It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Originally posted by shaunybaby
i'm arguing against an arrogant, condescending person i think.
'why' the eye evolved, i thought was obvious. to 'see'. to 'see' better.
for predators to see their prey and the prey to see the predator. although what is normally the case is that the prety will actually hear or smell the predator first rather than see it.
not sure why you seem to have a problem grasping the concept of evolution.
i mean, you say that i don't have a grasp on ID, yet here you are having to ask me 'why' the eye evolved. i thought that was pretty obvious 'why' it evolved.
[edit on 21-3-2006 by shaunybaby]
Would i be correct to assume that you have no issue conceptualizing an infinite (ie, no begining) universe or multiverse? If so why is the idea of an infinite God (ie no creator) illogical in your opinion? I hope you realize that you've made a choice here and not a decision based on "proof."
Firstly I have no idea where you got that (cause-first cause) example from nor do I know what ID theorist argues it
I would recommend you read up on the argument over causation and the scientific method
Our universe has a creation point, at a specific time in our past (+-14bya) all matter, energy and indeed space/time itself was created. Or perhaps you're arguing against Big Bang Theory?
Or your evidence for the mechanism of the BB which is not supernatural? Logic dictates that whether our universe's creator is my God or your infinite multiverse it has to operate outside, or idependant of, our space/time, no? Perhaps you plan to use the 'fine tuning' and complexity arguments to infer your multiverse, that would be interesting.
There is a "first cause" to our universe and that 'mechanism' is supernatural for both of us, ie we've both made a faith based choice... interpretations may vary. At the least I hope i've shown that your "proof" that there's no God is at best a strawman and worst just bad philosophy.
The (g)od you describe isn't worthy of worship
and certainly not the God that I worship or the God of Scripture imho.
Now you know where God 'lives', ie His space/time? Seems you have some information, evidence, or proof of that which does or does not exist outside of our universe. Please share. Here again is, in the context of my beliefs, just a few examples of why you've only knocked down your own strawman. It's easy to win an argument when you get to frame your opponents position for them I know but...
Hebrews 3:4 "For every house is built by someone, but God is the builder of everything."
Job 37:5 "God's voice thunders in marvelous ways; he does great things beyond our understanding."
John 4:24 "God is spirit."
Psalms 90:1-2 "Lord, you have been our dwelling place throughout all generations. Before the mountains were born or you brought forth the earth and the world, from everlasting to everlasting you are God."
Hebrews 4:13 "Nothing in all creation is hidden from God's sight. Everything is uncovered and laid bare before the eyes of him to whom we must give account."
Here's a pretty descent (short) read on the Christian perspective of the nature of God. IOW even if you could prove a negative (ie, there's no God) you couldn't disprove God. If you could He wouldn't be God ... and well you see where that's heading.
We're slowing moving this discussion into theology and philosophy instead of origins so i'll move on.
Sheesh, see above. I will however agree with you; your version of god does not exist. The rest of your examples are equally faulty and illogical...
Not trying to dodge you but based on your approach i'm sure we'd never come to any sort of an agreement, outside of an agreement to disagree if that.
Book-chapter:verse where it states God only created life on Earth, thanks. Would you like some examples of believers who do not believe we are alone in the universe? Or are you arguing that because some Christians believe this all the rest of us must as well...
Perhaps you're aware of the ID concept that the designer can't be identified? Belief that God created the universe is not an ID concept
Huh? Your words here... "God is eternal" followed by an example of "time periods" to refute God.
*shrug* Perhaps this page will help, you've done one or both of these several times now - papyr.com...
It's not definitive by any means, but the numbers, measurements and observations seem to contradict an oscillating model... again correct me if i'm wrong here.
Who's the "maker" in your opinion if not the Biblical God?
which is why i'm sure you're so opposed to something you've quite obviously (based on what you write) never researched objectively.
The majority of your post belongs in BTS imo
It is indeed important to distinguish between the Creationist, Judeo-Christian concept of God and that of Intelligent Design. ID does not require an active God in our affairs, only a higher power who started The Big Bang. In this way, proponents of ID who do not embrace the Judeo-Christian concept of God actually side with the tenets of Deism.
My conception of God is somewhat different than the Judeo-Christian version. I don't believe that the being who started ALL THAT IS was endless in power and spirituality (as the Universe is not infinite, just extremely large) or that He/She is still around. I have concluded that all souls are what is left of Him/Her. The familiar phrase among the traditional clergy that "a piece of God is in all of us" points to this.
A fractal is a piece of a greater whole which contains the program or blueprint of that greater whole. Like a hologram, if you break it up into little pieces, it still contains the entire original picture.
I'm Christian, I support ID research the two are NOT mutually inclusive... which has been demonstrated ad nauseum. The best ID critics around dropped that line of BS awhile ago, for the most part atleast. Some folks 'round here are so anti-Christian/God/Theist/Deist/what-have-you that they can't see past the foam coming out their mouth long enough to make a cogent, relevant argument...
Originally posted by shaunybaby
the whole point of ID is that things were designed one way, and do not change. if they changed that'd be evolution.
Originally posted by masterp
The problem with ID supporters is that they are all a bunch of hypocrites. Sorry for saying this, but what else is this: you say that ID != Christianity, but all of IDs supporters are Christians.
Originally posted by masterp
I have already explained why, but I will explain it again (and it is really simple): it is illogical to have the concept of "state" (as in "before creation" and "after creation") without the concept of spacetime. It may be some spacetime different than ours, but it certainly has the concepts of "before" and "after". And since God's continuum has the concept of "time", then God is not infinite, since God exists in a universe where the universe is greater than God...hence the concept of an infinite/eternal God that creates things is illogical.
On other hand, a self-existing universe that is infinite, and thus has no concept of state outside of it is perfectly logical: it does not have any requirements other than itself.
Firstly I have no idea where you got that (cause-first cause) example from nor do I know what ID theorist argues it
It came from an earlier post.
The Big Bang does not exclude the possibility that the universe is eternal. It may be that the universe expands, then contracts, then expands again etc in an infinite series of Big Bangs and Big Crunches. We simply do not know.
Not really. Logic dictates that we should say "we do not know". The jump from big bang => God created the universe is an illogical step, which is not derived by any current knowledge.
Nope, it is not a strawman at all. Time and space are specific concepts: if you attribute those concepts to a supernatural being, then you better prepare for the concequences.
So? why should we worship anyone?....
Who's God is right? the christian, the muslim, the hindu, the judaic? Zeus perhaps? :-)
Actually, it is not me that knows were God lives, but you. You (not you specifically, ID supporters, that is) speak about creation of the universe by God. Therefore, you attribute space and time characteristics to the universe of God.
Hebrews 3:4 "For every house is built by someone, but God is the builder of everything."
Job 37:5 "God's voice thunders in marvelous ways; he does great things beyond our understanding."
John 4:24 "God is spirit."
Psalms 90:1-2 "Lord, you have been our dwelling place throughout all generations. Before the mountains were born or you brought forth the earth and the world, from everlasting to everlasting you are God."
Hebrews 4:13 "Nothing in all creation is hidden from God's sight. Everything is uncovered and laid bare before the eyes of him to whom we must give account."
You can not prove religion with religion!
Hey, how can you claim that you know the characteristics of God? is God a supernatural being or not? It can not be at the same time that a) God can not be explained and b) God can be explained. Contradiction.
Thanks for proving my point: God does not exist. You simply chose to ignore the argument that destroys the concept of "the universe is too complex, then it should be created."
Let me state it again, and maybe you can understand it this time:
a) if God is more complex than the universe, then God must have been created too.
b) if God is of equal complexity to the universe, then the universe need not have been created.
c) if God is of less complexity than the universe, then God could not have created the universe.
Please note this: I do not claim to know which one of the above is true. I simply prove that all 3 cases lead to the logical conclusion that there is no God.
Of course we can never agree...I present logical sentences that prove and disprove things, while you present theological nonsense. And I apologise for saying so, but a logical conclusion can only be reached by using pure algebraic logic, not human "logic" which is often proven illogical.
Are you kidding? The Bible clearly states the genealogical tree of man: first there was Adam and Eve, and we are all descentants of them. When Adam and Eve were expelled from the heavens, they came to Earth, where they reproduced. Therefore God created only Earth, according to the Bible.
We can not even make a debate, if you now deny your basic beliefs. You posted a link above with the characteristics of God. Now that you say that God can not be identified. Then how can you claim God's characteristics? and furthermore, how can you say that ID is not about God creating the universe, since that is what we are debating all this time???
Instead of insults and saying "strawman" at every other line you write, can you post your arguments here? otherwise we are not debating.
All we can say is that "we do not know for sure". It may be this, it may be that. But it may not be God, as I have proved many times above.
How am I supposed to know? I simply know, through logic, what is not possible. That does not tell me what is possible.
There is only one objectiveness I know in my life, and that is science and the scientific method. And if mathematical logic tells me something is true or false, then it is.
The majority of your post belongs in BTS imo
No. The problem of intelligent design is mostly a theological/philosophical problem. You can not speak about ID without mentioning the problems of the concept of God.
As for your links:
variational information: I will not dispute the mathematics, but the conclusion is that "if the physical laws were different, life would be different"...so what? how does that prove ID? it does not. More specifically it does not make possible to go from "laws allow life" to "therefore God created the universe". It also does not invalidate evolution, which is your purpose (because if evolution is invalid, then ID must be true, right?)...
uniform propability: says nothing about evolution (it does not even contain the word "evolution" or one of its products, as the pdf above); it must say something that only the author understands(I am too bored to read it carefully, I must admit!!!).
searching large spaces: evolution is almost impropable if we assume evolution is an blind search. First of all, why should we assume that? secondly, the universe is billions of years old and hundrends of light years big. It seems to me rather a large testbed for any propability to take place: it may be that a blind search has almost zero propability to find its target, but the document does not take into account the billions of trillions of possible combinations tested simultaneously at each part of the universe. In other words, the document does not acknowledge the fact that billions of blind searches, all with the same target, take place simultaneously.
specification: obviously the guy is determined to prove mathematically that complex things can not be designed randomly. But he is simply wrong. He uses math to prove his point, but his initial hypothesis is wrong. He bases his proof in the two documents above (which I already proved them wrong), then he goes on to say that any complex specification has little chance of being randomly generated. It is a lame argument, since nature have demonstrated in many cases that it can produce shapes randomly that seem to have been constructed. Examples: rocks that look like faces; stellar formations that look like animals, etc...the latest discovery of the double helix nebula proves that no matter how impropable something is, in a universe large enough, it will someday take place. Unless you want to persuade us that the double helix nebula is by design...furthermore, the chaos theory has a section about "attraction points" which proves that order can arise from chaos: beautiful structured formations arise from chaotic systems at specific points in the graph.
Why don't you tell us how the probabilistic laws work on the concept of God? what is the probability of the blind search for God?
(be careful with your answer - if you say 0, it means God is created by another God; if you say 1, then you invalidate the theory presented above).
As for the argument that "ID has nothing to do with religion", it is simply an excuse from religious zealots to get ID accepted...because it follows naturally that if ID was true, then God must be worshipped!!!.
Originally posted by masterp
As for the argument that "ID has nothing to do with religion", it is simply an excuse from religious zealots to get ID accepted...because it follows naturally that if ID was true, then God must be worshipped!!!.
Originally posted by Rren
So the eye evolved "to see, to see better?" How does that (by your definition - which is different than the ToE BTW) not imply intention or directed towards a goal. IE that first "to see" and not the secondary "to see better," savy?
I'm not and you brought it up. I'm trying to understand why you brought it up in the context of this thread. FYI you need to take your eye example back to its' origin... your predator-prey example is not correct by ToE or any other theory as to the origins of the eye.
I really have no issue with understanding the evolution of the eye, we're talking origins. Unless you're making the case of undirected evolution of the eye, if so i'd be willing to go that route if you really want to. Keep your argument in the context of the directed -vs- undirected evolution debate atleast, please.
As it stands you've provided the argument that predators need eyes to see prey and prey needs them to see predators therefore we have eyes... brilliant.
Hey shaunybaby - i love you man, or woman as the case may be... i won't call you dense if you don't call me dumb, agreed?
Originally posted by mytym
Both valid theories...but theories all the same
Originally posted by mytym
There appears to be much evidence to support both theories, but neither is conclusive in my opinion.
Originally posted by mytym
From what I can gather, intelligent design is just evolution with a creator. If that's the case it clears up the Big Bang problem, but still suffers from the other shortfalls mentioned above. I suppose you could say that at the time of creation the entire future of all existence was mapped out thus eliminating the need to have any further involvement from the creator after that point.
Originally posted by mytym
The big problem with this is free will, as it would be redundant, and the lack of purpose in being, not to mention the existence of so much apparent imperfection, war, famine, disease, etc.
Originally posted by mytym
The fact that both theories suggest that we are now on our own is a stumbling block for me personally.
Originally posted by mytym
If that's the case I must be the luckiest person in the world, based on the number of correct 50/50 decisions I have made. I don't know what the answer is, both theories have a similar levels of validity, but both have floors. I suspect neither (or any other theory for that matter) is sufficiently accurate, thus should not be taught as such.
Originally posted by Paul_Richard
Rren,
Contacted mattison0922 via U2U and now understand why you refer to the idea of an agnostic IDer. However, that really is a misnomer.
Matt doesn't believe in a traditional God figure, just as I don't. The phrase "higher power" for ID is really better for us. It doesn't mean that we question Intelligent Design, it just means that our conception of God doesn't fit within the paradigms of the traditional religions, be it Christian, Buddhist, Wiccan, Satanist, Jew, Muslim, etc.
Perhaps a better term for us would be "higher power IDer."
Originally posted by shaunybaby
so lets hear your evidence 'for' ID ren...
i assume there's some sort of evidence for this 'high power IDer' you speak of
I've read some stuff (mostly from agnostic IDers...
Agnostic IDers?
I wasn't aware of that term.
It's probably not proper. I just meant ID advocates whom are also agnostic. The ID advocates over at telicthoughts.com... are mostly(all?) agnostics. In fact mattison0922 is an agnostic ID advocate.
Matt doesn't believe in a traditional God figure, just as I don't. The phrase "higher power" for ID is really better for us. It doesn't mean that we question Intelligent Design, it just means that our conception of God doesn't fit within the paradigms of the traditional religions, be it Christian, Buddhist, Wiccan, Satanist, Jew, Muslim, etc.
Perhaps a better term for us would be "higher power IDer."
afterall this thread is not 'evolutionists, prove yourselves'. it's stating ID is on the same level as evolution... i'd like to hear evidence for ID...
[edit on 22-3-2006 by shaunybaby]
I really, really recommend you check out the definitions of strawman
Continuing to rely on "we don't know for sure" isn't a debate, it's a cop out.
Originally posted by I_s_i_s
Funny, a person refutes thoelogical jiberish with logical statements and he becomes a stand-up comedian. Didnt think it was that easy to become one! Oh and ofcourse the core reasoning behind the logic is totally thrown out and replaced with religious nonsense coupled with ill humor. Ill indeed!
straw man: a weak or sham argument set up to be easily refuted
When I read that, I( and i'm assuming masterp as well), interpreted your use of that word in your arguments as a nice little weapon to call logical arguments fallacious without really hearing them.I guess no stand up comedy for you!
Actually no, its a sign of growing up for humans and taking it a step at a time without conjuring up bearded dude in heaven stuff.
"we cant answer for sure right now so why dont we make stuff up so we can get on with our lives and not have to use that brain of ours.
He seems to keep fine tuning the ideas( shot down by various highly intelligent biologists with plenty of evidence) put forth by the adamantly IC-whoring Michael Behe. Factual examples in nature however refute Dembski's defintions. Complexity points to chance, while simplicity points to design.
masterp, by the way you get my way above vote for having immeasurable patience to sift through childish rants, distasteful sarcasm and plain nonsense to find arguable topics!
And further ID does not a God make
Originally posted by Prot0n
And further ID does not a God make
If I'm not mistaken, you've already stated that per your belief's the IDer would be god, am I right or have I misread something you posted earlier?