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: 13
1
<< 10  11  12    14  15  16 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 24 2006 @ 08:17 AM
link   

Originally posted by Paul_Richard
shaunybaby,

Can you name us one person who you have found through your research has a Gift of Healing and/or Telekinesis?


There is suggestable evidence that prayer may help a patient. However, there is no evidence to back that up, as the patient may have got better anyway. Then again prayer is thought to bring hope... and hope is all the patient may have. It does not mean that God helped out the patient, but has more of a placebo effect.

I do believe in natural remedies to cure diseases. I believe somewhere on earth there is a cure for every disease, we've just yet to find them all. The power of plants, we've only just begun to touch on.

As for a 'gift of healing', there is no evidence to suggest this. It's like a story a christian friend told me: she said there are still miracles going on today, one being in africa at an orphanage where one bowl of soup fed 100s of people and never ran out. That's utter rubbish, there's no evidence for that, it's just something she heard and took for 100% truth.



I'd be willing to bet that you can't simply because you have yet to learn that these things exist.


I've learnt and heard of these things you speak of. However, as much as you don't like it there is no evidence to suggest any human being can heal people with prayer or telekinesis.



You are therefore making your appraisal out of prejudice and ignorance, not out of years of research and analysis.


I have no prejudice or ignorance on this subject. I'd be ignorant if i read a few internet articles you posted and merely took your word for it.


As for that post 'people have been brain dead for several days' that's pure rubbish. The brain can survive for a certain amount of time with no oxygen, usually a matter of minutes. If the brain goes a certain time without oxygen, and a person is brain dead, even if they do survive... they would have severe brain damage...and that's only going minutes as brain dead, not days.

Your stories are nothing but propoganda to push an agenda that has no evidence nor suggestable evidence to support it.

I'm supposed to take a person's word for it, who believes david blaine literally can pick winning lottery tickets, pick things from thin air, snap quarters in half etc... now that would be ignorant.




posted on Mar, 24 2006 @ 09:00 AM
link   


en.wikipedia.org...
There are many anecdotal references to people being declared dead by physicians and then coming back to life, sometimes days later in their own coffin, or when embalming procedures are just about to begin. Stories of people actually being buried alive (which must assume no embalming) led one inventor in the early 20th century to design an alarm system, with a bell and a cord that could be pulled from inside the coffin.



Same source

Changes after death:

1. Body core temperature cooling depends a number of external factors including the environment and clothing;
2. Rigor mortis - begins prior to decomposition:
1. Muscles gradually become hard due to decreased ATP and lactic acidosis within muscle fibrils
2. Begins 2-4 hours after death, though the process may begin more immediately;
3. May disappear after 9-12 hours in a warm enough climate.
3. Livor mortis - begins on the point of death:
1. Body becomes distended;
2. Skin color progressively changes from green to purple and finally to black;
3. Dependent areas of the body undergo this process first due to the pooling of blood;
4. Seen within 2 hours of death, the process of livor mortis reaches its maximum at 8-12 hours.


People have and still are declared dead when they really aren't. Brain death is still a debatable argument. Some say electrical activity must cease in the entire brain in order to be brain dead. Other's hold the view that it's only in the neo-cortex where they think consciousness is. There are some people who can enter a deep medatative state and appear to not be breathing or have a pulse and appear to be 'brain dead' as well. This would indicate that untill rigor mortis sets in, a patient still has a chance to come back to life. The guy you linked to couldn't have been dead as rigor mortis sets in 2-4 hours after real death, not percieved death.

en.wikipedia.org...

When the brain is 'fully dead' i.e, no electrical activity nor possibility of reactivation, this is when rigor mortis will start to take over as all bodily functions start to cease. There is no possible chance of coming back to life at this onset of death.




Quantam Physics Supports NDE Concepts


Not necessarily. If you add religous biased theories into it, possibly. But in reaility, no.

energy of light is infinite. - Not really. Something is needed to generate light. Light doesn't exist just on it's own. Thing's don't emit light unless some sort of process occurs to allow them to.

en.wikipedia.org... for more information on light.

light particles communicate! - Any particle can communicate under quantum entanglement. This isn't a miraculous event for just light alone.

Light is the loving entity - Light isn't an entity with feelings, this is very new age-ish. As I pointed out OOBE's and the feeling's associated with NDE's can be reproduced quiet easily in the lab.

God in terms of light. - Older culture's used to worship the sun as a source of life. It's no suprise that god would be associated with the life giving properties of the warmth of the light from the sun.

Time ceases to exist at light speed. - This is throwing out the whole mass issue when traveling C velocities. As you increase your speed towards that of C, your mass increases as well. Reaching C speeds is impossible due to this reason. Mass also produces gravity, the more mass the higher the gravitational field around it. This is why the sun can keep all 10 planets in orbit without everything just zipping off into deep space. When in a strong gravitational field, such as a black hole, time appears to stop through time dialation. It doesn't actually stop though.

en.wikipedia.org... to learn more about time.



posted on Mar, 24 2006 @ 10:20 AM
link   

Originally posted by shaunybaby
There is suggestable evidence that prayer may help a patient. However, there is no evidence to back that up, as the patient may have got better anyway. Then again prayer is thought to bring hope... and hope is all the patient may have. It does not mean that God helped out the patient, but has more of a placebo effect.

I do believe in natural remedies to cure diseases. I believe somewhere on earth there is a cure for every disease, we've just yet to find them all. The power of plants, we've only just begun to touch on.

As for a 'gift of healing', there is no evidence to suggest this. It's like a story a christian friend told me: she said there are still miracles going on today, one being in africa at an orphanage where one bowl of soup fed 100s of people and never ran out. That's utter rubbish, there's no evidence for that, it's just something she heard and took for 100% truth.

You have to give people more credit for sincere and objective testimonials that have been occuring on this subject for thousands of years. It would also be a good idea to check out those with a Gift of Healing firsthand and experience it for yourself.

It isn't just all a placebo effect, to say the least.

But for you to do this, you have to be open to the idea that there is such a thing as the Spirit Realm and that those that reside there have an influence on those in the flesh.

Quite a quantum leap for you.


Originally posted by Paul_Richard
I'd be willing to bet that you can't simply because you have yet to learn that these things exist.



Originally posted by shaunybaby
I've learnt and heard of these things you speak of. However, as much as you don't like it there is no evidence to suggest any human being can heal people with prayer or telekinesis.

Yep...I pegged that exact response.



Originally posted by Paul_Richard
You are therefore making your appraisal out of prejudice and ignorance, not out of years of research and analysis.



Originally posted by shaunybaby
I have no prejudice or ignorance on this subject. I'd be ignorant if i read a few internet articles you posted and merely took your word for it.

DO THE HOMEWORK OF INVESTIGATION.


Originally posted by shaunybaby
As for that post 'people have been brain dead for several days' that's pure rubbish. The brain can survive for a certain amount of time with no oxygen, usually a matter of minutes. If the brain goes a certain time without oxygen, and a person is brain dead, even if they do survive... they would have severe brain damage...and that's only going minutes as brain dead, not days.

So are we to believe that you have more experience in this field than the doctors and surgeons who have conducted these procedures and researched Near Death Experiences of the brain dead?

Why would we be prone to believe you over them?

Because you don't want it to be true?



Originally posted by shaunybaby
Your stories are nothing but propoganda to push an agenda that has no evidence nor suggestable evidence to support it.

Well, I am certainly not one to say that scientists are not prone to propagandist theology.


But in this instance, they are actually right in their appraisal and objective in their analysis.

You wouldn't know that unless you did your own research into this area of life which you refuse to do out of bias and closemindedness.


Originally posted by shaunybaby
I'm supposed to take a person's word for it, who believes david blaine literally can pick winning lottery tickets, pick things from thin air, snap quarters in half etc... now that would be ignorant.

Have you ever seen Blaine in action?

No.

Have you ever witnessed anyone with a Gift of Healing?

No.

Have you ever been around someone with a Gift of Telekinesis?

Of course not.

How can you even begin to understand something with which you have absolutely no frame of reference.

From Investigating the Power of Prayer...

A San Francisco researcher looks into whether prayer can heal even if the person doesn't know he's being prayed for
SUBSCRIBE TO TIMEPRINTE-MAILMORE BY AUTHOR
Posted Wednesday, Jan. 16, 2002
Dr Elizabeth Targ must be doing some very important work. The National Institutes of Health has already awarded her grants of $611,516 for one study, $823,346 for another. Even greater Federal largesse may be forthcoming before her studies are completed.

Targ is studying the therapeutic effects of prayer on AIDS and cancer patients. That sounds reasonable enough. The presence of a compassionate person reciting soothing prayers has apparently helped some patients, if by nothing more than a placebo effect. Measuring that effect might be useful, but Targ goes a step further. She is investigating what she calls "distance healing," in which those offering the prayers are far removed from the patients, who themselves are not even aware that incantations are being recited on their behalf.

It's an effect that would seem to defy reason — yet Targ reports striking results. In a 1998 study, after selecting practicing healers from a number of traditions — Christians, Buddhists, Jews, Indian shamans — she supplied them with the first names, blood counts and photographs of 20 patients with advanced AIDS. For an hour a day, over a ten-week period, the healers concentrated their thoughts on the pictures of these patients, but not on those of a control group of 20 other AIDS patients.

According to Targ, the prayed-for patients had fewer and less severe new illnesses, fewer doctor visits, fewer hospitalizations and were generally in better moods than those in the control group. The technique, she believes, can even work on nonhuman species. In a speech, she described an experiment performed by another group in which remote healing was used to shrink tumors in mice. And, she reported, the greater the distance between healer and mouse in that experiment, the greater the effect! The connection, Targ suggests, "could be actuated through the agency of God, consciousness, love, electrons or a combination."




[edit on 24-3-2006 by Paul_Richard]



posted on Mar, 24 2006 @ 10:43 AM
link   

Originally posted by Prot0n

People have and still are declared dead when they really aren't. Brain death is still a debatable argument. Some say electrical activity must cease in the entire brain in order to be brain dead. Other's hold the view that it's only in the neo-cortex where they think consciousness is. There are some people who can enter a deep medatative state and appear to not be breathing or have a pulse and appear to be 'brain dead' as well. This would indicate that untill rigor mortis sets in, a patient still has a chance to come back to life. The guy you linked to couldn't have been dead as rigor mortis sets in 2-4 hours after real death, not percieved death.

This doesn't wash for those who have been declared legally dead for well over twenty-four hours.


Some People Have Been Dead For Several Days



Quantum Physics Supports NDE Concepts



Originally posted by Prot0n
Not necessarily. If you add religous biased theories into it, possibly. But in reaility, no.

And you know this...how?


Once more we have someone who has lots of opinion but little or no experience or research in the topic at hand.


Originally posted by Prot0n
energy of light is infinite. - Not really. Something is needed to generate light. Light doesn't exist just on it's own. Thing's don't emit light unless some sort of process occurs to allow them to.

Again...you are trying to explain The Light Of The God Force - that many Near Death Experiencers report seeing when leaving their body or shortly thereafter - neatly into your little antiquated paradigm.

This is not a physically-based light that you can explain away via a Wikipedia entry.


It is the energy of Spirit and it does not operate off of the rules you cling to and it does indeed exist on its own, without a physical apparatus


But you would not know that unless you did some research and/or had experience in this area of life.

So your conclusions are faulty and based out of sheer ignorance and bias.

You have not done any research, such as the professionals in the sites that I have patiently posted; you simply spout the scientific materialist view of light with no clue as to the Light that transcends the physical spectrum of reality.


DO THE HOMEWORK OF INVESTIGATION.



[edit on 24-3-2006 by Paul_Richard]



posted on Mar, 24 2006 @ 11:14 AM
link   


This doesn't wash for those who have been declared legally dead for well over twenty-four hours.

Some People Have Been Dead For Several Days


They were "reported" dead. Reported is the key word here. Many people have been declared legally dead and seemingly come back to life after a certain length of time. However, as you've conviently ignored, when the body is actually dead with no chance of comming back, rigor mortis will set in withing 2-4 hours. At this point there is no such thing as coming back.



Once more we have someone who has lots of opinion but little or no experience or research in the topic at hand.


Actually, I have been researching these claims and the evidence against them. Please don't assume I haven't when your ignoring certain fact's.



Again...you are trying to explain The Light Of The God Force - that many Near Death Experiencers report seeing when leaving their body or shortly thereafter - neatly into your little antiquated paradigm.


Your ignoring the fact that these people aren't technically dead, reported or otherwise. Your also seemingly appearing to ignore the fact that numerous studies have been done that show NDE's are reproducable under certain conditions, drug induced or electromagnetically induced. Possibly other means are capable of inducing an NDE experience as well. Your also assuming based upon so called experiences of other people while undergoing a traumatic experience that this 'afterlife' exist's. No two people give the same exact description of this afterlife or of the tunnel. There are many very different account's.



This is not a physically-based light that you can explain away via a Wikipedia entry.


When your providing sources that are cmaking claims for NDEs using 'physical' light, such as time stopping or having infinite energy, then yes, I can point you to source's of information that deal with the reality of these thing's.



It is the energy of Spirit and it does not operate off of the rules you cling to and it does indeed exist on its own, without a physical apparatus


This is merely a religously biased opinion. No one's seen nor measured a "spirit".



But you would not know that unless you did some research and/or had experience in this area of life.


I'll kindly ask you again to stop assuming. You know what they say about assuming?



So your conclusions are faulty and based out of sheer ignorance and bias.


Provide one source that you feel is a good argument against NDEs. Then we'll talk about ignorance and bias.



You have not done any research, such as the professionals in the sites that I have patiently posted; you simply spout the scientific materialist view of light with no clue as to the Light that transcends the physical spectrum of reality.


For a third time, let's not assume. It's just not polite. Without any evidence of this "light" or of anything transcending physical reality, it become's rather hard to discuss it from a scientific point of view and any furthur discussion and theorizing about this subject would be purely theological and philosophical. But to add to what your saying, all you've done is "spout" the 'religously' biased opinion on an afterlife.



DO THE HOMEWORK OF INVESTIGATION.


This will be the fourth time in this post alone that I have to ask you to stop assuming. It is through researching and learning that I've come to a better understanding of these thing's. If you would like to know, I once believed the supernatural was real and believed in reincarnation etc. Then I started looking at the arguments against and for the claims. I could have taken the same route you have taken and put pure faith into these claims and dismissed all the research that has been done against them, but then I'd be doing nothing less then remaining in true ignorance.



posted on Mar, 24 2006 @ 12:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by Paul_Richard
You have to give people more credit for sincere and objective testimonials that have been occuring on this subject for thousands of years. It would also be a good idea to check out those with a Gift of Healing firsthand and experience it for yourself.


I have, it was nothing but a sham. Anyone seen the movie 'man on the moon'? Jim carrey goes to a so called miracle healer...and it's pretty similar to what i witnessed. nothing but a con.



It isn't just all a placebo effect, to say the least.


i said prayer could have a placebo effect. if you believed enough that it was making you better, you might just get better.



Have you ever seen Blaine in action?

No.


as a matter of fact i have. same with paul mckenna, same with darren brown. great illusionists, and darren brown also great with the psychology stuff he does.



Have you ever witnessed anyone with a Gift of Healing?

No.


they supposedly had the gift of healing...i didn't see much healing going on though.



Have you ever been around someone with a Gift of Telekinesis?

Of course not.


if i remember correctly people think david blain is telekinesic, it was said on another thread, so in that case i would have been.



How can you even begin to understand something with which you have absolutely no frame of reference.


why are you so ignorant and assume so much?



posted on Mar, 24 2006 @ 01:08 PM
link   
Paul,

I just got done watching this and it's something you should probably watch as well.

video.google.com...

It's 53 minute's long, so make sure you've eaten something and have a drink handy.


Edit: Forgot to mention, it's a googleplex video on the brain. Really really really interesting .

[edit on 24-3-2006 by Prot0n]



posted on Mar, 24 2006 @ 03:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by Prot0n
Rren.

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


Hi Prot0n,

I didn't realize you're such a new member here and am not sure if you can read the u2u I sent you (I know you can't reply until you have 20 posts i believe), if you didn't get it let me know. If you did get the u2u here's something else that will help to understand the basics of ID.

Thought that you, and other contributors and lurkers on this thread might be interested in downloading this video. Unlocking the Mystery of Life Right click---Save Target as [.ram file (8mb)] which is the short version (@30mins.) of a longer DVD by the same title found here. All the basics of the "ID -vs- ET" debate plus helps explain some of the ID concepts and history of OOL research.

Very informative show imo, caught it on tv a while back but didn't ever think to check if they have anything on the web for it... guess they do.


Enjoy guys and let me know what you think about it... Ok back to the Dembski papers, math... blah!!

Regards,
-Rren

[edit on 24-3-2006 by Rren]



posted on Mar, 24 2006 @ 03:28 PM
link   
One thing I don't understand is it's explanation of natural selection. It admit's that natural selection works on a small scale and there's plenty of evidence for this, but it seem's to assume that natural selection alone plays the sole role in evolutionary processes. If I'm not mistaken, evolution itself as far as speciation is much more complex then natural selection alone.

I'm only half way through the movie so far ... hopefully it goes into the rest of the evolutionary process rather then sitting upon natural selection alone.


Ok, I'm about 20 minutes in now ... There's two thing's that seem abit odd.

I looked these two up. The flagellum has been shown to not be IC and the mousetrap as well. Seem's like the producer of this video and the scientist's are using rather weak argument's for design.


Well, finally got finished with the movie. I must say I'm rather dissapointed.


It literally sat on natural selection as the sole role and mechanism for evolutionary processes. I agree, natural selection alone can't explain many of the complex thing's found in nature, but natural selection alone isn't the only process available for evolution.

[edit on 24-3-2006 by Prot0n]

[edit on 24-3-2006 by Prot0n]



posted on Mar, 26 2006 @ 11:18 AM
link   
I can't edit my last post... Kinda sucks. Anyways!

I was reading through this book I picked up at the library a couple days ago, there's a quote from Behe, as follow's.



Suppose that nearly four billion years ago the designer made the first cell, already containing all of the irreducibly complex biochemical systems discussed here and many others. (One can postulate that the designs for systems that were to be used later, such as blood clotting, were present but not "turned on". In present-day organisms plenty of genes are turned off for awhile, sometimes generations, to be turned on at a later time.) (Behe 1996: 228)


The big problem I have with this quote is, we'd have to assume this was how ALL genetic lines came about and that this was the only possible way for comples genetic line's to occur. This seem's to disregard scaffolding, borrowing and swapping, and many other various mechanism's allowing for complexity to occur. Why would Behe do such a thing?



posted on Aug, 2 2006 @ 08:44 AM
link   
First and foremost, a theory is an explanation for some event that can be put through repeated testing; otherwise, it is simply a baseless statement. ID cannot be tested because it incorporates a ‘higher power’; something that one can never demonstrate actually exists. So why would we EVER teach this in a science class if science demands tangible evidence?

Paul, your main argument for ID seems to be based on the very low probability that life could come about by pure chance. However, take a look at the ‘Cyclical Theory of the Universe’, which has been in circulation for a number of years:

msnbc.msn.com... (Written in 2002)

www.stnews.org... (Written in 2005)

www.boston.com... (Written in May of this year. Note how the last paragraph of the article mentions that the theory can be disproved by finding gravitational waves in the universe and that they are currently looking for these waves, which the theory predicts shouldn’t exist. See Paul, a theory should be able to be tested)

The cyclical theory basically says that the Universe has been in an infinite cycle of expansions (Big Bang) and contractions (Big Crunch). In which case, your argument about the probability being very low is no longer valid, because probability is no longer an issue when considering a universe that has always been in existence; every possibility is played out. So again, I don’t even see how this debate has continued as long as it has, because there is no testable evidence to support ID; making it conjecture and not theory.


[edit on 2-8-2006 by James_Moriarty]



posted on Aug, 2 2006 @ 09:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by James_Moriarty

Paul, your main argument for ID seems to be based on the very low probability that life could come about by pure chance.


That is a myth used by ID proponents, that is, creationists, to trick the public into believing that there is scientific evidence of a creator.

In truth, you, Paul and myself can roll a 10 sided die once every 10 seconds for 10 hours, and record the results of each roll. If we calculated the odds that such a combination of dice rolls could occur "by random chance," the odds would be as great as the odds that the ID cultists say must come into play for life to have come about via natural means.

That is another ID lie. They are not calculating the odds that life occurs by natural means, they are calculating the odds that life could occur naturally and end up exactally as it is on Earth. Well, the odds are just as astronomical as the die rolling test, yet both happened.

I hope that this has helped to shed some light on the ID cult's methods of deception.



posted on Aug, 3 2006 @ 01:13 AM
link   

Originally posted by James_Moriarty
First and foremost, a theory is an explanation for some event that can be put through repeated testing; otherwise, it is simply a baseless statement. ID cannot be tested because it incorporates a ‘higher power’; something that one can never demonstrate actually exists. So why would we EVER teach this in a science class if science demands tangible evidence?


Is LUCA "tangible?" What did 'first life' look like? ID does not incorporate a 'higher power' anymore than evolution is contingent upon abiogenesis. IDers admit that the nature/indentity of the designer is untestable - just as you seem to - yet you claim they don't. Or are you saying they should? If so, why and please be specific.

"[E]volution is understood to be the result of an unguided, unplanned process of random variation and natural selection" Is that "tangible?" How about repeatable/testable/falsifiable? If so, how; why not its opposite (telic)?

"Design theory—also called design or the design argument—is the view that nature shows tangible signs of having been designed by a preexisting intelligence."

"Intelligent Design is the study of patterns in nature that are best explained as the result of intelligence."Source

That's what ID is... regardless of what you'd like to pretend it is [ie, creationism.]






The cyclical theory basically says that the Universe has been in an infinite cycle of expansions (Big Bang) and contractions (Big Crunch). In which case, your argument about the probability being very low is no longer valid, because probability is no longer an issue when considering a universe that has always been in existence; every possibility is played out. So again, I don’t even see how this debate has continued as long as it has, because there is no testable evidence to support ID; making it conjecture and not theory.


[edit on 2-8-2006 by James_Moriarty]


The (modern) cyclical theory doesn't incorporate a "big crunch" that's the (now discarded) oscillating model, no? Is there a difference between it and M-theory? How would you differentiate [the evidence for] cyclical theory from big bang theory? Also I have to admit that testing this is over my head. I have read your links and some others but I'm still having trouble understanding it. Not how it works, but how it's tested (why would result x [eg gravity waves] be evidence for cyclical theory) if you follow me. Could you give me the "for dummies" breakdown, thanks.

Also how can you determine that "every possibility is played out/probability is no longer an issue " scientifically, ie no conjecture please. How much cosmology needs to be thrown out to fit this model? You, also, refer to this as theory and not hypothesis could you elaborate on that, thanks again.


www.physorg.com...
But what if the universe is much older than it appears? Professors Paul Steinhardt (Princeton University) and Neil Turok (Cambridge University) have come up with a novel solution that gives the cosmological constant time to decay to its required value. Resurrecting a ghost of the cyclical universe, they propose that our universe is one of two embedded in the eleven-dimensional space of string theory.

The two universes are linked with a spring-like attraction, and so pass through each other (moving along one of the higher dimensions) periodically. Every time they interact, enormous energies are released and both universes fill with hot plasma—a new Big Bang. There is no Big Crunch, as both universes are constantly expanding. A trillion years or so after one Big Bang, when the universe is practically empty, another Big Bang occurs and the stars and galaxies can form once more.


It's interesting but I don't see how this resolves anything wrt ID/biology and the origin of life. It's an argument against the anthropic principle or explanation for the 'fine-tuning' of "this" universe it seems.










Originally posted by Rev Paine


That is a myth used by ID proponents, that is, creationists, to trick the public into believing that there is scientific evidence of a creator.


Please review the definitions for: Myth and abiogenesis. Report back, thanks.



In truth, you, Paul and myself can roll a 10 sided die once every 10 seconds for 10 hours, and record the results of each roll. If we calculated the odds that such a combination of dice rolls could occur "by random chance," the odds would be as great as the odds that the ID cultists say must come into play for life to have come about via natural means.


Please review the definition for cult. Report back, thanks. Also are you saying that life is a 1 in 10 shot? If so, care to back that up? Check the link in my signature for a more detailed look at the actual issues/figures. Have you thought of writing up your 'ten-sided die' hypothesis. Scientists have been working on abiogenesis for well over fifty years now to no avail, you're gonna be famous.



That is another ID lie. They are not calculating the odds that life occurs by natural means, they are calculating the odds that life could occur naturally and end up exactally as it is on Earth. Well, the odds are just as astronomical as the die rolling test, yet both happened.


Do you know of another kind of life? Or is that just another materialists' lie? You've managed to correlate this unknown type of life with your 'die hypothesis' I see... can we just take your word on this?



I hope that this has helped to shed some light on the ID cult's methods of deception.


You sold me.


(edit)Forgot link for 'ex' quote

[edit on 3-8-2006 by Rren]



posted on Aug, 3 2006 @ 05:43 PM
link   


ID does not incorporate a 'higher power' anymore than evolution is contingent upon abiogenesis. IDers admit that the nature/indentity of the designer is untestable - just as you seem to - yet you claim they don't.


Bzzztt!! Wrong.

www.antievolution.org...

The Discovery Institute, the invertors of Intelligent Design, internally admits that its strategy is linked to Christianity.

"...we also seek to build up a popular base of support among our natural constituency, namely, Chnstians. We will do this primarily through apologetics seminars. We intend these to encourage and equip believers with new scientific evidence's that support the faith, as well as to "popularize" our ideas in the broader culture."


What is the stated goal of ID?

"Governing Goals

1. To defeat scientific materialism and its destructive moral, cultural and political legacies.
2. To replace materialistic explanations with the theistic understanding that nature and hurnan beings are created by God. "

The goal is to replace science with a faith that God created all.

How can you argue that?

The above is the stated agenda of the group that invented ID. It is not science, not only by method, not only in truth, but it has also been rulled as theism by a court of law.



Please review the definition for cult. Report back, thanks. Also are you saying that life is a 1 in 10 shot? If so, care to back that up? Check the link in my signature for a more detailed look at the actual issues/figures. Have you thought of writing up your 'ten-sided die' hypothesis. Scientists have been working on abiogenesis for well over fifty years now to no avail, you're gonna be famous.


1. I did not say that life is a "1 in 10 shot." Your lack of reasoning and intelligence has lead you to come to that conclusion on your own, despite plain English that clerly states otherwise.

2. If other scientists had not come to the simple conclusion on their own years before I considered the matter, then yes I would write that paper. However, that paper has already been written.



Do you know of another kind of life? Or is that just another materialists' lie? You've managed to correlate this unknown type of life with your 'die hypothesis' I see... can we just take your word on this?


The does not have to be "other kinds of life" for the possibility to exist that slight changes in Earth's history, perhaps if certian metors missed the Earth, for example, that life on Earth would not be as it exists.



posted on Aug, 3 2006 @ 08:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by Rev Paine
www.antievolution.org...

The Discovery Institute, the invertors of Intelligent Design, internally admits that its strategy is linked to Christianity.


So now the DI "invented" ID? You can't possibly be serious. Is Johnson our cult leader? Do we have a handshake I should know about? Can I drink the kool-aid? Are all evolutionists atheists because Dawkins, meyers et al are? Have you heard their agendas? Are you an atheist, therefore, their ideas and agendas are ok? I can quote mine some dandies too if you'd like.





"...we also seek to build up a popular base of support among our natural constituency, namely, Chnstians. We will do this primarily through apologetics seminars. We intend these to encourage and equip believers with new scientific evidence's that support the faith, as well as to "popularize" our ideas in the broader culture."


What issues do you have with the above quote, exactly? There's nothing about ID being "invented" to establish this. Certainly nothing illegal or even sinister. What do you think think-tanks, lobbyists, religion/political/evironmental/etc advocates do all day.


For the rest of your issues re "The Wedge" all my quotes will be from the DI's .pdf -FWIW if you take the time to read it all of your questions are dealt with specifically. - The "Wedge Document": So What? The entire original document can be found there also. Anybody who's concerned over what the good 'rev' is telling you please read it, and the discussion of it, for yourselves. Never get you weather report from Chicken Little.


In any case, the "Wedge Document" articulates a strategy for influencing science and culture with our ideas through, research, reasoned argument and open debate. As our not-so-secret document put it, "without solid scholarship, research and argument, the project would be just another attempt to indoctrinate instead of persuade."


Did you miss that part of "The Wedge?" Should I throw out a Dawkins' quote here? Which advocates/positions will you and your ilk 'allow' in the public (NONE of this was EVER secret) arena? What if we find a Judge to agree with us, that's how we do science, right?




The Center for Science and Culture is not attacking science or the scientific method. It is challenging the philosophy of scientific materialism and the false scientific theories that support it


Are you saying they have no right to do this? You obviously think they are wrong [in principal], so why are you so worried? Are you saying that what they are doing should be/is illegal?


Ok on to your quotes from the 'wedge', but I do encourage you to read the link I gave. Heck there's books out there from both sides on this [BTW the 'wedge' was written in the late '90s and as fundraising proposal ie, they had a 'target' audience as any such proposal would]






What is the stated goal of ID?

"Governing Goals

1. To defeat scientific materialism and its destructive moral, cultural and political legacies.


So they reject atheism (ie, materialism) what's your point? Most people do. Also for somebody who'd critique another's reading comprehension... these are the stated goals of the CSC (DI's think-tank) and have nothing to do with design theory.

There reponse to this is:

We admit it. We think the materialistic world-view that has dominated Western intellectual life since the late 19th century is false and we want to refute it. [...] We certainly are not conceiling these views


Do you have any idea how many people have been advocating these things for years and years"? What is so wrong with it? How is this how they'll get their theocracy?



2. To replace materialistic explanations with the theistic understanding that nature and hurnan beings are created by God. "


Can you show me how ID does that eg, How does ID give us a 'theistic understanding of nature and humanity'? Be specific. Where do the agnostic and/or non-Christian members of the ID movement fit in? How would irreducible complexity, front-loading, CSI, information theory, genetics or any of the other scientific issues raised by ID theorists be used to support theism? Be specific.



The goal is to replace science with a faith that God created all.

How can you argue that?


Nobody's claiming they want to "replace" science with "faith" that's an outright lie! I can give you the real quote if you'd like. You believe a debate over the philosophy of science and its implications are evil; unwarranted; illegal or what exactly. What does this have to do with the scientific issues raised by ID. They are not allowed to argue that science is in harmony with a theistic world-view yet Dawkins gets to be a 'fullfilled atheist'? Again this is NOT ID. Is eugenics evolution? Should I start my quotes now?

It's a witch hunt; guilt by association. No debate? Your way or the highway. Did you want to argue against any of the positions you quoted? Or is this a 'I can't believe they said that' :O Why so suprised/worried.



The above is the stated agenda of the group that invented ID. It is not science, not only by method, not only in truth, but it has also been rulled as theism by a court of law.


They didn't "invent" ID that's just silly. Judge Jones did not rule it was "theism" either. Have you read the decision?



1. I did not say that life is a "1 in 10 shot." Your lack of reasoning and intelligence has lead you to come to that conclusion on your own, despite plain English that clerly states otherwise.


You said: "In truth, you, Paul and myself can roll a 10 sided die once every 10 seconds for 10 hours, and record the results of each roll. If we calculated the odds that such a combination of dice rolls could occur "by random chance," the odds would be as great as the odds that the ID cultists say must come into play for life to have come about via natural means."

Utter BS. The odds are the same? Seriously? Source? That's plain english? Pretend I don't speak it and explain that one slowly chief.




2. If other scientists had not come to the simple conclusion on their own years before I considered the matter, then yes I would write that paper. However, that paper has already been written.


You got a source for this one too chief? Solved years ago??? Some people are gonna want to talk to you. It's really as simple as you say then eh. How'd that 'die proof' go again?




The does not have to be "other kinds of life" for the possibility to exist that slight changes in Earth's history, perhaps if certian metors missed the Earth, for example, that life on Earth would not be as it exists.


Huh?
Would that be the "Perhaps Theory?" Never heard of it... must be that 'hard science' you loyalists are always talking about. Gotta source?

[edit on 3-8-2006 by Rren]



posted on Aug, 4 2006 @ 04:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by Rren “IDers admit that the nature/indentity of the designer is untestable”


Then there is no argument, ID is a very week theory in that it cannot be tested.


Originally posted by Rren "[E]volution is understood to be the result of an unguided, unplanned process of random variation and natural selection" Is that "tangible?"


The evidence supporting evolution is tangible yes. I believe this has been discussed from the very beginning.


Originally posted by Rren "Design theory—also called design or the design argument—is the view that nature shows tangible signs of having been designed by a preexisting intelligence."


Tangible signs that nature has been designed by a preexisting intelligence….yet you admit that the nature/identity of a designer is not testable…hmmmm. Perhaps you mean that you THINK that the probability of nature arising the way it did is evidence that we were created by a designer? But once again, this is not evidence.


Originally posted by Rren "Intelligent Design is the study of patterns in nature that are best explained as the result of intelligence."


Once again, because you feel that ID makes everything fit together, you believe that it is a bona fide theory. But again, to be a very strong theory, you need evidence. And there simply is no evidence at all.


Originally posted by Rren "The (modern) cyclical theory doesn't incorporate a "big crunch" that's the (now discarded) oscillating model, no?"


The cyclical model and the oscillating model are slightly different. The cyclical model does believe in a cycle of Big Bangs and Big Crunches:

“In their view, the big bang is a bridge to a pre-existing contracting era. The universe undergoes an endless sequence of cycles in which it contracts in a big crunch and re-emerges in an expanding big bang, with trillions of years of evolution in between, almost exactly as outlined in ancient Hindu cosmology.”


Originally posted by Rren “Is there a difference between it and M-theory?”


M-Theory is simply the amalgamation of a number of different string theories. And yes, this cyclical theory of the universe incorporates M-Theory which is why it is such a strong contender:

“The model is motivated by the M-theoretic notion that our universe consists of two branes separated by a microscopic
gap (the \bulk")”
wwwphy.princeton.edu...



Originally posted by Rren “Not how it works, but how it's tested (why would result x [eg gravity waves] be evidence for cyclical theory) if you follow me. Could you give me the "for dummies" breakdown, thanks.”


As for this, I cannot say that I exactly understand the technical aspect myself. All I know is that one of the competing theories, The Inflationary Theory I believe, predicts large gravitational waves, while the Cyclical Theory does not, which is why they are going to test for these waves.


Originally posted by Rren “Also how can you determine that "every possibility is played out/probability is no longer an issue " scientifically, ie no conjecture please.”


Well this is the very nature of infinity. I mean, its just common sense. You might argue that the chances of event ‘A’ occurring are one in a billion, but infinity surpasses a billion. It surpasses everything, that’s why it’s infinite.


Originally posted by Rren “Scientists have been working on abiogenesis for well over fifty years now to no avail…..“


I wouldn’t be as bold to say that scientists’ attempt to demonstrate abiogenesis has been futile. Take a look at this experiment NASA conducted:
www.firstscience.com...



posted on Aug, 4 2006 @ 04:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by Rren "“It's interesting but I don't see how this resolves anything wrt ID/biology and the origin of life.”


The main reason I brought up the cyclical theory was to demonstrate that probability of life forming is not a valid argument if there have been an infinite number of expansions and contractions of the universe.

My main problem with the ID supporters that I have encountered in this forum is that they continue to claim that it is a valid theory, but no one has provided evidence to support ID because the fact is, there cannot be any evidence. This is what makes ID a very, very week theory at best. Evolution, as has been discussed in great detail in this forum, has actual physical evidence to support it, as does the cyclical theory. I don’t have a problem with people believing that a higher power had a hand in human-kind’s creation, but I do have a problem with people claiming that there is sufficient evidence to make it as valid a theory as evolution, because this simply isn’t true.



posted on Aug, 4 2006 @ 05:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by James_Moriarty

Originally posted by Rren “IDers admit that the nature/indentity of the designer is untestable”


Then there is no argument, ID is a very week theory in that it cannot be tested.


Take Irreducible Complexity [IC] for example, regardless of your opinion on its merit: Does not knowing the identity of the designer make testing IC impossible? Which tenants of ID, specifically, cannot be tested due to a lack of knowledge about the designer? Have you read any ID arguments? Which ones and; did you disregard them based on these issues you have with who/what the designer is?




Originally posted by Rren "[E]volution is understood to be the result of an unguided, unplanned process of random variation and natural selection" Is that "tangible?"


The evidence supporting evolution is tangible yes. I believe this has been discussed from the very beginning.


You didnt address the quote; is the "..unguided, unplanned process.." part of the modern synthesis [NDE] testable/tangible. I'm not talking about common ancestry or whatever you personally believe to be "evolution" but neoDarwinan evolution. The "official" version if you like.




Originally posted by Rren "Design theory—also called design or the design argument—is the view that nature shows tangible signs of having been designed by a preexisting intelligence."


Tangible signs that nature has been designed by a preexisting intelligence….yet you admit that the nature/identity of a designer is not testable…hmmmm. Perhaps you mean that you THINK that the probability of nature arising the way it did is evidence that we were created by a designer? But once again, this is not evidence.


Correct. It's an interpretation of the evidence/data... what is your "evidence" for my last question. Also an interpretation is it not?



Originally posted by Rren "Intelligent Design is the study of patterns in nature that are best explained as the result of intelligence."


Once again, because you feel that ID makes everything fit together, you believe that it is a bona fide theory. But again, to be a very strong theory, you need evidence. And there simply is no evidence at all.


I'm not calling it a [T]heory... that was the op not me. I got no issues with, or desire to argue about, calling it a hypothesis, paradigm or what-ever-else floats your boat. What would you consider acceptable "evidence" for ID, would anything suffice? I'll ask again: Which ideas (



posted on Aug, 5 2006 @ 01:33 PM
link   


So now the DI "invented" ID?


Do you deny that the founders of the Discovery Institute are the self proclaimed inventors of the Intelligent Design myth?

ID is not science. The cult believes that science is amoral, destructive, et cetera. They intend to replace science with deity worship.

That is their stated agenda.

How can you defend these positions unless you are a part of the cult movement that follows the above stated principals?



You said: "In truth, you, Paul and myself can roll a 10 sided die once every 10 seconds for 10 hours, and record the results of each roll. If we calculated the odds that such a combination of dice rolls could occur "by random chance," the odds would be as great as the odds that the ID cultists say must come into play for life to have come about via natural means."

Utter BS. The odds are the same? Seriously? Source? That's plain english? Pretend I don't speak it and explain that one slowly chief.


Okay, I will slow it down for you since you have poor comprehension.

1. Take three people.
2. Provide all three people with a ten sided dice.
3. Once every 10 seconds instruct all three people to roll the dice.
4. Record the result of each roll.
5. Repeat for 10 hours.
6. Calculate the odds that three people with a 10 sided dice would have rolled the exact combination of rolls.

Comprehende?



posted on Aug, 5 2006 @ 03:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by Rev Paine


So now the DI "invented" ID?


Do you deny that the founders of the Discovery Institute are the self proclaimed inventors of the Intelligent Design myth?


Which person, specifically, is the self proclaimed "inventor" of ID? Finish your thought man, thanks.



ID is not science. The cult believes that science is amoral, destructive, et cetera. They intend to replace science with deity worship.

That is their stated agenda.


I showed you their [the DI which, again, is NOT "ID"] stated agenda, quoted from that same document you were so worried about. That's twice you've, at best, misrepresented; at worst lied about it. It's in black and white (in both our links) for anybody to read for themselves. Nice try though.



How can you defend these positions unless you are a part of the cult movement that follows the above stated principals?


Rule #1 of ID cult: You do not talk about ID cult. You're either with us or you're against us, eh? Never woulda figured you for a Bush supporter. Nice try though *you must be one of them then* priceless



Okay, I will slow it down for you since you have poor comprehension.

1. Take three people.
2. Provide all three people with a ten sided dice.
3. Once every 10 seconds instruct all three people to roll the dice.
4. Record the result of each roll.
5. Repeat for 10 hours.
6. Calculate the odds that three people with a 10 sided dice would have rolled the exact combination of rolls.

Comprehende?


Oh I got it chief and I'll re-iterate: Complete nonsense. Would you like to know the number? Did you care to jive that with the number you say it's equal too (you can use the number from my sig link on protein folding)? Would you like me to tell you the difference (FYI billions of orders of magnitudes higher!)? This was your "proof" though so perhaps I should let you finish... don't exclude specification either BTW (may be trillions now but I'll let you pencil whip it.)

Did you want to skip over all the tough question re: NDE?... surely as a die hard 'loyalist' and defender of science you could do that for me. Or are you part of some Darwinist cult that is trying to replace science with faith.

Looks like I've found proof of an evangelical atheist conspiracy!

*the sky is falling*

Ruuuuuuuuuuuunnnnn!

(edit/hint)Re: 6. Calculate the odds that three people with a 10 sided dice would have rolled the exact combination of rolls.

What is the specified number (what number are you shooting for?) Your test will end up with a meaningless (useless) number. The "exact combination of rolls" is pre-determined (3 random numbers produced every 10secs for 10hrs) and would prove what exactly? Your "plain english" must be better than mine is... can you go slower? Finish with a number (result) that's analagous to abiogenesis. Then you've got me chief. Of course you could just link me to the paper that was written "years ago" which kept you from publishing this masterpiece. I wasn't gonna say anything but I thought I'd offer a smidge of help, ie you're not even CLOSE. *off to the lab*

(edit/extra nice guy) Ok I looked on the web for some more help for ya... figured you probably don't like books much (you Bushies are all alike
) Anywho, somebody wrote up the long explanation on a blog here. Look at those numbers (they exceed the total number of seconds between now and the big bang, particles in the universe BTW). Not just some random string like you'd get from, oh I don't know, rolling dice and recording the outcomes... you need to reach a specified number. Yours will be about 11000 digits long (random meaningless string of numbers) and you expect the next group of die rollers will find that number also? You guys got a few billion years to kill rolling dice? I sure hope so (supercomputers may take millions of years to pull it off



new topics

top topics



 
1
<< 10  11  12    14  15  16 >>

log in

join