bat. ID as speculation only exists because IDer's demand that the theories involved should have all the answers without discovery and learning. ID doesn't exist because it, in itself has been observed in nature.

Just keep in mind that I havint said that myself, careful using the generalized arguments for ID as an arguments here, as I have strayed from the conventional ones , I agree to conclude ID simply because the current theory doesint have all the answers is silly, but to be frank here, there is what could be construed as evidence of ID, ok, however until it is rigourously put to the test, interpretation of that evidence will be polarized.

So you disagree that we have discovered life on our planet leading to a 1:1 statistical chance for it occurring in the entire universe?

Yes I do, frankly, I believe the fact we have found life on our Earth is evidence that it is found EVERYWHERE!!

Let's use a little brain power here, please. Your implying that one space agency is speaking for all space agencies and all private endeavors. Regardless, the Brookings Report doesn't explicitly state that it will cover up discovery of life out there. It simply states that it may do so considering the nature of contact. It give's example of some societies that have collapsed when encountering more advanced societies here on our own planet. If, given the nature of contact we find hostility towards our planet, then yes a cover up would be wise because the last thing we need is the total breakdown of all social systems leading to total chaos. Do you not agree, or would you rather see the world thrown into chaos?

Come on now, the real brain power is in understanding the oligarchical and hierarchical control structures of the planet, and its grip on the dissemination of information, that is key!

It states that they may do because they WILL do, its nothing more than a get out clause, and If you think the world needs a catalyst such as public consumption of ET life as fact to descend into chaos, then you arent looking around you, the glossy media framed western world is nothing more than a comforting distraction form the reality of the planet, the reality is we are in an awful state, and chaos sums that state up pretty badly, what the hell RIGHT does anyone have to decide whether or not YOU should have certain knowledge.

I have serious questions about anyone who thinks this tbh.





I know of no proven phenomena that breaks the law of physics.

Seriously? Are you for real here?
Exoplanets with unexplainable orbits, galaxies too big too exist, and teh many contradictions between SR and GR, surely you know of these?

I mean of course they are only defying the known laws of physics.
Humble pie is the most important meal of the scientist^___^

reply to post by Outlawstar

but to be frank here, there is what could be construed as evidence of ID, ok, however until it is rigourously put to the test, interpretation of that evidence will be polarized.

What evidence for ID have you seen that *can* be put to the test?

Yes I do, frankly, I believe the fact we have found life on our Earth is evidence that it is found EVERYWHERE!!

I disagree that we have found life everywhere outside of our own world, hence 1:1 statistical chance of it occurring so far. What we have found elsewhere are organic precursors to life, but not life itself. If you feel we have discovered life everywhere, then I beg of you to back up that claim. Also, to nitpick, your earlier assumption of statistics showing life is nearly impossible as evidence by your usage of this quote:

The improbability involved in generating even one bacterium is so large that it reduces all considerations of time and space to nothingness.

Seems to be in direct contradiction with the statement you have just given me now. We can't call life nearly improbable and yet consider it to exist everywhere at the same time.

Come on now, the real brain power is in understanding the oligarchical and hierarchical control structures of the planet, and its grip on the dissemination of information, that is key!

You forget, everyone *at least in America* has a chance at getting a governmental job and that everyone on this planet starts out life crapping in diapers and suckling on their moms teats. Any such conspiracy would literally have to involve everyone in governmental and private capacities.

It states that they may do because they WILL do, its nothing more than a get out clause, and If you think the world needs a catalyst such as public consumption of ET life as fact to descend into chaos, then you arent looking around you, the glossy media framed western world is nothing more than a comforting distraction form the reality of the planet, the reality is we are in an awful state, and chaos sums that state up pretty badly, what the hell RIGHT does anyone have to decide whether or not YOU should have certain knowledge.

Look, I want aliens to be visiting our planet too, but there simply is no evidence of that happening either in the past or now. The Brookings report hints at not disclosing contact if that contact is found to be hostile, which I agree with that in full. If you think the world is in such disarray now, wait until we find out we're about to be invaded and all destroyed without hope.

Exoplanets with unexplainable orbits, galaxies too big too exist, and teh many contradictions between SR and GR, surely you know of these?

I'm talking physics as in the fundamentals, like the different forces and such. I agree that the current standard model of the universe is inherently wrong because it needs to invent unseen thing's in order to explain away observations that contradict it, but the fundamental forces of physics are seemingly sound, or at least our technologies based on them seem to indicate they are correct in that regard.

We also have to understand that the standard model is wrong because it make's a few assumptions. Like assuming redshift is a constant, which if it were then it would certainly show a universe coming from a big bang. The fact that what we see out there doesn't show this and that redshift can be variable in the lab, to me at least indicates that the big bang model is wrong. Also, how gravity works is a theory and if it were correct on how it works, then we should see it's predictions out there, which we do to a degree and don't to a degree. With the MOG version of gravity, a lot of these problems disappear right away.

Personally, I think the universe is either larger and older than what we can currently observe or it has always been here. The cosmic background radiation can probably be explained by light dispersion from distant stars that our telescopes aren't powerful enough to focus on. The light/dark voids in the CMB are probably due to matter distribution of those really distant galaxies. This could possibly explain why the more powerful the telescope, the older the universe seems to get.

What evidence for ID have you seen that *can* be put to the test?

Frankly I dont know how I would put the fact that things work the way they do and the way things work so well to the test, good question thats the unfortunate thing about ID, perhaps if it is true, it isint possible to truly know it, thats certainly what the ancients believed.

Ill get back to ya on this one^__^

I disagree that we have found life everywhere outside of our own world, hence 1:1 statistical chance of it occurring so far. What we have found elsewhere are organic precursors to life, but not life itself. If you feel we have discovered life everywhere, then I beg of you to back up that claim. Also, to nitpick, your earlier assumption of statistics showing life is nearly impossible as evidence by your usage of this quote:

What? I never said we have, at all!

The improbability involved in generating even one bacterium is so large that it reduces all considerations of time and space to nothingness.

Seems to be in direct contradiction with the statement you have just given me now. We can't call life nearly improbable and yet consider it to exist everywhere at the same time.

Are you reading my posts, that was the point of the quote, that the improbability is what renders it(random mutation) illogical!

Come on now, the real brain power is in understanding the oligarchical and hierarchical control structures of the planet, and its grip on the dissemination of information, that is key!

You forget, everyone *at least in America* has a chance at getting a governmental job and that everyone on this planet starts out life crapping in diapers and suckling on their moms teats. Any such conspiracy would literally have to involve everyone in governmental and private capacities.

Okay that sentence is teh classic response I get from people who have done NO prolonged research into such matter,and Im not bashing you for that just pointing it out.

I can only say your assertion is wrong, a conspircy does not imply everyone involved, it involves everyone being involved without realizing what they are propogating, its about the many being reliant on the few, its actually a lot easier than it sounds, a LOT easier, if you have not done much research into the topic than there really isint any point in ging further with it in this thread^_^

It states that they may do because they WILL do, its nothing more than a get out clause, and If you think the world needs a catalyst such as public consumption of ET life as fact to descend into chaos, then you arent looking around you, the glossy media framed western world is nothing more than a comforting distraction form the reality of the planet, the reality is we are in an awful state, and chaos sums that state up pretty badly, what the hell RIGHT does anyone have to decide whether or not YOU should have certain knowledge.

Look, I want aliens to be visiting our planet too, but there simply is no evidence of that happening either in the past or now. The Brookings report hints at not disclosing contact if that contact is found to be hostile, which I agree with that in full. If you think the world is in such disarray now, wait until we find out we're about to be invaded and all destroyed without hope.

Of course theirs evidence, Im not saying its happened, in fact my personal opinion is that histories anomolies can be explained without the introduction of aliens, an advanced ancient civilization can fill in those gaps too, with SUBSTANTIAL evidence.

But the evidence for visitors(whether human or alien) from other worlds is actually quite damning and I can only suggest you use the great search function to find out more, look into the hundreds of ancient texts and depictions of afformentioned beings, look at the amazing OOPARTS that throw archeology and many other fields besides into serious turmoil, anyways you get the point!!!

Exoplanets with unexplainable orbits, galaxies too big too exist, and teh many contradictions between SR and GR, surely you know of these?

I'm talking physics as in the fundamentals, like the different forces and such. I agree that the current standard model of the universe is inherently wrong because it needs to invent unseen thing's in order to explain away observations that contradict it, but the fundamental forces of physics are seemingly sound, or at least our technologies based on them seem to indicate they are correct in that regard. We also have to understand that the standard model is wrong because it make's a few assumptions. Like assuming redshift is a constant, which if it were then it would certainly show a universe coming from a big bang. The fact that what we see out there doesn't show this and that redshift can be variable in the lab, to me at least indicates that the big bang model is wrong. Also, how gravity works is a theory and if it were correct on how it works, then we should see it's predictions out there, which we do to a degree and don't to a degree. With the MOG version of gravity, a lot of these problems disappear right away. Personally, I think the universe is either larger and older than what we can currently observe or it has always been here. The cosmic background radiation can probably be explained by light dispersion from distant stars that our telescopes aren't powerful enough to focus on. The light/dark voids in the CMB are probably due to matter distribution of those really distant galaxies. This could possibly explain why the more powerful the telescope, the older the universe seems to get.

InterEsting, I too believe either the universe is infinite or bigger and older than we could possibly imagine, anyway havint you just admitted modern sciences reliance on ASSUMPTION, having previously retorted the opposite, all Im saying is keep a more open mind, seriously and I dont mean as a substitute for logic, but you have to understand, in my humble opinoin, that science IS as political as it is anything else, and IS subject to being used as a control mechanism in the never ending dominance of men by men, this really is KEY!

reply to post by Outlawstar

Frankly I dont know how I would put the fact that things work the way they do and the way things work so well to the test, good question thats the unfortunate thing about ID, perhaps if it is true, it isint possible to truly know it, thats certainly what the ancients believed.

Ill get back to ya on this one^__^

Can you cite any sources indicating that this is what the ancients believed, because I have never heard of this before today.

What? I never said we have, at all!

What did you mean by this statement then?

Yes I do, frankly, I believe the fact we have found life on our Earth is evidence that it is found EVERYWHERE!!

Do you have any evidence that it is found everywhere?

Are you reading my posts, that was the point of the quote, that the improbability is what renders it(random mutation) illogical!

You agree with assumed numbers as statistical proof that life arising naturally is improbable on our own planet which real statistical observation says the probability is 1:1 as we have *not* discovered life elsewhere, but then you assume that life is probable elsewhere and that it had a hand in our own creation? Either your confused, or your confusing me. Please clarify your position as it makes no sense right now.

Okay that sentence is teh classic response I get from people who have done NO prolonged research into such matter,and Im not bashing you for that just pointing it out.

Quiet the contrary, which has lead me to state what I stated.

I can only say your assertion is wrong, a conspircy does not imply everyone involved, it involves everyone being involved without realizing what they are propogating, its about the many being reliant on the few, its actually a lot easier than it sounds, a LOT easier, if you have not done much research into the topic than there really isint any point in ging further with it in this thread^_^

Do you have any evidence of any cover up of any alien life either in the past or in the present?

Of course theirs evidence, Im not saying its happened, in fact my personal opinion is that histories anomolies can be explained without the introduction of aliens, an advanced ancient civilization can fill in those gaps too, with SUBSTANTIAL evidence.

I see no evidence of any civilization equal to or greater than our own in the past history of our planet. Can you please cite any sources of evidence that may indicate I am wrong.

But the evidence for visitors(whether human or alien) from other worlds is actually quite damning and I can only suggest you use the great search function to find out more, look into the hundreds of ancient texts and depictions of afformentioned beings, look at the amazing OOPARTS that throw archeology and many other fields besides into serious turmoil, anyways you get the point!!!

Every OOPART I have come across has already been debunked. Many mythologies are just that, mythologies. I also see no evidence of advanced modern knowledge in their writings at all.

InterEsting, I too believe either the universe is infinite or bigger and older than we could possibly imagine, anyway havint you just admitted modern sciences reliance on ASSUMPTION, having previously retorted the opposite, all Im saying is keep a more open mind, seriously and I dont mean as a substitute for logic, but you have to understand, in my humble opinoin, that science IS as political as it is anything else, and IS subject to being used as a control mechanism in the never ending dominance of men by men, this really is KEY!

Some theories utilize assumption in the capacity to explain observed facts, but those theories themselves can be prone to error, whereas the observed fact will still exist regardless of the theory getting it wrong. I hope that explains it a little better. I disagree that science is a control mechanism, discovering or attempting to learn how the universe came to be doesn't appear to me to contain any elements of control unless science is claimed to be a lie propagated by some great evil force trying to lie to us about some cosmic supernatural creator of the universe. Obviously that just sounds a tad bit silly.