hypothesis: based on the observation that there are predictiable outcomes of events in the Universe there is an inteligent design to the Universe. The hypothesis stands on either experimentation or continued observation. As you have pointed out there are things observed that appear to behave randomly as such the hypothesis based on current observation technichs would be rejected.

How would it give rise to a theory: "The universe was designed intelligently" here is an equation or set of equations that can be used to predict all outcomes in the universe. Now apply them, do the equations fail yes then we reject entire theory or we amend theory to correct for failure, if equation(s) work theory accepted.

Its just an idea. Not to be viewed as an actual hypothesis or theory that iam presenting

A Fact is something that is always observed to be true. Isnt that the same thing as a scientific law?

I agree Deesheeevil - as far as the orgin of life both explantions are just as equally waited

yes, i guess theburningbush is right. a fact doesn't necessarily have to be objectively true to be such, because a fact is different from the truth. so yes, facts are what we observe that we can base predictions on. good insight, theburningbush.

aye, but there is a fundimental flaw to your logic. You must also prove via experimentation as understood via previous posts that predictable outcomes are the result of a higher being. Comparing the results humans make to the results a supposed deity would make are not good enough. It is not enough to find support for an idea, a lot of things can be supported but cannot actually be tested. Whether or not having a diety creates predictable results or not cannot be tested.

And no, a scientific law, is a <i>theory</i> (which as a specific definition) that is easily observed to be true in everyday life ie observed to be true. This part is a dead horse. Its not my opinion as to what a hypothesis, theory and law are in terms of science; they are the accepted definitions. If you'd really like support given for these things let me know and it won't be difficult to find reliable sources that say the same thing.

Science has the same foundations that western philosophy does. The entire purpose of it was not just to accept things but to question. And through that series of questioning and research find a logical answer. Not just logic in laymans terms but logic as viewed like one of those logic puzzle games. Until you are sure NOTHING else goes into that blank it is a guess as to whether or not you are putting the right thing in.
The same is true with science. Sure this could be it b/c its supports it, but you wont know for sure until you eliminate the lurking variables, all other things etc through experiments where the outcome is EITHER: you're right or you're wrong. both things have to be an option.

So, in all actuality what i should have argued is that the 'scientific' option actually has no place in here whatsoever. haha, and i say this after way too many posts in here. Good thoughts from all though, its no fun when its easy.

predticable outcomes would suggest inteligent design. If we are the highest intellect observed and we had to work to that design not from it would that not fairly conclusivly demonstrate that a being higher then us set that design in motion. This all is based on demonstrating that randomness does not exist (atleast as it pertains to the pieces of the universe life on the other hand.....) Anyway it is a weak argument with lots of holes.

I am not so sure I follow what your second post is trying to convey but scientific laws are not the same as theories. A law as you said is easly observable where as a theory is not or a theory is more encompassing then one single observable truth. I cant look out the window and see how gravity works but I can see a body in motion. This I know you know but anyways

I have forgoten to welcome both yourself and apostate87 welcome it is good to see people in here discussing and continueing to particpate the discussions have been enjoyable

Thank you for the welcome. I'm off to nap off a cold after some chicken noodle soup that was warm and tasty. take care

hmmm, i thought i'd throw in my two cents' worth on randomness... since it seems it plays a part in the intelligent design theory.

what is random for one person is not necessarily so for another. i came to this conclusion with my mythical physics teacher in discussing entropy. hmmm... take for instance the following: askdj fgf aa afsdsasf afsasdasd. now, that might appear random. in fact, i just punched some letters on the keyboard. however, there is no proof that a language could not exist in which that phrase does not make sense. in fact, there could very well be a language in which that collection of letters expresses the meaning of life. random for us, but not for everybody. not necessarily.

secondly, consider a neat, orderly row of desks. it all looks pretty non-random, no? consider now you're an ant looking at this jungle of desks from below. somewhere the order is lost. if we, subjectively, are responsible for determining what's random and what's not, we can't say that randomness doesn't exist, anymore than we can say that nobody likes rainbows.

and i don't see why any higher power had to make things like they are. if you put enough monkeys in a room and let them hit keys long enough, you'll get the complete works of shakespeare, moliere, dante and cervantes in english, french, italian and spanish. if the universe has been around forever, and what we see now as reality is possible (i don't think anybody wants to deny the possibility of our current reality :p not in this thread, anyway...) then it was bound to happen eventually. that's simple probability (actually, really confusing probability at the moment :p)

on another note, i think stygian is right to question whether science has any place intruding on the origin of our species, or the world for that matter. or the universe. if we observe evolution in other species, that's good. if we can track our own evolution starting now, even better. if we can look at clues, nay, proof from the past and infer the process of human evolution, it is excellent. the problem is that, as it stands, i don't know of any compelling empirical proof to back it up with. the theory is really just a call to arms, to whet scientists' appetites to search for a way of explaining it so the process of evolution can be turned in our favor. in that sense, evolution is a very worthy venture.

my final verdict? religion offers truth but no proof, whereas science offers proof but no truth. lol. kinda ironic.

Well i belive it started with "one" ultimate being, this being for what ever reasons put half of its power into two other beings called "good" and "evil",

"good" and "evil" wanted more power(because they wanted to out power the other) so toegher they tryed to take the first being down,

but somthing whent wrong and they created yet another being, "death" death then after listening to both "good" and "evil" stayed nutral but put half of his power in to "life" to eventuly create ulimited power to end the war between "good" and "evil",

the four of them together made "existance" with there verouse own touches, "life creating", "death ending ' protecting and giving meaning", "good" and "evil "fighting as "order" and "pleasuer",

this eventuly created endless possibulity, as what was beeing created had a will of its own and could become just as powerfull as the starting four, creating meany differnt things, meanings, ideals, and belifes...

the only thing left ot exsplain is how the first being came to be... ZOMG thats gona be hard.. but ill figuer it out, you just watch...

p.s. i know this could fit into a few religonds but remeber religond is just how we justify things, belifes, and ideals this is just how i think i might have come to be. :p

beautiful theory really. can't say i'm converted, but still, very poetic.

The Universe was born as an explosion.

What are the ingredients for dynamite?

All you have to do is find out what the ingredients were, and what caused it to explode.

Simple.

How was LIFE born?

From water.

Where did water come from?

Aaaaaah! THAT is a hard one: because the liquid known as water: does not exist anywhere else inthe Universe except here on earth.

going back to my randomness argument before, there's nothing special about water except that it's different, which is relative anyway.

and how do you know there's no water anywhere else? have you been everywhere and checked?

i think life is a farce, anyway. just chemical reactions... interesting it happens this way, but interesting to us, not necessarily to anyone else. i don't think the question you should be asking is 'how was life born', but rather, 'what is life'.

plus, i don't think the universe was ever really born. it's just always been around... not to say the 'big bang' never happened, but to say the universe didn't exist is wrong, it was just really condensed. furthermore, i don't really think anything exists at all, since i don't know what it means to exist.

No 1: Your opinion is not worth shit.

No. 2: before you doubt something: do your own research. if you find out that what you doubt is actually true: then shut your ignorant mouth until you educate yourself enough to know what you are talking about.

No 3: You have no education. Get an education. find out the facts. Until you do... anything you say is not worth responding to.

No 4: Since you do not exist: then go away and let us enjoy your nonexistence.

i hate to sound pretentious but i suspect if we poll the others on this forum, we would see most people think I am more educated than YOU. whether i'm well-educated or not is a good question, but i dare say that you are completely and officially retarded. i mean, you actually have a condition.

1. my argument is that no opinion is worth shit. hence, you're right, but then again, it doesn't matter, as yours is totally pointless too.

2. i'm sorry, let me check the entire universe to make sure there is no more water. shithead. i only stated that we can't know. plus, even if water doesn't exist anywhere but here, there could be other liquids elsewhere that exist only there. what makes water special? it's not so intricate.

3. i have no idea how you intended to argue against my 3rd point by calling me uneducated. of course, i doubt you've ever really thought in your entire life.

4. actually since i don't exist there's no difference between my responding to this forum and my not responding. lol. so i guess i'll just stick with the grand old tradition of making you look like an ass.

Idiot: intelligence is not a matter of the consensus of a majority. The stupidest thing in the world is a majority consensus. If the majority consensus were an accurate rating of intelligence: you would still believe that the world is flat.
As to how this can be proven it is easy: At what temperature does water exist as a liquid>?
Find that temperature anywhere else in the Universe and I will give you a million fucking dollars. But since you do not know anything about science: and since you have no interest in finding out if anything is true or not: then stay in your deluded fantasy world. And do not stick your worthless opinion where scientific facts are.


You incapable of logic. You exist in your own brain. Imagining things that do not exist. In other words: you are an ass. I am not. logic works. Your bullshit does not.

lol are you suggesting that you know for certain that there is no other place in the universe with this temperature? lol. laughable. so fucking laughable. and water can exist in other states. called ice and water vapor, asshole. surely you, with your wide-ranging scientific abilities, can understand that states of matter don't change what the material is.

first prove that no other places in the universe have our temperature. then prove that only on our planet do oxygen and hydrogen covalently bond.

you are retarded. i don't know how to make that any more clear to you. go learn something. i will help you if you want help. get over yourself. you know nothing. you have no knowledge at all. oh, but you think you know so much it makes me gag.

I'm more with the scientific view myself. I believe we have evolutionized but we inherit alien life within ourselves because we just cannot only be an animal. We are more advanced. Our ancestors of Atlantis and Egypt were advanced. Ancient technology shows we are not just some ordinary evolution.

I kind of believe that there are aliens and they watch us because they just want to see what we do and how stupid we are. I know, I sound crazy enough. I mean, Mars must have been the original planet? There are things there that point at something hidden.

But I just cannot believe in God. It's just science and us as creators. I think it is foolish to believe in that but I will not bite someone's neck off if they believe in that.