Your statement is based on a fallacy. No form of study---science or philosophy can purport to ''invent'' let alone create knew knowledge---you can only prove or discover its existence---ie you can NOT prove anything new outside the universal laws and elements of nature. Science is a tool to augment our inherent incapacities to fully comprehend what nature has already provided---and "knows".
PROVE. OUR STATEMEN IS BASED ON This stament On Mon, May 3, 2010 at 1:01 AM, chazwin <[email protected]> wrote: > > The thing you have to realise is that the big-bang theory IS accepted > by science; it was invented by science; from evidence provided by > science.philosophy > It does NOT confirm the story of the bible, though politically the > steady state was preferable in some ways. > The simple fact is that ALL astronomy contradicts the bible and the > medieval church. > The simple fact that the entire story of creation in the bible is > contradicted by science. > > Now if you want to assert an intelligent design hypothesis then let's > hear it, but don't confuse a bad theory with political resistance of > some scientists to the ideology of fools that have tried to prevent > the march of science since Ockham. > > On May 1, 6:11 pm, Robert <[email protected]> wrote: > > Few ideas are so readily ridiculed among materialist scientists than > > the suggestion that the universe is intelligently designed by a > > supreme being. > > > > In order to understand why this is so, we must take a look at history, > > and in particular, Hubble's discovery that the universe is expanding. > > Today we accept Hubble's expansion with little doubt. But at the time > > of its announcement, there was a great controversy. Why? > > > > Because up until then, the steady state theory had prevailed. In the > > steady state view, there was no beginning, no moment of creation. > > > > Now why, you might ask, was the idea of a Beginning, a Moment of > > Creation, so unwelcome among scientists? > > > > It was because the Steady State Theory was directly contrary to the > > opening words of the Bible. "In the beginning, God created..." The > > Bible said there was a beginning. The steady state theory strongly > > suggested that there was not. Could the scientists bear to admit that > > they had been wrong, and that the Bible had been right? Perish the > > thought! > > > > Scientists claim to be open to any theory, even a Theory of God. Just > > present the evidence, they say, and conform to the scientific method. > > If your evidence passes muster, then we have no objection to admitting > > your theory into the science text books. > > > > But scientists are not always quite the pristine seekers after truth > > that they are reputed to be. They are as concerned with personal gain > > as anyone else is, and by personal gain, we must include egotistical > > and ideological factors as well. > > > > The Hubble announcement caused somewhat of a panic among scientists > > who should have celebrated the discovery. Not only did the universe > > have a sudden beginning, but for a few tense moments, it also appeared > > that WE are at the center of the universe. > > > > A sigh of relief could all but be heard when the centerless universe > > was restored by curvature of space theory. And after a time, the idea > > of a moment of creation settled in, as the primordial point particle > > seemed safely agnostic once more. > > > > With M theory, we have once again reverted to the comfort zone of a > > meta-steady-state theory, so to speak. We have unending sequences of > > Big Bangs, not moments of creation, but rather, collisions between > > membranes that manufacture multiple universes. In this mega-verse of > > universes, we have safely retreated back into the underlying > > philosophy that has dominated physics for the last few centuries, the > > philosophy called by various names, mostly including the word, > > material or matter. > > > > But there is a problem. > > > > According to the materialist view of nature, we are condemned forever > > to think only inside the box, or at least, into an infinite > > progression of boxes. Everything inside the box of nature can--- and > > must--- be explained only in terms of what is already inside the box. > > > > We are not allowed to go too far in terms of questioning what might be > > outside the box. As soon as one suggests that there MUST be an > > outside, the immediate challenge is to redefine outside as inside. > > > > Thus, if someone says that the box is best explained by an external > > reality called God, the first response is to say that we must measure > > God by the standards of the INSIDE of the box. > > > > If we say that God is the uncreated Creator, then the materialist > > places upon God the requirement that He, too, must have been created. > > You see, the universe can be uncreated, a self-existent reality with > > no beginning. But God cannot be uncreated and self-existent. It is > > not allowed. Because then, there might be a God. > > > > Which is why scientists scoff at the idea of intelligent design. Why, > > just because the universe SEEMS to be organized, that does not mean > > that it really is. It could all be randomness. And even if the > > universe IS organized, that could be purely by chance, there need be > > no organizer, not even an ultimate principle that requires > > organization. > > > > And so in the end, you find that the materialists really do have their > > own, sort of, god. Like the big G God, the little g god is uncreated, > > self-existent. But after that, the differences become major. > > > > The little g god is not an intelligent designer, although nature can > > produce intelligent designers. > > The little g god has no purpose, although it can produce purposeful > > creatures. > > Materialist nature has no independent free will, and therefore, > > neither do its creatures, because everything has to proceed according > > to the dictates of natural law, not the dictates of sovereign > > individuals. > > > > Which of course means that if you disagree with me, it is because you > > MUST do so, because you do not choose to disagree, you are compelled. > > > > Indeed, in the materialist view, there is no real science, because > > there is no truly independent inquiry. The scientist believes not > > what the evidence states, but rather, what the laws of physics dictate > > what he must believe. > > > > If we must scoff at an idea that seems ridiculous, why don't we scoff > > at that, instead of intelligent design? > > > > Why Is Intelligent Design such a bad idea? > > > > -- > > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "Epistemology" group. > > To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. > > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to > [email protected]<epistemology%[email protected]> > . > > For more options, visit this group athttp:// > groups.google.com/group/epistemology?hl=en. > > -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "Epistemology" group. > To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to > [email protected]<epistemology%[email protected]> > . > For more options, visit this group at > http://groups.google.com/group/epistemology?hl=en. > > -- nubiaafrika.blogspot.com -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Epistemology" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected]. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/epistemology?hl=en.
