3-7-2008

The theory of the Creationist in Intellectual Design,

We are able to produce theories of evolution and intelligent design, and we are aware that when one group launches theories, another group will object as the theory violates certain rules as set out by science.
The question arises, can science set rules an the presumption that something is not possible because it violates certain set rules as the rules are set by science as an reaction on possibilities we now. They are not set at the possibilities as existed during the evolutionary creation regardless of this was 65 or 250 million years ago. If that was the case, we could rather easily explain the existence, life, and ending of the Dinosaurs. Science cannot, they can proof, they can proof they livid and died, they cannot proof or known how they came in existence and only have theories about their endings.

This means there are theories about them but no evidence how they came in existence, and died.
Again, we have theories and possibilities but no explanation.
Is there an explanation about their size, their diversity, yes we have questions enough, but no answers.

To understand the forming of theories regarding evolution and intelligent design, we have to be aware how theories are developing. This can be by precise and accurate observing the methods, the findings, and the probabilities of a subject. Accumulate laws to preserve and to describe it.
To be aware that the findings have to show what did happen, did happen indeed or in the future will be able to happen, and then to produce calculations by matter of science so that it can be explained.

It is necessary to point out that all explanation of a new theory and any theory are set by the rules of science known now and limited to now known possibilities.
Those possibilities which can in years to come maybe to be proven incorrect. Therefore, a theory that a possibility could be correct can be in fact being incorrect.

We know that in scientific communities it is presumed that the theories developed are correct.
The simple reason being that until present time no certain proof can be delivered. However, also that until present time it cannot be disproved and therefore it is preferred that the possibility is correct, however, then again is it?

The supporters of the theory that God created all and the supporters of natural evolution, the young earth, and old earth all believe their point of view is correct. The possibility that they are wrong does not exist. They all assume that the other possibilities are wrong in so far that it opposed their own theory. This has as result that they are focusing on their own limited scope, instead of scientific investigations for search and research.

If we start with the theory of the young earth and look at the possibilities put forwards by the supporters of this theory, then we find that their theory, has easy to see floors in it, putting aside the already rejected scientifically theory of Helium concentration. However also the data in the bible hows that the theory of God does not allow it. The ages until Noah gives already such a timetable that, their theory of ten thousands years is all ready out run by another ten thousand years at least.
If we take in account the book of 2 Enoch than we talking already over a period of near hundred thousands of years.
When looking at other parts of the theory and the possibilities of that theory we cannot see any evidential indication that the possibility of this theory could have a proper function axiom.
The theory of natural evolution can use existing evidence of possibilities and probabilities of the origin of the existence. However, they also do not deliver any certainty of the possibility that their position is the correct one. However, there is some evidential proof.
The believers of the old earth are in the same position as their opponents, the lack of proof.

Natural evolution has produced some interesting examples and possibilities, which theoretical could lead to a solid conclusion. However, it is theories without proof with hypothetical possibilities.
The problem here that they do not and cannot know from existing scientifically data what the condition on earth was in the time of the Dinosaurs, they presume that it was the same as it is today. However, oxygen, silicon and aluminium levels, and concentrations could have been different from what it is today; it could have higher or lower in its own margin, melting, boiling or critical points/temperature. It could have been complete different from what we know now, with only the living basics in principle the same. The whole contents of Hydrogen could have been altered. Just because science axioms do not allow space for hypothetical theories, does not mean it cannot have been the case. From a philosophical point of view, it would be a possibility, and any indication of such a possibility should be investigated, it is the only way to progress.
The extension of the Dinosaurs had to have a reason, the alteration in size of flora and fauna must have had a reason. The point that the axioms of science do not allow such a theory will simple not do.

It is known that some syntheses of particles of hydrogen are yet not known, in scientific re-creation. It does not mean we simple have to overlook the theoretical possibilities that air and earth were of a different chemical balance, as it is known now. Even if it were just slight it would have made a different in the developing of the natural evolution

Science has yet to figure out how life before the ending of the Dinosaur was established. They also still do not know how it ended and why. The theory is that a massive meteorite hit Earth.
This at such a way that the earths orbit could have been altered, while the impact also could have realised dangerous volcanic gasses, which could have created climatologically changes. It could have created an alteration in the earth’s magnetic field and the chemical contents of air and earth.

The creation of Pangaea would have created a solid and large enough land mass to complete change the climate of earth, the tectonic pressure would have been enormous. That tectonic pressure may have created massive volcanic activities and if so, it could have blocked out the sunlight for many years by the release of debris and ash in the air. This on it self could have triggered a chemical alteration of air and earth. Fact is that in that time earth had one of his longest and largest ice age period known. A supplying theory is that an enormous million cubic miles of lava spread out over what is now Siberia an 250 million years ago aprox.
This combination on the Pangaea created almost the complete extinction of flora and fauna, and it was after this that the first Dinosaurs appeared on earth with a still unknown metabolism
As a result of so many theories and possibilities but without any solid evidence to progress it is no wonder that only a very view scientist are involved in the origin research of originality of natural evolution.

Science is progressing fast as a result of more available data and new equipment for data storage and calculations, to up date the search and the research. However it will remain to be seen of it will be possible to create the possible theoretical grounds for evaluation and proceding to create the similar fields of creation as were on Pangaea and on which the Dinosaures could live.
It also remains to be seen of it will be possible to recreate the fields of creation at the time the Dinosaurs sudden ending, would that be possible we would have an considerable better insight about the start of the natural evolution.
Although sciences still have to figure out how those life-forming chemicals were formed and destroyed. They cannot proceed unless they know what really altered the chemical situation
of air and earth, if there was such an alteration. Both are fundamental to sustain life in whatever form.

Extreme heat, sudden cold, changes in the magnetic field the speeding or slowing of earths orbit can have an effect on natural evolution, which is a fact. Theory is however, is the fact that science does not know what the changes were.
So long as that scientific data is not available, no search or research to the situation on Pangaea the beginning or at the end of the Dinosaurs is possible.

Does this means that we simple have to give up, forget about it. We should not.
Science have to work with less then desirable data, however that was always the case. We know that fanatics who have adopted a static view on how it all began disagree with science, although they know that science regarding the natural evolution only just have started. In fact, they are not even out of the starter’s blocks. However, those static’s wants instant explanations and they want it now.
They do not deliver an alternative themselves, they do not deliver proof about there own point of view, although some point to the bible as the only source what is correct. Those static’s are almost fanatic in their pursue of the natural evolutionist of which they insist have to proof their point without delivering any themselves. They wants us to believe that what is in the bible is correct, is right. However, at the same time that they say, the bible is correct and right they reject the epic of Gilgamesh and the Enuma Elis, although both say the same and parts are even mentioned in the bible. They reject the Code of Ur-Nammu although parts of the Hebrew laws are based on it; they reject Shamash as God, because only the God of the Jews is right. However, Shamash was the original God of the Semitics, the Jews are a part of that tribe, and Shamash was the God in Ur, Haran when the Jews were living there. There is no historical proof that in Ur or Haran the Jews had a different God as the others living in Ur or Haran. The God of the Jews is also the God of the Christians, therefore Christians are still believing in Shamash although they call them now God. The point is that those fanatics who believe in stories unproven want the evolutionist to proof his case, although knowing that this science is only just started.
It is also a fact that the Christian Church special in the US is the biggest obstructor of science into natural evolution.

This behaviour is ad odds with the normal curiosity of human kind, you may expect that special the Christian Church would do all to proof the bible right. What can be more profitable then if science in natural evolution fails to find any reasonable evidence, not only know but also 100 or 200 years from now.

Natural evolution scientist should be given time to come at least out of the starting blocks. They will be able to re-create via search and research the right circumstances in which he can create the right situation. Being the magnetic and chemical alteration of air and earth as was in the time of Pangaea and at the time of the end of the dinosaurus.

This search will launch science in a higher orbit as a matter of speaking. They can let go of the restrictions to science as they have now and search new pathways never walked before. With those axioms removed all things are possible theoretical. The opponents will say scientist who not longer belief in the axioms of natural evolution are in fact creationist as they creating new possibilities and theories. It will be obvious that they are not they are scientist who progress were Christianity stands still.

Some call intelligent design, a science based on observation, without explaining the reason why?
However, how can they call it a science as no research is involved by scientist. Intellectual design is simple the assertion that certain features of earth, universe and life is best explained by an intelligent cause. This a modern form of the traditional Theological argument to prove God existence.
It found its origin in the US by creationist to avoid Court rulings, in an attempt to try to promote the creation as a science, although it is in fact a pseudo science and does not have a science background. The more disrespectful call it a junk science.
It is an anti-evolution belief, also called origin science based on a singular unobserved events happened in a remote past of which there is no acceptable proof available.

There is a natural intelligent design theory which is indeed a not a science and which statements are not proven. It is normal if there is a claim, for science to investigate the evidence to examine the fact and to draw a conclusion, temporary or permanent. This is in intelligent design not possible therefore the predicate of science is void; there is no evidence to examine.

Some say that intelligent design is not a religion as it does not require faith that however, is a cheap way out as intelligent design cannot be in existence without faith; it is the only backing this theory has.
Others say intelligent design is a framework of logical thinking based on observation; logical thinking however, dispels every thing that is not observational to science and intelligent design. Intellectual design does not have a science based observational base.

Natural evolution or intelligent design is fully proven, with the note that concerning intelligent design nothing is proven, there is only the belief and the faith. This based on the singular point that all is perfect therefore, there has to be an intelligent design and an intellectual designer.

Natural evolutionists can prove some and have a possibility of theories for others, but this is science and it is only just started and need in the coming generations an increased philosophical thinking and further development of scientific materials.
The realisation is there that although not proven yet, in time with further development of scientific tools altered chemical structures to investigate the air and earth chemical structures 250 and 65 million of years ago together with a simulation of an altered earth orbit and magnetic field to prove the natural evolution. This time is still not there as equipment to simulate the altered orbit and magnetic field in combination with the alteration of air and earth chemical structure is not available yet, and have a further problem that the right air and earth chemical structure need to be found before such an project of simulation can be started.
The proof of the natural evolution or the failure to do so is still a long way off unless there are sudden scientific discoveries, which will make the speeding up possible.

None of the scientific laws as defined to day are suitable for a research into the field of natural evolution. As so long, the data needed is not available and not possible to create yet, to enable scientist to proof one way or another that their theory is possible.

What we expect now and what theoretical possibilities we can prove, is in the future to reveal.
It does mean that the dependence on axioms will be void. Relying on RNA will be void as that applies to science situations, as we know to day which can be abandoned in the future as other possibilities and theories are taking over. We only can present a full-scale evolution progress if we are able to produce a simulation process data as were available at the beginning of Pangaea and the ending of the dinosaurs.
Intelligent design, the creation is what it always
was, History. GEWK.
**************************************************