Bushi said:
…
MASSIVE jets can spew out MASSIVE quantities of super charged particles from super massive black holes. Enough to disturb WHOLE star clusters if pointed in the direction of said clusters. Id say that is pretty detectable, especially considering we have detected it . . . .

In fact some black holes can devour and spit out the equivalent of many earths a minute.

Abra the great pretender!!!!! Weighs in as if an authority!!!!!

I find it sadly true that the paranormal is far easier to consider and accept then the mundane, yet I suppose unsettling, idea that your mind has transitory moments where it does not lead you to proper perception

creative wrote:

Science knows that we do not know nearly enough to be able to draw a valid conclusion about the universe being a design. All of hard science agrees on that. The only way one can carry scientific fact into something ontological is to assume some things.

This holds true regarding placing the label of design upon the universe. Throughout our history, it has been reasonably shown that humans must be able to recognize patterns in order to successfully function as humans. We are physically weak in so many ways compared to most other animals that if it were based upon that alone(assuming we have always been that way), we would have surely perished long ago. Our reasoning capability is one of our most unique strengths, and it enables us to predict the liklihood of an outcome regarding familiar conditions by comparing those with past events. Because of the inherent consistency of things, we can recognize the potential of similar conditions to produce similar outcomes. We depend upon that, we are innately logical creatures, in that sense. We can recognize the cause and effect relationships around us and remember them. While this has proven to be quite helpful for our survival as a species, it can also fool us in remarkable ways.

I would like to show an example again. It has been alreay shown, but it is a great example which clearly demonstrates exactly how easy it is to become too entrenched in what we think we can safely assume based upon what we already know.

All men are mortal. Socrates is a man. Socrates is mortal.

That argument(logical demonstration) is irrefutably sound. The first premise is true. The second premise is true, and because the conclusion necessarily follows, it must be true as well. The form is valid. It is a logically sound argument, and that is as close to absolute truth as it gets. The next argument seems the same, although it is not. It is actually far from it, however most people would not see the fallacy in it because most people think this way... unfortunately so.

All men are mortal. Socrates is mortal. Socrates is a man.

Although the first and second premise along with the conclusion are true, the argument is invalid. It is an illogical argument, and therefore cannot be sound. This is easily shown to be the case by substituting the term 'cow' for 'Socrates'.

All men are mortal. A cow is mortal. A cow is a man.

The exact same form produces an obviously false conclusion. Why? The first premise is a true statement. The second premise is a true statement. In order for the conclusion to be true it must first be shown that only men are mortal. That is a critical step in the logical progression, which easily goes unnoticed when using 'Socrates' but is not passed off so easily with the change to 'cow'. This is because of the fact that all things mortal are not men, therefore although a cow is mortal, it cannot be considered a man, because lots of other things are mortal as well.

The mistake is called an undistributed middle. The term 'mortal' is the middle term upon which the second premise and the conclusion rest their validity.

This is the mistake in all Intelligent Design arguments.

All design has a designer.

Designer's have intent, reason, purpose, and sometimes produce an orderly design.

The universe seems to have order.

The universe is a design.

It does not follow.

Designs necessarily have a designer. A designer necessarily has intent, purpose, and/or reason. Designs are meant for something. Without knowing the designer we cannot possibly know the designer's reasons, therefore we cannot possibly conclude with any amount of certainty what those are.