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.

 

Intelligent Design Is Just As Valid A Theory As Evolutionism

page: 11
1
<< 8  9  10    12  13  14 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 21 2006 @ 05:09 PM
link   
5,000,000 + species of insects... intelligent? hardly.

i was watching a program called planet earth on bbc1 and there was a species of fly that is bred under water for a specific amount of time as a lavae and then finally one day it hatches. it hatches with millions and billions of other flies in the water and from a distance it looks as though the water is on fire, which is what early travellors believed. these flies then mate, fall to the water surface, let out their eggs and die.

let me know how that is 'intelligent'.




posted on Mar, 21 2006 @ 05:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by shaunybaby


i'm arguing against an arrogant, condescending person i think.


I can relate.



'why' the eye evolved, i thought was obvious. to 'see'. to 'see' better.


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?



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'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.



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]


Did you want to provide your "obvious" answer or should i continue guessing? Unless the predator-prey thing was it, if so i stand corrected - you win. Back to Dr. Suess for me.

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?



posted on Mar, 21 2006 @ 06:27 PM
link   


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."


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.

That's the main reason. There are other philosophical reasons, as I have posted.



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.



I would recommend you read up on the argument over causation and the scientific method


Please post it and analyse it here.



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?


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.



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.


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.



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.


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.



The (g)od you describe isn't worthy of worship


So? why should we worship anyone?



and certainly not the God that I worship or the God of Scripture imho.


Who's God is right? the christian, the muslim, the hindu, the judaic? Zeus perhaps? :-)



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...


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!



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.


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.



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...


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.



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.


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.



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...


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.



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


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???



Huh? Your words here... "God is eternal" followed by an example of "time periods" to refute God.


Eternity does not mean that time can not be measured.



*shrug* Perhaps this page will help, you've done one or both of these several times now - papyr.com...


Instead of insults and saying "strawman" at every other line you write, can you post your arguments here? otherwise we are not debating.



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.


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.



Who's the "maker" in your opinion if not the Biblical God?


How am I supposed to know? I simply know, through logic, what is not possible. That does not tell me what is possible.



which is why i'm sure you're so opposed to something you've quite obviously (based on what you write) never researched objectively.


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.

Intelligent Design as a Theory of Information: information is not complex, nor it has begun complex. Information is simple, it is structured, and originally produced randomly, after trial and error. There is nothing irreducibly complex in nature. Systems that seem to be "irreducibly complex" are created by emulation: one part randomly ends up emulating a function, then the other parts are built up to support that function, then finally the first part is replaced with a system to support the other parts. Let me give you a crude example from the domain of computer science: a compiler is an irreducibly complex thing, right? without a compiler, how did we write the first program? it seems that we emulated the compiler first by manually translating instructions, then we wrote a first compiler, then we wrote another compiler on top of that. Given that nature works in far simpler ways, and the impossibly large number of states of the universe (billions of years old, 100s of billion of light years across), life emerged automatically by itself. If we had a computer that randomly mutated a store of 65536 bytes for a 100 billion years, then a compiler would randomly be generated at some time. Imagine if we had, let's say, so many computers that are all of the universe's particles! suddently the chance of producing a compiler AUTOMATICALLY skyrockets...

The rest of the documents fall in the same category: the author simply claims that "life is a too complex to have been created randomly", which is simply not true, as I have shown above.

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!!!.



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.


No, you (you = ID supporters) simply try to get ID accepted as a valid scientific theory, which is not (no matter how mathematics can "prove" it by using false hypotheses), and then get us all worship God. You are simply lying when you say that "proponents of ID who do not embrace the Judeo-Christian concept of God actually side with the tenets of Deism", because you are constantly using the word "God", instead of something else.

If ID does not have anything to do with the Judeo-Christian God, I will accept ID if you will never speak about "God", and instead you talk about the "flying spaghetti monster".

(and the above is serious - you will never accept talking about the "flying spaghetti monster because it is God that you really speak about)



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.


And now we come to spiritual mambo jumbo: "souls", "he is not here any more" (well, where did he go???), etc.



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.


No, and please stop speading wrong knowledge. A fractal is an equation that produces an infinite graph with repeateable structure. It does not contain the 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...


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.

Well, to prove your point, from now on, we will speak about the "spaghetti flying monster" that created the universe.



[edit on 21-3-2006 by masterp]



posted on Mar, 21 2006 @ 06:34 PM
link   

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.


Not necessarily. ID and Evolutionism are not mutually exclusive. Evolution could have been a partial method for the unfoldment of that design.



posted on Mar, 21 2006 @ 06:49 PM
link   

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.

It would help your credibility to first read the posts before accusing IDers of being hypocrites and also coming out with a sweeping statement that is derived from prejudice.


If you bothered to read this thread, you would know that I started it and that I am not a Christian


So who is the hypocrite in this equation?




posted on Mar, 21 2006 @ 08:52 PM
link   

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.


As i stated earlier, and linked you too for more detail if needed, the nature of God described in the Bible is "over" or "outside" our universe and thus your 'time paradox' does nothing to refute or debunk Him. And what does this mean, "It may be some spacetime different than ours, but it certainly has the concepts of "before" and "after"" and how on earth do you know anything about these hypothetical other space/times and their physics? You're seriously arguing how "God's continuum" must be? Based on what exactly? God is eternal, ie 'timeless,' the Alpha and the Omega, the (g)od you describe is not the same.



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.


It's ok to use infinity to support your world view but not mine... ok i see now, thanks.




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.


Apologies... it's not a good example though, or atleast it's incomplete imo.




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.


I posted info that represents the concensus opinion of the cosmological community, re: an oscillating universe. I'll agree it's not completely known but your version is the outdated one with much contradictory evidence. That's why very few cosmologists and theoretical physicists argue for it anymore... it's all string theory/m-theory now not 'bang-crunch,' but i'm certainly no expert... but your argument is a few decades out of date/favor.



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.


You've misrepresented the position again simply because it's easier for you to refute. Look at the cosmological 'fine tuning' arguments... FYI based on things we know and not the other way around. You're honestly saying that your familiar with these concepts and arguments?



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.


Ok... warning duly noted, thanks for the heads up.



So? why should we worship anyone?....


Who's God is right? the christian, the muslim, the hindu, the judaic? Zeus perhaps? :-)


The choice is yours, free will and all that jazz. I believe in the God of Isaac, Abraham, Jacob, and Jesus. I'll tell no man what to believe, only answer for my beliefs when asked... i'm no preacher and i gather you're not really asking, so we can move on. Like i said if this is really your bag i'd check out BTS, lots of these topics over there.



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.


Creationists (OEers like me specifically) view nature as God's creation .. we try and detect his signature ie, evidence it's not random if you will. All is God for me BTW... he's in you too. Many ID suporters are not Christian and do not speak of creation by God... this is a typical critic strawman that doesn't reflect the community as a whole or the design paradigm being argued... just an easy out so as to avoid the real issues. "Nature did it," cause we said so... *shrug* not satisfing for me, but whatever floats your boat. See there "God did it" in a leisure suit... don't you hate lazy arguments like that.



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!


Those are the qualities of the God i worship... you brought it up with your ridiculous "proof" that there's no God. Did you want me to describe God based on my visions or something? What exactly are you looking for? You're an atheist, i get it... no answer is good enough, you have no faith.

Doesn't please me to know that but i realize nothing i could say or do would change that. Like i said, just showing why my beliefs trump your "proof," i didn't expect you to accept it.



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.


We have His word. Where'd you think my verses above came from?


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."


I proved your infantile version of "a god" doesn't exist... don't put words in my mouth. And your, 'it's too complicated God must've did it,' claim is just as ridiculous. Why do people debate subjects they haven't had any experience with... you try and disprove God by making up your own definition and ID by inventing your own hypothesis... real original.


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.


That has too been the most bassackwards "proof" i've ever seen. God is immeasurable, omnipotent... your "proof" is severly lacking all 'round. Regardless of how many times you say it... it's nonsense.


b) if God is of equal complexity to the universe, then the universe need not have been created.


Did this stuff come off a bubble gum wrapper? The philosophy of life according to hubba bubba?


c) if God is of less complexity than the universe, then God could not have created the universe.


Ummm... i knew i should of skipped this part.


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.


FYI there all false. Unless your arguing against some concept of God i'm unfamiliar with. I gave you plenty of examples of what i meant by God... again i suggest taking these brilliant examples over to BTS.



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.


If i was the type of guy who put other members' comments in my sig line i'd have your examples from above followed by the bolded statement. But i'm not 'that guy.' Philosophy/theology may not be a fruitfull pursuit for ya but i'd highly recommend being a stand-up comedian.




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.


Ok man i'll have to give up arguning against your version of Christianity here... i'm almost inclined to believe your messing with me, you can't possibly believe half the crap you're making up here. Wow!




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???


(emphasis mine) ID doesn't identify the designer Christianity (the links i provided) does... seriously man, on a scale from one to ten - how drunk are you right now? Like i said you got these concepts so twisted and intertwined you've rendered both useless. Wow!





Instead of insults and saying "strawman" at every other line you write, can you post your arguments here? otherwise we are not debating.


Bro - if this was any kind of debate you'd have to have atleast a basic understanding of ID or debate, you don't appear to have a good grasp on either. I really, really recommend you check out the definitions of strawman and non sequitur as a start... we could cut this post by 2/3rds with that alone.




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.


An oscillating universe wouldn't disprove God so i'm cool, thanks
Continuing to rely on "we don't know for sure" isn't a debate, it's a cop out. It wasn't an ID argument either i was simply responding to your post that bang-crunch is as likely as an 'open' or 'balanced' universe, which it's not based on the evidence... that's cosmology man not creationism. *shrug*



How am I supposed to know? I simply know, through logic, what is not possible. That does not tell me what is possible.


Logic... check.




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.


Dembski (the only math i linked too re: ID) has his PhD in mathematics and another in philosophy and he's seems to disagree. I'm sure he's just crazy though, like the rest of those pseudoscientific ID hacks, eh.



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.


True, some, seem not to be able to seperate them and i don't deny the implications. Usually it's only the atheists that cram into every ID argument though. Wonder what that means?



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?)...


The idea is that the 'fine tuning' IC, CSI etc etc implies a purposefull design therefore a designer... the conclusion is where the controvercy is no doubt, goes to the 'causation and method' philosophy of science debae. We're talking about undirected evolution. No, if NDT is shown to be invalid that does not make ID right by proxy. You're misunderstanding and over-simplifing the issues here imo



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!!!).


Atleast your honest... should i re-read it and tell you what it says? Is that what you did with the link above, ie cntrl---F "keyword"... debunk? Odd to say the least, but explains why you've got the concepts so mangled.


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.


I'll get into this in another post probably tommorrow (Wed) as it will take some time... and i'm sure you're gonna want to finish reading it.




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.


Same as above... not trying to avoid you. Loving the idea somebody actually wants to talk about an ID concept. Kids are home and well you know how that goes. Same goes for ID as a theory of information... these get a little detailed and i don't want to short change ya.


FYI you may want to rethink your examples/arguments you might be making this too easy... j/k





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).


See my links re: the God i believe in and how your "proofs" are meaningless... really man can we drop this nonsense.



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!!!.


Yup that's a good one. You nailed us. Caught red handed. If ID is false does that mean self (atheism) must be worshipped!!! Just curious if your "logic" runs both ways.


See you tommorrow or the next...

Regards,
-Rren



posted on Mar, 21 2006 @ 09:59 PM
link   

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!!!.

Embracing the theory of Intelligent Design or it being true does not mean that the Designer must be worshipped.



posted on Mar, 21 2006 @ 10:24 PM
link   
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."




posted on Mar, 22 2006 @ 03:15 AM
link   

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?


No. I never said there was a specific goal insight for the evolution of the eye.

However, i believe it did happen for a reason. i don't believe it was a random mutation or a freak of nature, or just by chance.

if ID was the reason for the eye, then i believe all eyes would have to be the same...but they're not. the reason these eyes are different between species is that they had a need for better hearing or smell, rather than eyesight. they need to 'sense' danger rather than 'see' it.



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 didn't say the origins 'did' start with predators and prey. i was using that as an example of evolution.



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.


ohright the 'origins' of the eye. perhaps i'll ask you for the origins of you so called 'higher power IDer'. as there would be absolutly no evidence to suggest there is a higher power IDer, let alone it's origin.



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.


that was one example of why a predator's eyesight may have evolved. are you therefore denying that an eagle has binocular vision to be able to hunt better and see it's prey? 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?


man. agreed.



posted on Mar, 22 2006 @ 03:52 AM
link   
There appears to be much evidence to support both theories, but neither is conclusive in my opinion.

It is difficult to deny that many species have traits acutely suited to their exhibited lifestyles. This certainly supports evolution, however there are also huge anomolies, not least of all, how existence went from nothing prior to the Big Bang, to something after it. The seemingly perfect order to everything and the fact that genes require some sort of memory to evolve are other stumbling blocks that come to mind.

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. 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.

The fact that both theories suggest that we are now on our own is a stumbling block for me personally. 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.



posted on Mar, 22 2006 @ 08:17 AM
link   
Hi mytym,


Originally posted by mytym
Both valid theories...but theories all the same

You have confirmed the premise and purpose of this entire thread





Originally posted by mytym
There appears to be much evidence to support both theories, but neither is conclusive in my opinion.

Agreed. Which is why they are considered theories and not fact.


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.

Yes, the Universe does indeed point to being set in motion and then no longer monitored or controlled by the higher power which initiated The Big Bang.



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.

Absolutely


There are many problems with the Universe. As souls of free will, we can learn from those obstacles and grow beyond them.


Originally posted by mytym
The fact that both theories suggest that we are now on our own is a stumbling block for me personally.

We are not entirely on our own.



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.

Agreed. They should only be taught as theories - not fact - to those with an open mind and who are ready to learn.

Nothing more...nothing less.




posted on Mar, 22 2006 @ 09:54 AM
link   

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."



Fair enough... the labels get a bit complicated and rarely are accurate on an individual basis.

"Higher power IDer" it is.


Gotta get back too work and the Dembski stuff too, just dropping in to check my u2us. Talk to you soon.

Regards,
-Rren



posted on Mar, 22 2006 @ 01:13 PM
link   
so lets hear your evidence 'for' ID ren...

i assume there's some sort of evidence for this 'high power IDer' you speak of


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]



posted on Mar, 22 2006 @ 02:35 PM
link   

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


Hi shaunybaby,

I believe your confused here, and rightly so. The reason for the confusion is my fault and not your's though. Let me see if i can clear it up.

I said a few posts back:

I've read some stuff (mostly from agnostic IDers...


To which Paul_Richard replied:

Agnostic IDers?

I wasn't aware of that term.


To which i clarified what i meant by my original comment using mattison0922 as an example:

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.


To that Paul_Richard clarifies his position (and Mattison by proxy.)

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."



Which leads to my last comment that you commented on.

So when i said IDer i meant it as IDTist, ie i meant to say an - "agnostic Intelligent Design Theorist" and not an "agnostic Intelligent Designer." I'm pretty busy right now just wanted to pop in and clear this up... hopefully i did that. Also no evidence or arguments presented by ID theorists is evidence for who or what the designer is (God, gods, aliens etc)... because it's currently untestable.

For me it's God - but that's not based on IC, CSI, FLE, algorithmic information theory, fine tuning, etc, which are simply evidences of a goal oriented/guided/telic universe or biosphere... As far as God or "the designer" those evidences and arguments come from the same place they always have, theology and philosophy. ID to put it simply is "design detection"... nothing scientifically said about/on the designer ie, ID is secular.

Most argue that the logical conclusion of ID is that the designer is supernatural (i'll get into that more in my next post) and i don't really argue that or get into it too much because that's my belief anyway... some IDists do disagree (i'll explain that in better detail later also.)




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've posted quite a bit of evidence (links) as to what the design inference is based on. Do you not think it's evidence? Do you disagree with the conclusion(s)? Have you had the time to read any of it yet? What evidence would you consider relevant to ID? If nothing i've posted seems reasonable to you i don't think we'll be finding any middle ground here... at least you didn't try to refute it without reading as others have so i appreciate that.

Inbetween my real job and real life at home i'm working on a summary version of the five (mathematical foundations & info theory) Dembski links i provided earlier. They're fairly long and will probably take me another day or two to summarize 'ATS style' if you will. I have my notes from when i first read them a while back so i've got a good base... we'll see.

Again apologies for the confusion earlier... ok back to work.

Regards,
-Rren



posted on Mar, 23 2006 @ 10:57 AM
link   
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!


I really, really recommend you check out the definitions of strawman

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!


Continuing to rely on "we don't know for sure" isn't a debate, it's a cop out.

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. I personally think ID is a cop out. Its like saying "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. Whats this logic thing anyways, is that a tropical fruit that grows in heaven?"

I've met my fair share of quacky mathematicians in my short life and I might have a few things to say about W. Dembski who equates improbability to increased measures of complexity. I dont understand why they call him a "leading logician" sometimes. I guess on a scale of 1-10 of being drunk...they went "out of the box". 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!

I'm out.



posted on Mar, 23 2006 @ 11:55 AM
link   

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!


Which (masterp) statements did you find logical re: falsify God? Do you not see why that's a non sequitur based on the definition of God, falsify and non sequitur? The very nature of the question is inherently illogical, yet you laude him for his excellent logic in the face of my gibberish. His ID arguments were not ID arguments, they were theological considerations based on the possible implication of having a "designer," with a bit of why I don't like Christians and it's a cruel world thrown in. Wrong forum...



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!


How 'bout a very recent, and very typical, ID critic straw man? Just to help illustrate my point:


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.


...this one's just as ridiculous:


"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.



Just as you said, "a weak or sham argument set up to be easily refuted ."




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.


Heaven forbid anybody should fine-tune their ideas... they should of got it right the first time, that's how science works, right Isis?

-With respect to the part I bolded; by all means post your refs here also...



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!


Give me an example of the arguable topic proposed by masterp, in the context of this thread topic, that i ignored. He wasn't moving off his "logic dictates there's no God" so I answered to the best of my ability, based on my beliefs, the theological issues (which doesn't belong here & was the majority of his arguments), I explained why God is not falsifiable, or provable for that matter... which is a true statement ask any theologian, philosopher or scientist. And further ID does not a God make... no reasonable person on either 'side' is arguing otherwise I didn't expect any sort of agreement... just trying to show why it's an exercise in futility and as it pertains the the ID debate it's unecessary. He wasn't moving on to any actual ID topic [note: Your post contains no information outside of an elaborate atta-boy for either argument and nothing i've posted been read except for the concluding paragraph fo one or two links] so as usual another ID thread turned into "God is real. No he's not"... guess i'll be moving on also. I see no point in this...

C-ya


(edit) BB code missed an "e."

[edit on 23-3-2006 by Rren]



posted on Mar, 23 2006 @ 12:43 PM
link   


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?



posted on Mar, 23 2006 @ 01:16 PM
link   

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?


Yes Prot0n that is true. My point was that ID, or the evidence used to support it, can't be used to back that up. I realize its' a complicated issue, and I won't pretend to have fully realized the implications. It's why i feel the scientific arguments and philosophical arguments should be seperate issues/arguments. Sorta like arguing over step ten when we're still argung over the viability of step one.

I'm not the world's best writer and i'm a layman on top of that... so in some posts i'm defending my faith (sorta) and talking about the design inference, so I understand how and why things get confusing. There's a purely scientific debate here. There's a philosophy of science debate (which may have to be part of the former), and there's a debate over the theological and philosophical implications if ID were shown to be valid...

Believe it or not i'm still not convinced ID has any scientifc validity... I try to stay objective but will admit that my personal world-view influences my judgement. Same for anybody imho, and it's why i like to seperate the issues.

When somebody says that there's no emperical data to back up the design inference or that it's just a modern day "God of the gaps theory" I say they're wrong. I believe this debate is a good thing for science; if all ID ever ends up being good for is forcing or instigating further OOL research or challenging currently held dogmas then so be it... that is a good thing imho. I hate being thought of as ignorant or some sort of religous zealot because I see merit in the design paradigm. Heck it worked for Kepler and Newton et al as the supposition with which they based their hypotheses ie, nature is directed, purposeful or goal oriented. If all we get out of it is a better understanding of evolution, biochemistry, and physics... i say good enough, ID will have positively contributed to our greater understanding of the world in which we live.

Anyways... i've probably only served to add more confusion but I hope i've atleast represented my POV here... if ID is pseudoscience my life and indeed my Faith will continue. I do understand why some critics, believers and non, find ID so objectionable. I simply disagree, but I've been wrong before.



posted on Mar, 23 2006 @ 03:56 PM
link   
Rren.

In your opinion, what would be the best data that supports ID? I'm abit knew to ID.



posted on Mar, 23 2006 @ 04:34 PM
link   
THERE IS NO DATA!!!!!!!! ID is BS!!!!!!!

Sorry, had to get that out of my system.

Anyways, ID proof isn't proof, it's

"Well we killed this many people to prove Earth was flat, then killed this many to prove it was center of the universe, so how many do we have to kill to prove ID?"




top topics



 
1
<< 8  9  10    12  13  14 >>

log in

join