• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

How Can ID/Creationism Be Science?

S

Soldano16

Member
Hela cells/lab pandemic said:
Scientific support for the Strong Anthropic Principle.
Click to expand...

There is no scientific support for that theory. The principle itself is not at all scientific. It's a false premise that was philosophically destroyed a long time ago. Of course this universe has to be perfect to support life. Otherwise you wouldn't be here on the internet. To say "well if it was off this much we wouldn't be here, that's so amazing it's proof" is just nonsense - sorry.

Claims of incredibility have no scientific basis and are just personal opinion.

The theory is basically a claim of incredibility. No real science there.
 
yossarian22

yossarian22

Resident Schizophrenic
Soldano16 said:
There is no scientific support for that theory. The principle itself is not at all scientific. It's a false premise that was philosophically destroyed a long time ago.
Click to expand...
Its not scientific because its not falsifiable. I have never seen a philosophical destruction of it as well.

Either way, the core of the strong anthropic principle does not support ID claims in the slightest. All it does state is that a universe must allow for the existence of intelligent, or the universe could not exist. There are other flavors of it, but they all seem revolve around that.
 
S

Soldano16

Member
yossarian22 said:
I have never seen a philosophical destruction of it as well.
Click to expand...

Very simple. Of course everything in the universe is perfect to support life as we know it. Otherwise we would not be here to examine the question in the first place.

So no matter how great you can make the odds against life, it's obvious that life won the "life" lottery. So there's nothing to discuss.

The proof is in the pudding, as they say.
 
yossarian22

yossarian22

Resident Schizophrenic
Soldano16 said:
Very simple. Of course everything in the universe is perfect to support life as we know it. Otherwise we would not be here to examine the question in the first place.
Click to expand...
Anthropic principle - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
You just cited the weak form
'It should not surprise us that conditions in our area are capable of supporting life.'
The strong form is a continuation of that to say
'A universe must allow for the existence of intelligent life in order to exist'
The first is common sense. The second is unscientific because it is unfalsifiable.
Now these are not direct quotes from the Wiki so much as a general summary. There are dozens of forms for both strong and weak, but all contain those core bits.
 
yossarian22

yossarian22

Resident Schizophrenic
Soldano16 said:
Is the point that if there was no life in the universe, the universe could not exist?
Click to expand...
Specifically intelligent life(or conscious life).
The reason its unfalsifiable is its implication
If there are no observers in a given universe, that universe ceases to exist.
If we view another universe, according to the strong anthropic principle, we just created one. Unfalsifiable, but it does not support the claims of ID in the slightest. If anything, it lends itself more to randomness.
 
McBell

McBell

mantra-chanting henotheistic snake handler
Soldano16 said:
So the theory is based on man existing since the start of the universe?

Even Christians think the universe existed before man existed. But by this theory, that universe could not have existed.:help:
Click to expand...
seems a bit of a catch 22 if you ask me.
In order for the universe to exist man has to exist.
In order for man to exist, the universe must exist.

Neither could come first because without one, there could not be the other
 
SonOfNun

SonOfNun

Member
Autodidact said:
After a lengthy trial, in which ID proponents did their best to prove your assertion, Judge Jones differed from you, based on the evidence. "The overwhelming evidence at trial established that ID is a religious view, a mere re-labeling of creationism, and not a scientific theory."

It is difficult to understand this issue without first understanding that both creationists and ID proponents are liars, as Judge Jones held. Once you understand this, everything falls into place.
Click to expand...

Wow, yours is a very ignorant claim. In order to lie one has to know the the truth and chose to pervert it. As a Christian, science is not the answer to everything. It is an ends to a means, not the ends in and of its self. The way we judge and observe things differ from the way you observe and judge things. I will except the title of ignorant, but of a lier, no. I firmly believe in creation. So if I am not telling the truth, it is not a lie, but ignorance.
I will firmly hold this position until someone can give me a scientific explanation for the fact that the Bible is 100% correct on all its prophesies. How can someone living hundreds of years before Rome came to be know about crucification? How can there be a nation of Israel?
 
McBell

McBell

mantra-chanting henotheistic snake handler
SonOfNun said:
Wow, yours is a very ignorant claim. In order to lie one has to know the the truth and chose to pervert it. As a Christian, science is not the answer to everything. It is an ends to a means, not the ends in and of its self. The way we judge and observe things differ from the way you observe and judge things. I will except the title of ignorant, but of a lier, no. I firmly believe in creation. So if I am not telling the truth, it is not a lie, but ignorance.
Click to expand...
Many people hold that willful ignorance is the same as lying.
Some even contend that 'plausible deniability' equates to lying.

SonOfNun said:
I will firmly hold this position until someone can give me a scientific explanation for the fact that the Bible is 100% correct on all its prophesies. How can someone living hundreds of years before Rome came to be know about crucification? How can there be a nation of Israel?
Click to expand...
Self fulfilling prophecy.
 
yossarian22

yossarian22

Resident Schizophrenic
Soldano16 said:
So the theory is based on man existing since the start of the universe?
Click to expand...
No, it states that the rules of the universe must allow for the existence of intelligent life.
Its kind of hard to wrap your head around. I think Rolling Stone had a good picture which represented it.
 
camanintx

camanintx

Well-Known Member
SonOfNun said:
I will firmly hold this position until someone can give me a scientific explanation for the fact that the Bible is 100% correct on all its prophesies. How can someone living hundreds of years before Rome came to be know about crucification? How can there be a nation of Israel?
Click to expand...

The same way Nostradamus could have predicted the 9/11 attack or Edgar Cayce predicted the assassination of JFK.
 
McBell

McBell

mantra-chanting henotheistic snake handler
SonOfNun said:
I will firmly hold this position until someone can give me a scientific explanation for the fact that the Bible is 100% correct on all its prophesies. How can someone living hundreds of years before Rome came to be know about crucification? How can there be a nation of Israel?
Click to expand...
Two wards:
Bible Code.

Of course, I read that it is actually much more accurate when the process is used with the novel War and Peace, but hey, what can you do?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top