cabinintheforest

Sorry people. Little mistake done by me. If you want the 10£ you have to take the video/photo yourself and send it to me. - This was kind of obvious from the post. But now i have said it. Pasting words off websites is NOT empirical evidence. I thought we are on a science forum here.? Do you people know what science is? B) Knowledge from direct and i repeat direct observation. I want REAL LIVE footage of evolution taking place or a REAL PHOTO of evolution. Pasting in words from websites, is just subjective and biased and is not scientific objective data. Please look up the definition of the scientific method. Anyone can put anything on a website. I can head over now to a ID website and paste in how evolution is a hoax, does not exist and is unscientific. Here it is: http://www.trueorigi.../theobald1a.asp 29 evidences for macroevolution debunked and http://creationwiki....d_(Talk.Origins) Macroevolution has never been observed Pasting in websites is subjective. Websites are not going to help on this issue. I am asking for a photo/live video footage of evolution taking place. You all seem to support evolution here - BUT YOU HAVE NEVER OBSERVED IT, why continue to believe in evolution when you have never observed it yourself? Evolution is currently a belief nobody has observed it, want to prove me wrong? Get a photo/real live video footage of evolution taking place - but oh no you can not prove it. So you are just believing... faith... you may aswell just pick up a religious book and believe it then. Scientific method, knowledge from observation, testing and repeating... evolution is not scientific. If it was you would be able to show me some real empirical photos/footage. But you yourselves have admitted it "takes 1000s of millions of years". Not scientific then. Science is all about the present, millions of years is not in the present, science is about now, what you can observe in the now. You pasted in: - No evolution to be seen on this blogspot (owned by anybody) all there was, was photos of ordinary plants with a bit of writing underneathe it. NO SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE HERE FOR EVOLUTION JUST MORE FAITH BASED STATEMENTS AND BELIEFS... Two users pasted in WIKIPEDIA links - more words - blah blah blah - No scientific empirical evidence here. No photos. No live footage. Wikipedia is a publicly edited website, you believe everything that is written on there do you? If that is your logic you may aswell just believe in a religious book. Somebody pasted in a youtube video self created on photoshop and powerpoint... again just cartoons and words. Just personal opinions completly subjective, anyone can create anything on youtube and post it. NO SCIENTIFIC REAL EMPIRICAL EVIDENCE FOR EVOLUTION HERE:lol: You people call yourself scientists lol:lol: 10£ is still on the table. I am waiting for the evidence. Please stop pasting in words, beliefs and ideas. I want real evidence. Cheers.

michel123456 you bring up some interesting points. Obession with creation? There is no obession with creation here. This is a thread about atheistic intelligent design. Creationism and intelligent design are not the same. Evolution, creationism, ID etc None of these theories can be directly observed. It comes down to personal choice at the end of the day, you choose which one you want to believe. Try to explain a universe that existed forever? This is exactly what is mentioned in my original post. Have you looked up John Gribbin's multiverse theory? He argues for no beginning, reality is just an infinite amount of universes. The only people argueing for a beginning are most big bang believers. I mentioned in my original post the work of Fred Hoyle. I prefer the steady state theory (infinite universe theory) to the big bang.

Evolution has never been observed. Saying species evolved over millions of years is a faith statement and is not the scientific method. Science is knowledge from observation. If you believe you have empirical evidence that evolution has been observed. Please put it up. I am not talking about words i am talking about video footage or a photo. I am willing to pay £10 to anyone that has a photo or video evidence of macroevolution taking place.

Sorry about that i had not read all the forum rules, thanks for sorting it out. That is a very interesting question, these are the sort of philosopical questions that i enjoy. A similar question does a tree make a sound if no mind is around to percieve it? Do tables and chairs exist if an observer is not not looking at them? These are questions which idealist and phenomenalist philosophers have been trying to solve for years. In the article i wrote i mentioned Ernst mach. Ernst Mach reduced the whole world into sensations. Nothing else existed to him. Other philosophers have taken this route but most thought it would end in solipsism so did not even bother. The question is what keeps so called "objects" in existance when no mind is around to observe them? George berkeley put God in the gap. Phenomenalists and some other idealists and process philosophers say that experience is enough to keep the objects in existance. So basically you can be an atheist or theist and share some of these views.

----

Atheists are now supporting Intelligent Design Yes you read the title correctly. You can be an atheist and be a supporter of intelligent design. Some atheists and agnostics can support and are supporting intelligent design. So what exactly do atheistic intelligent designers believe? Well most of them seem to believe the atheist intelligent design theories of John Gribbin “the multiverse theory” also known as the “designer multiverse theory”. Many scientists are currently supporting this theory including Martin Rees and Bernard Carr. I have posted many links on the multiverse theory at the end of this article if you want to research this theory deeper. One reviewer says very honestly “It seems to me that what Gribbin has done is undercut the entire case against teaching ID in public schools. If it's possible that the designer could be a being other than God then objections to ID based on its allegedly religious nature evaporate.” Another type of atheistic intelligent design similar to the multiverse theory is the belief that humans have created life themselves. This theory has been supported by idealist philosophers for 1000s of years. If every object in the universe is created by human minds then this is indeed is a type of atheistic intelligent design. The philosophies of idealism and phenomenalism have both supported this theory. Physicists are now starting to embrace this theory. Physicist John Wheeler once offered a suggestion: maybe we should approach cosmic fine-tuning not as a problem but as a clue. Perhaps it is evidence that we somehow endow the universe with certain features by the mere act of observation. It’s an idea that Stephen Hawking has been thinking about, too. Hawking advocates what he calls top-down cosmology, in which observers are creating the universe and its entire history right now. If we in some sense create the universe, it is not surprising that the universe is well suited to us.” If you want to learn about the cosmic fine tuning theory have a look here: http://www.discovery.org/a/91 http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/teleological-arguments/#CosFinTun You can be an atheist or a theist and support the cosmic fine tuning theory of intelligent design. Another type of atheistic intelligent design is the theory of Nick Bostrom. Nick Bostrom puts forward that life is in a computer simulation. Yes that is right life could be a virtual reality. Head over his website: Here: http://www.simulation-argument.com/matrix.html Read his FAQ http://www.simulation-argument.com/faq.html or download his paper: Are you living in a computer simulation? http://www.simulation-argument.com/simulation.pdf http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Simulation_hypothesis A common mistake is to believe intelligent design is religious or has to include God as the designer. Agnosticism and atheism are compatible with intelligent design. No theory in the world is complete. Discoveries are always being made; even the ideas about evolution and intelligent design are constantly changing. I first thought it was not possible but I was proven wrong when a number of atheists and agnostics are now breaking away from the materialistic Darwinian evolutionist theories and are now starting to question it and come up with alternative theories some of which are based on intelligent design. In the last 20 years a number of agnostics started to question the theory of evolution. Books by agnostics leading towards intelligent design were starting to be published. Check out Michael Denton’s Evolution a theory in Crisis or Richard Milton’s classic book “Shattering the myths of Darwinism”. In the last couple of years a number of atheists have started to support intelligent design. Sorry to the militant atheists but it is true some atheists are supporting intelligent design. The one that will probably interest atheists the most is the work of John Gribbin with his atheistic multiverse theory which has already been mentioned and which we will discuss more on, Fred Hoyle and his panspermia theory, the Omega Point favored by Frank Tipler and Seth Lloyd also fit a similar role as does the fined turned universe of Paul Davies but these lead towards theism so probably would not, but the already mentioned Nick Bostrom's simulation hypothesis is supported by atheists. There are a couple of other theories mentioned in this article. John Gribbin is an atheist who supports intelligent design. He supports the multitverse theory. “This might sound far-fetched, but the startling thing about this theory is how likely it is to happen – and to have happened already. All that is required is that evolution occurs naturally in the multiverse until, in at least one universe, intelligence reaches roughly our level. From that seed point, intelligent designers create enough universes suitable for evolution, which bud off their own universes, that universes like our own (in other words, suitable for intelligent life) proliferate rapidly, with "unintelligent" universes coming to represent a tiny fraction of the whole multiverse. It therefore becomes overwhelmingly likely that any given universe, our own included, would be designed rather than "natural". – John Gribbin “The argument over whether the universe has a creator, and who that might be, is among the oldest in human history. But amid the raging arguments between believers and sceptics, one possibility has been almost ignored – the idea that the universe around us was created by people very much like ourselves, using devices not too dissimilar to those available to scientists today. “John Gribbin http://telicthoughts.com/intelligent-design-now-atheism-friendly/ A couple of books by atheists have been published supporting intelligent design. Read the book Seeking God in Science: An Atheist Defends Intelligent Design" by Bradley Monton. Bradley Monton is a strong atheist who has no intention of converting to any religion. He has written an atheistic intelligent design book. In his book he explains Intelligent Design is a valid form of philosophical and scientific inquiry that should be undertaken rather than dismissed. A review of the book reads “A new book challenges those assumptions, arguing that ID actually is science, that it is not necessarily tied to belief in God, that it is distinct from creationism, that it is not primarily politically motivated, that it can be appropriate for inclusion in public school science curricula, and that it is not the basis of some deep theocratic conspiracy. The book argues further that for those who are primarily concerned with the pursuit of truth, those cultural hot buttons are the wrong issues to worry about anyway. Intelligent design is a valid and genuine search for explanation, a quest for understanding, a pursuit of truth; and it is manifestly worthwhile for those reasons regardless of what social issues may be attached to it. A book like this must have been written by one of the presumed anti-science religious ideologues against which Forrest was warning, probably one of the “creationists” at the Discovery Institute. Right? It is certainly true that the author has been called a creationist. But he is not a Discovery Institute fellow; he is an associate professor of philosophy at the University of Colorado. And he is an atheist.” http://www.examiner.com/methodist-in-national/atheist-defends-intelligent-design Not all theories of intelligent design involve God or a “supernatural entity”, these other theories of ID fit in the boat of atheistic intelligent design. So what are some of the other theories of atheistic intelligent design? How many are there? What are they exactly? This article explains some of them. There is only one fact in the ID/evolution debate which has been proven. This fact is that both ID and evolution cannot be observed. Honest philosophers and scientists from both sides admit this, honest atheists even admit this. Only militant dogmatic fundamentalists from each side deny this. For every human being on earth evolution and ID cannot be directly observed the human (yes like you reading this) then has a choice does he/she believe a creation story from a holy book, does he/she follow some type of intelligent design (can be atheistic) or does he/she believe that evolution is true or does he try and mix them together?. All four of these choices are based on faith because they are not based on empirical observation. This thread explains the third out of the 4 which are types of intelligent design which as explained are atheistic. Theistic Intelligent Design will not be mentioned in this thread, there are already 1000s of articles, books and internet forum posts about this. Some types of atheistic intelligent design support evolution some do not. We will be looking at some of these theories but we will only discuss them briefly, you the reader he or she will have to make up your mind if you support any of these theories and if you wish to further research them, if you are an atheist you may feel shocked reading this, let’s hope you are blown out of your chair, the next time chap comes up to you and asks you do you believe in intelligent design you can say “yes I do and you know what I am an atheist aswell”. On a sidenote: Most atheistic evolutionists call themselves “sceptics”. If you are a skeptic then you will only believe in what you can observe yourself, the contradiction with a lot of atheists thesedays is that they put all their faith into a few textbooks on evolution when they themselves have never observed any of it so really this is no different than someone believing in what is in a holy book. It comes down to personal choice you either buy books supporting Intelligent Design and believe in it or you buy books on evolution and believe in it. The problem with some gullible and non sceptical (oooo the irony I thought evolutionists were meant to be skeptics) evolutionists would then say “but evolution has been observed on a small scale in a lab” ahhh but dear Mr. Evolutionist believer you were there were you? Nope. So what’s the difference between believing in the bible creation story, the hindu or Islamic creation stories or some type of ID or believing that some evolutionist chap in a bedroom laboratory has witnessed evolution? Nothing. There all elements of faith. You were not there to observe it. Besides Fact is no experiment in the world can prove macroevolution. Macroevolution can never be present. NOBODY CAN OBSERVE MACROEVOLUTION. It is a theory of the past, it cannot be directly observed in the present. Now you see there really is no difference between ID and evolution. Both of them are based on belief on faith, none of these theories can be directly observed especially not evolution with its belief that species take millions of years to evolve nobody has been around a million years to observe this. Nobody on this forum has observed evolution or intelligent design. They cannot be observed. If I walk outside my house now what do I see? Trees, grass, plants, soil, a river, the sun, animals, insects and a few houses. Where is the evolution? Where is the intelligent design? There is neither. All there is what IS. None of these things are evolving and none of these things can can be proven to of been intelligently designed because we were not there to observe the designing. The question is not present, the question has to go back in the past, you then have a choice, did any of these things evolve over long periods of time like evolutionists claim or were they intelligently designed? Remember Science is knowledge from observation. We cannot observe evolution or something being intelligently designed so we are now into philosophical theories of existence. You are now down to a choice, a belief, so were all these things that you see in everyday life intelligent designed or did they evolve over long periods of time? Which one is right and which one is wrong? Most views of reality are variations of these two basic views. There is no conclusive way to decide between them. There is no experiment that can be performed to decide whether reality is formed by intelligent design or by evolution. Ultimately the test is in the explanatory power of either view: whichever one best explains the empirical phenomena of reality is the one more likely to be true. The individual has to think his way to the truth. There are supporters on both sides. But what is very rarely mentioned is atheistic intelligent design. To sum it up in short yes you can be an atheist or an agnostic and believe in intelligent design look at the examples already listed. There is a common fallacy where many people seem to say “all atheists are the same in their beliefs”, “all atheists believe in nothing except there is no God” “all atheists are materialists” or “all agnostics are the same”. Over the years there have been some very interesting atheists and agnostics with some very interesting beliefs, theories and ideas some ranging from the belief in the nonexistance of matter, the impossibility of evolution, to the personal belief in immortality (yes that’s right there have been atheists who believe in life after death) to aliens, to panspermia to universal life force energies to the paranormal. Let me list a few of them. (Some Modern day militant evolutionist atheists don’t like these atheists being brought up). Fred Hoyle was a very strong atheist who embraced intelligent design he has been labelled “an atheist for ID”. He rejected the Big Bang theory and supported the steady state theory. Hoyle was an atheist but disbelieved in Darwinism. He was a supporter of panspermia that life was seeded from elsewhere in the universe. His work was continued by one of his students Chandra Wickramasinghe who was also an atheist. Both of these chaps do not believe in anything “supernatural” they were two atheists who supported intelligent design. I suggest buying some of their books if you wish to understand some of their theories. http://www.uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/fred-hoyle-an-atheist-for-id/ I was once speaking to an atheist and he said to me he cannot believe in intelligent design because that means he has to believe in God. I said to him “what if everything was designed by human minds” is that not intelligent design then? He said “wow I have never thought of that but now that you mention it that makes a lot of sense so I guess you were right you can be an atheist and embrace intelligent design”. Idealists, phenomenalists, metaphysicians and physicists have supported this theory. Ernst Mach one of the world’s most well known physicists was a strong atheist but supported a type of idealism called “phenomenalism” (Similar to George Berkeley’s subjective idealism). His phenomenalism concludes only sensations are real. That’s right so there is NO external mind independent things in the universe. This was a theory put forward by an atheist. Mach’s theories were disliked by materialists but haven’t some of his conclusions been confirmed by research in quantum physics? Yes. For example the work done by two agnostics Werner Heisenberg and Niels Bohr, yes that’s right particles only exist when they are being observed. This concludes nothing exists if there is no mind to perceive it. All these theories just support intelligent design. That human minds are infact the creators. Isn’t this what Buddhist philosophers and idealist philosophers’ have said for 1000s of years? Sure is. If human minds are the creators, this is a form of intelligent design. Objective reality does not exist. This model works with both theism or atheism but as we are discussing atheistic intelligent design here and if the creators are infact human minds there is no God involved or any “supernatural entity” this is indeed a form of atheistic intelligent design. Arthur Eddington was a british astrophysicist, he was a Quaker but he wrote a number of books explaining that everything in the universe is a mental creation. So you see some theists and some atheists are both in agreement that the universe is a mental creation. Hindu philosophers and idealist philosophers have taught for 1000s of years that everything is consciousness. Science is now in agreement. If you are interested in these theories then you may wish to check out the holographic universe theory. I suggest reading Michael Talbots book the “The holographic universe.” Check these links out: http://www.crystalinks.com/holographic.html http://www.rense.com/general69/holoff.htm David Hume was an empiricist, an atheist and a skeptic he was also the founder of nihilism. David Hume was the real deal when it came to scepticism he was sceptical of everything, he opposed materialism. There are not many true sceptics around anymore. Today we only seem to have poser sceptic’s people who challenge paranormal phenomena (like the 81 year old homosexual James Randi) but at the same time they believe anything mainstream found in a textbook IE evolution is a proven fact (when these so called sceptics have never observed it themselves) you can on laugh at the contradiction here’s the modern day skeptic “hey I don’t believe in ghosts or UFOS because iv never seen one but you know what Il believe in evolution even though I’ve never seen it”. This type of logic is embarrassing. David Hume was a real skeptic he only went with what he could see directly observe (empirical observation) he did not believe in evolution (evolution cannot be directly observed), he did not believe in intelligent design (intelligent design cannot be directly observed). As a true nihilist he did not believe in anything, he denied the existence of mind and matter. He reduced the whole universe into bundles of sensations (sense data), impressions and ideas. Modern day nihilists who believe in evolution are an embarrassment to true nihilism. Willhelm Reich was an atheist who hated all religions. He was a psychiatrist and psychoanalyst. He developed a theory called orgone in which was a universal life force energy. He believed this orgone was a cosmic energy in which everything stems from. He is very little discussed by most modern day atheists mainly because he was an atheist who supported a type of intelligent design, it’s sometimes brought up that Willhelm Reichs views fit in with theistic evolution but that is incorrect because he was a very strong atheist he certainly was not a theistic evolutionist. Charles Bernard Renouvier was a french philosopher influenced by Immanuel Kant. He was a creationist but he leaned towards atheism. So we have an atheistic creationist? Yes it is possible. Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel the idealist philosopher rejected evolution. http://www.uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/hegel-denies-evolution-but-dies-28-years-before-the-origin-of-species/ Agnostics and the paranormal? Yes that’s right Charles Fort was a fortean writer who spent most of his life writing about anomalous phenomena. Regarding Darwin and evolution, Charles Fort wrote: "Darwin & Evolution In mere impressionism we take our stand. We have no positive tests nor standards. Realism in art: realism in science – they pass away. In 1859, the thing to do was to accept Darwinism; now many biologists are revolting and trying to conceive of something else. The thing to do was to accept it in its day, but Darwinism of course was never proved: The fittest survive. What is meant by the fittest? Not the strongest; not the cleverest – Weakness and stupidity everywhere survive. There is no way of determining fitness except in that a thing does survive. "Fitness," then, is only another name for "survival." Darwinism: That survivors survive." (Damned, pp. 23-24) As you can see Charles Fort did not see evolution as scientific. If you read his books they actually lead towards intelligent design. Atheists who believe in life after death? Robert Owen was a socialist and a strong atheist but believed in spiritualism and mediumship. Alfred Russel Wallace the agnostic and evolutionary biologist usually regarded as one of the founders of the theory of evolution was a firm supporter of life after death. He supported spiritualism and a non-material origin for some of the things on earth this has a few things in common with intelligent design. Modern day evolutionists try and ignore Wallace. What a shame. Aliens anybody? Who are the Raelian movement? Why is there website slogan “Intelligent design for atheists”? That is exactly it because they are atheists who support intelligent design. http://www.rael.org/ What is there latest book out? Intelligent Design - Message from the Designers “Years ago, everybody knew that the earth was flat, everybody knew that the sun revolved around the earth, and today everybody knows that life on earth is either the result of random evolution or the work of a supernatural God. Or is it? In “Message from the Designers”, Rael presents us with the vast amount of information that he received during his UFO encounters in 1973 - a third option: all life on earth having been created.” Talking about aliens why is it that nearly all ufologists have been atheists? Why is it mainly atheists who read books about aliens? Why were nearly all of the ancient astronaut theorist’s atheists? Yes that’s right writers like Erich von Däniken, Peter Kolosimo who believed life on earth was seeded by aliens were atheists and wait who else? Carl Sagan? What? Isn’t Carl Sagan the chap who went round calling paranormal believers crackpots? But he publishes a book in 1966 with Iosif Shklovsky called “intelligent life in the universe” where he says aliens could have seeded life on earth? Why does Giordano Bruno’s name now get associated with evolution when he supported intelligent design? He was one of the very early on ufologists. Yes that is right. He believed in an infinite universe and believed in aliens. Not only that but he believed in the Adam and eve story as literally true but he was an atheistic/pantheist. He believed there was an infinite amount of Adams and Eves. What did he say? “"I can imagine an infinite number of worlds like the earth, with a Garden of Eden on each one. In all these Gardens of Eden, half the Adams and Eves will not eat the fruit of knowledge, but half will. But half of infinity is infinity, so an infinite number of worlds will fall from grace and there will be an infinite number of crucifixions. Therefore, either there is one unique Jesus who goes from one world to another, or there are an infinite number of Jesuses. Since a single Jesus visiting an infinite number of earths one at a time would take an infinite amount of time, there must be an infinite number of Jesuses. Therefore, God must create an infinite number of Christs." Notice the words on the end “God must create”(Please note Bruno had a very different view on what God was go and read some of his works if you wish to understand this). Giordano Bruno who has been described as an “atheistic pantheist” but he supported intelligent design very much like Spinoza another atheistic pantheist who modern day atheists mistakenly claim supported evolution. The multiverse theory: John Gribbon is an atheist who supports a theory of intelligent design called the multiverse theory. This theory has been tagged the multiverse theory but also goes under a few other names. But let’s have a look at this theory. This theory of John Gribbin’s was published in a newspaper the telegraph under the title “Are we living in a designer universe” With the sub title “The creators of the world were closer to men than to Gods”. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/space/7972538/Are-we-living-in-a-designer-universe.html Are we living in a designer universe? Are we living in a designer universe? By John Gribbin Published: 8:35AM BST 31 Aug 2010 “The argument over whether the universe has a creator, and who that might be, is among the oldest in human history. But amid the raging arguments between believers and sceptics, one possibility has been almost ignored – the idea that the universe around us was created by people very much like ourselves, using devices not too dissimilar to those available to scientists today. ! Moderator Note edit to remove copyrighted material Other agnostics who support intelligent design have been listed in this article: http://www.intelligent-design-evidence.com/origins.html Darwin did not provide any explanation for the origin of the first replicating life form necessary for his theory of origin of species to work. That is, Darwinism is a naturalistic explanation for the origin of species that assumes a replicating life form to start the process. Origin of life from non-living sources is termed abiogenesis or chemical evolution and scientific hypotheses that seek explanations for a first replicating life form suitable for Darwinian processes must postulate an unintelligent, deterministic physical cause for the first complex strand of DNA or other biologically active material. Atheists, evolutionists and Darwinists who seek to provide an explanation for unguided, unintelligently caused abiogenesis face the problem of proposing how the extremely unlikely occurrence of life could appear or evolve from purely unintelligent physical causes. By any account (and there are many such accounts, made by creationists and evolutionists alike), the probability of such an occurrence by any known natural causes over any postulated time period is so low as to make the occurrence practically impossible. By way of example of the probabilistically impossible odds of abiogenesis, consider the May 31, 2007 paper published by Eugene V. Koonin of the National Center for Biotechnology Information. Peer reviewed and published in Biology Today [2], Koonin calculated the probability of the most simple life form arising by natural processes, with the following conclusion: The requirements for the emergence of a primitive, coupled replication-translation system, which is considered a candidate for the breakthrough stage in this paper, are much greater. At a minimum, spontaneous formation of: - two rRNAs with a total size of at least 1000 nucleotides - ~10 primitive adaptors of ~30 nucleotides each, in total, ~300 nucleotides - at least one RNA encoding a replicase, ~500 nucleotides (low bound) is required. In the above notation, n = 1800, resulting in E <10-1018. That is, the chance of life occurring by natural processes is 1 in 10 followed by 1018 zeros. Koonin's intent was to show that short of postulating a multiverse of an infinite number of universes, the chance of life occuring on earth is vanishingly small, and we can understand the practical import to be that life by natural proceses in a universe such as ours to be impossible. Other prominent evolutionists agree that naturally occuring life from non-life is impossible. Evolutionist and theoretical physicist Paul Davies, for example, considers random self- assembly of proteins to be “a nonstarter”. Davies recognizes that life as we know it requires hundreds of thousands of specialist proteins, not to mention the nucleic acids; the number of amino acids sequenced in a small protein is 10^130 (written as one followed by 130 zeros). According to Davies, such an improbable sequence that is best explained by unconventional theories such as life has always existed. That is, there was no origin of life, because life is eternal, “spread around the universe … without having originated anywhere in particular”. Davies also argues for a yet-to-be-discovered natural law, one that could be capable of abiogenesis: [E]mergent laws of complexity offer reasonable hope for a better understanding not only of biogenesis, but of biological evolution too. Such laws might differ from the familiar laws of physics in a fundamental and important respect. Whereas the laws of physics merely shuffle information around, a complexity law might actually create information, or at least wrest it from the environment and etch it onto a material structure. With respect to problems presented regarding the chance origin of life, and his proposed explanations, Davies concluded, “If you have found the foregoing argument persuasive, you could be forgiven for concluding that a genome really is a miraculous object. However, most of the problems I have outlined above apply with equal force to the evolution of the genome over time” Likewise, Nobel Prize winner Francis Crick (who along with James Watson, determined DNA’s molecular structure), considered the chance synthesis of even a small protein of 200 amino acids so improbable that he concluded that “the great majority of sequences can never have been synthesized at all, at any time.” Sir Fred Hoyle, British AstronomerFinally, consider Sir Fred Hoyle, an atheist astronomer who nevertheless reached the conclusion that the universe is governed by a greater intelligence. In 1978, Hoyle described Charles Darwin's theory of evolution as wrong and claimed that the belief that the first living cell was created in the "sea of life" was just as erroneous. Together with Chandra Wickramasinghe, Hoyle stated: Precious little in the way of biochemical evolution could have happened on the Earth. It is easy to show that the two thousand or so enzymes that span the whole of life could not have evolved on the Earth. If one counts the number of trial assemblies of amino acids that are needed to give rise to the enzymes, the probability of their discovery by random shufflings turns out to be less than 1 in 10 to the power of 40,000. Mathmetician and intelligent design theorist William Dembski calculates a "universal probability bound" at 10^150 (1 in 10 followed by 150 zeros). Clearly, then, to an objective observer of the material evidence, the fact of life's existence, knowing that it must have a genesis, or a beginning, holds little in the way of evidence for naturalistic, unguided, unintelligent processes of nature. Origin of life, therefore, is prima facie evidence of intelligent agency, and is at minimum sufficient observational evidence to support a reasonable scientific inferrence of intelligent design. Links on the multiverse theory http://www.asa3.org/ASA/education/origins/anthropic-cr.htm#appendix http://www.asa3.org/ASA/education/origins/anthropic2-cr.htm http://www.asa3.org/ASA/education/origins/universe2.htm http://www.asa3.org/ASA/meetings/baylor2009/papers/ASA2009Cleaver2.pdf http://www.allaboutscience.org/multiverse.htm http://www.uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/sciences-alternative-to-an-intelligent-creator-the-multiverse-theory/ http://www.angelfire.com/moon2/thegoddessisin/The_Multiverse_Theory.doc http://creation.com/multiverse-theory http://www.gotquestions.org/multiverse-theory.html http://www.faithinterface.com.au/science-christianity/fine-tuning-the-multiverse-theory http://www.arn.org/blogs/index.php/literature/2008/11/20/the_metaphysics_of_multiverse_theory http://discovermagazine.com/2008/dec/10-sciences-alternative-to-an-intelligent-creator http://www.thewonderoftheworld.com/Sections7-article83-page1.html http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multiverse