Right, it's not like some day in the future, some pregnant lady is gunna pop out something that isn't even human. The human species will change over time, eventually becomming something that isn't considered homo sapiens, but would be another homo - whatever ... just pray it's not the icky homo

Originally posted by WyrdeOne
mattison

BTW... if you'd take the time to read anything I've ever posted... you'd realized that I could potentially be the best ally you've got in this debate.

He just doesn't appreciate you like I do. Long time no see, BTW, how ya' been?

Hey man... doing pretty well... it has been a while. Sorry for runnin' out on our U2U's... I was kind of burnout on ATS for about 8 months... been back for a couple now... knew I'd run into you eventually...

Will catch you via u2u soon... I just don't have the desire to participate in these ID threads currently... just can't seem to make any 'progress'

Matt,

Perhaps you'd like to try a hand at the very founding bleiefs of religion itself? The thread in my sig raises some pretty valid points in regards to religous beliefs. Having abit of trouble finding anyone religous who'd be willing to counter those points.

Originally posted by Produkt
Matt,

Perhaps you'd like to try a hand at the very founding bleiefs of religion itself? The thread in my sig raises some pretty valid points in regards to religous beliefs. Having abit of trouble finding anyone religous who'd be willing to counter those points.

Produkt, thanks for the invite... but I am distinctly not qualified to do this...

I know that this is tough for people to accept given my perspective on IDT, but I am not religious...

IMO, fundamentalist interpretation of any religious doctrine not only ignores the history of any given religion, but pretty much misses the boat with respect to the purpose of religious myth....

So... sorry... if you want to talk about science, then I'm here, but religion.... you're definitely barking up the wrong tree.

Well, technically, from what I've written, the evolution of religion could be taken from a scientific viewpoint dealing with how society has developed over time, belief structures changing along with each succesive change in society, archeological evidence, or lack thereof concerning the claims of each religion, the psychology behind religion and devout believer's. I mean, what I've written isn't so much as a bash religion garbage post. I've tried my best to put alot of thought behind what I posted.

Originally posted by Paul_Richard

The physical laws which govern the Universe illustrate an orderly process to ALL THAT IS, not a chaotic mess of matter and energy.

See though-- here's the problem with that argument:

The "laws" that we perceive in the universe appear to us, axiomatically, to be ordered and to be an expression of intelligence. They could not appear to us to be anything else, since the human concept of order and intelligence is measured by how well it reflects the reality of the universe in which we have found ourselves.

We live in a universe that can be ordered and described and defined. One's ability to do so is seen as an expression of one's intelligence, and the greater one's facility for analyzing and ordering the myriad aspects of reality, the greater one's intelligence is perceived to be. The most intelligent among humans are held to be those with the greatest facility for perceiving, analyzing and understanding the processes of the universe, so those processes are the very benchmark of the trait that we refer to as intelligence.

If the universe was composed in some entirely different manner, and we had arisen in that entirely different universe (either by evolution or creation), our definition of order would still be that which most closely corresponds with observable reality. We axiomatically perceive the structure of the universe to be ordered because our definition of order is based upon the structure of the universe.

If the Universe were a chaotic mess of matter and energy, there could never be life on this planet.

Wrong. If the universe were what we, in this universe, perceive to be a "chaotic mess of matter and energy," then life as we understand it would no doubt never arise there. However, that doesn't preclude the possibility of some form of life, and if there was some form of life in that universe, they would perceive it to be ordered, as their notion of order would axiomatically correspond with their reality.

In light of all of the above, Intelligent Design should be taught as a theory in schools just as Evolutionism is taught as a theory.

No-- probably not, and specifically because it is a fundamentally flawed theory, as I've already pointed out. It's based on the erroneous assumption that our concepts of "order" and "intelligence" are somehow entirely objective and have no basis in the reality in which we live, so that when we look around and see reflections of that which we perceive to be order and intelligence in our universe, it demonstrates something about the universe. The reality is that our concepts of order and intelligence are rooted directly in the nature of the universe in which we live, so the universe MUST exhibit traits that we perceive as order.

The shell of the Chambered Nautilus and the petals of many flowers turn in a ratio that correspond with Fibonacci numbers-- the so called Golden Proportion. That's certainly not necessarily because some creator thought that was a pleasing proportion-- rather we perceive it to be a pleasing proportion because it's wholly in keeping with the innate "order" of our universe.

No, it's not.

Here's the thing. ID and evolution both discuss life on Earth and pose ideas on how it has arrived at its current state. Same level, so far. But, here is where ID starts lagging behind.

Darwinian evolution states a mechanism through which it works, natural selection. Whether you agree with this or not is irrevelant here; the point is that the theory has a process that might work for it. With ID, no such thing. In fact, there's not even an impetus to identify a way in which the designer might have designed life. Sure, technically ID doesn't have to, but this certainly drops it a notch below evolution theory-wise.

Related to this point, evolution describes the process, natural selection, through which it works. Of course, ID doesn't mention a process through which the designer designs, much less describe it. That's another notch.

Evolution has a value to it, conceptually and practically. Darwinian medicine, vaccines, and constructing the tree of life come to mind. With ID, it appears to me that there's not much after that. Life was designed; ok...so what? Do we talk about the designer? NO. Do we talk about how the designer did it? NO. How do we apply ID in a constructive way? I dunno, you think of something.

I'm starting to wonder why ID won't even try making guess's for how the designer did it or the nature of the designer ...

Science explain's the universe through big bang, but it goes one step furthur and tries to describe the event's that lead to the big bang knowing full well it'll never physically experiment with those condition's. So why does ID say it doesn't have to do the same? They claim to have all the clue's pointing to a designer.... well then show how the designer did it. Prove that thing's are undeniably of design and not just lack of knowledge of the so call IC system.

Originally posted by Bob LaoTse

The "laws" that we perceive in the universe appear to us, axiomatically, to be ordered and to be an expression of intelligence. They could not appear to us to be anything else, since the human concept of order and intelligence is measured by how well it reflects the reality of the universe in which we have found ourselves.

That's true.

However, the possibility that the Universe came into being through pure chance and that also the correct order of chemical processes and life-sustaining conditions emerged for life to exist, is all astronomically small when compared to the much more logical argument and possibility that a higher power or intelligence started the program

Pure mathematical probability is the core understanding behind the theory of Intelligent Design.



[edit on 3-3-2006 by Paul_Richard]

Complexity in nature through chance is not an uncommon thing. Unless we're going to start assuming an intelligent agent behind snow flake's, lightening, face on mars, man on the moon, shape's in clouds and many numerous other complex pattern's found in nature. Life require's very specific condition's, atleast our kind of life does. the chance of a human species evolving on Jupiter is nearly zero, the condition's for our form of life there do not exist. This planet has had the right condition's occur that allowed for our form of life to develop. No, we don't have all the answer's yet, nor are we claiming an absolute truth, which is very unscientific. ID's absolute truth is the existance of a designer and it's evidence is through lack of knowledge for all the underlying principle's of the universe. Thing's no person on this planet know's, let alone fully understand's. We don't know the condition's of the universe pre-big bang, thus we cannot say that whatever those condition's were couldn't allow for a universe to come about through natural means.

Say it was ET who did the design. There's no reason for IDer's to not theorize on how ET could do such a thing. Just as scientist's are theorizing on the condition's that lead to the observations made in this universe. If ET created a physical universe, then what would be needed to do such? Or, if they created a simulate universe and we're not even real physical being's, then what computer requirement's are needed for such a powerfull simulation? Why do IDer's stay away from these thing's? Science doesn't. IDer's stay well within the realm of if it can't be explained yet, we'll call it design.



[edit on 3-3-2006 by Produkt]

Originally posted by Paul_Richard
However, the possibility that the Universe came into being through pure chance and that also the correct order of chemical processes and life-sustaining conditions emerged for life to exist, is all astronomically small when compared to the much more logical argument and possibility that a higher power or intelligence started the program

This assumes life in the universe is rare and somehow more special than any other chemical reaction.. why do you think the 'chances' of this happening are 'astronomically small' when the size of the universe is so far immessurable?

Pure mathematical probability is the core understanding behind the theory of Intelligent Design.

I didn't know the discovery universe had.. 'discovered' the size of the universe, exactly how many planets are in it and how many of those are capable of supporting life? I guess they must know these numbers as otherwise the whole mathematical probability for the existence of god is out the window.

[edit on 3-3-2006 by riley]

Text Text

Originally posted by Bob LaoTse[/I] [H]ere's the problem with that argument: The "laws" that we perceive in the universe appear to us, axiomatically, to be ordered and to be an expression of intelligence. They could not appear to us to be anything else, since the human concept of order and intelligence is measured by how well it reflects the reality of the universe in which we have found ourselves. We axiomatically perceive the structure of the universe to be ordered because our definition of order is based upon the structure of the universe.

Intelligent Design should be taught as a theory in schools just as Evolution is taught as a theory.

No-- probably not, and specifically because [ID] is a fundamentally flawed theory . . The reality is that our concepts of order and intelligence are rooted directly in the nature of the universe in which we [observe], so the universe MUST exhibit traits that we perceive AS order. The shell of the Chambered Nautilus and the petals of many flowers turn in a ratio that correspond with Fibonacci numbers-- the so called Golden Proportion. That's certainly not necessarily because some creator thought that was a pleasing proportion-- rather we perceive it to be a pleasing proportion because it's wholly in keeping with the innate "order" of our universe.

Scientific Creationism petered out, and now the same group of NON scientific people have come up with Round 2, so-called INTELLIGENT DESIGN. Which is, more correctly described, as follows: IF YOU CANNOT EXPLAIN IT TO ME SO I CAN UNDERSTAND IT, IT MUST BE INTELLIGENT DESIGN!

Originally posted by Produkt
Complexity in nature through chance is not an uncommon thing. Unless we're going to start assuming an intelligent agent behind snow flake's, lightening, face on mars, man on the moon, shape's in clouds and many numerous other complex pattern's found in nature.

All these things point to a universal program. A universal program points to an architect. An architect points to the theory of Intelligent Design.

Originally posted by Produkt
Life require's very specific condition's, atleast our kind of life does.

Yes...and for the probability of those conditions for life to come about anywhere in the Universe simply through chance, is fantastically small when compared to the probability of someone starting the project billions of years ago.

Originally posted by Produkt
Say it was ET who did the design. There's no reason for IDer's to not theorize on how ET could do such a thing. Just as scientist's are theorizing on the condition's that lead to the observations made in this universe.

Anyone can theorize anything they want. Free speech generally rules.

Originally posted by Produkt
If ET created a physical universe, then what would be needed to do such?

The term "extraterrestrial" applies to any consciousness or intelligence that is alien to this world, not just physical aliens.

The issue of what would be needed to manifest The Big Bang does not supersede the mathematical probability that an Intelligence did so in the first place, despite the challenge of knowing the specifics of the process.

Originally posted by Produkt
Or, if they created a simulate universe and we're not even real physical being's, then what computer requirement's are needed for such a powerfull simulation? Why do IDer's stay away from these thing's? Science doesn't. IDer's stay well within the realm of if it can't be explained yet, we'll call it design.

I have no reason to believe that we live in a simulation or that we are not actual physical beings.

The scientific paradigm that you promote fails to explain what happened just before The Big Bang, as the "known laws of physics" did not apply at that juncture. This ignorance does not explain The Big Bang but opens up the opportunity for other theories to be explored.

Proponents of Intelligent Design would love to know the answer to how The Big Bang was manifested, just as scientists would like to know.

But the probability remains that there was an Intelligent Designer, despite the fact that no one can explain the details and moments prior to the Universe, at a timeframe when science continues to fail to comprehend.

Because there is a wide range of possibilities as far as the exact source of The Big Bang, it is best to phrase that source as simply "Intelligence" or "a higher power."

Originally posted by Paul_Richard
Mathematics, astronomy and radio astronomy, all point to the Universe not being infinite at all, just extremely large. So your premise falls apart.

How? Your idea is like assuming a truck full of organically freshly picked fruit couldn't possibly have a bug on it. We don't even know if Mars has had life on it.. or europa. That could be three planetary bodies with life on them just in our solar system. The probability of life outside earth is quite high.. the world's top mathematicions agree with 'my premise' as do most scientists. Also.. the universe probably consists of more than one universe [Steven Hawkins].. ours could be the tip of the iceburg.

Whether it is a small Universe or a large one does not mean that there was not an Intelligent Designer that started it.

It does not mean there is. Your maths hasn't proven anything. Where was this designer? Existing outside time and space? Notice the word 'existence'.. E=mc2; you need time and space to do that.

To have ANYTHING come about through PURE CHANCE is very small. To have LIFE come about ANYWHERE through PURE CHANCE, is infinitesimally small.

Incorrect- there is no such thing as 'pure chance' but unsentimental action and reaction which are part of ongoing processes. If you would like to know more look up 'Fractel theory'.

Thus, logically, a higher power must have been involved.

Must? this assumption is not logical at all. If you feel more comfortable feeling like everything that happens has meaning.. good for you. Logically though everything that happens is merely the consequence of a previous event.. there is no reason to assume the chance of life occuring is any less likely than anything else in the universe given the right conditions. All thats needed is for the right type of planet to be at the right distance from the right type of sun and the potential for life is there.

[edit on 4-3-2006 by riley]

Paul, Lots of folks in here will try to explain the error of your ways. I just can't pass up one this beautiful. I wrote you a metaphor about fly fishing and me being a European Brown in the Henry in Idaho, but I will forego that for now.
I have a word for you...Dictionary
In this book you will learn much, assuming that you're even a little receptive.
You will learn about words such as "theory". This will, or should, prevent your making glaring mistakes such as the one in your current post.
When you faithful begin trying to support your misassumptions things get humorous.
I especially liked your reference to the long debunked "Missing Link" misassumption. You may remember, that bad idea was also erroneously referred to as a ‘theory’, which, of course, it twern’t. This 'missing link' thingy was an idea arrived at by the same thought process you use in here to make the repeated if pathetic claim that somehow, in an alternate universe where reason and fact are meaningless, ID can be compared to Evolution...with a straight face.
I thank you for the humor. After all, Dubya doesn’t speak off the cuff every day and Dan Quayle is long gone. Thanks again
skep

Originally posted by Produkt
Your logic is flawed. What of the designer? Did the designer need to be designed? Or did the designer come about through chance?

First we learn how to walk, then we learn how to run, then we learn how to fly.

Just because you can't understand the designer or higher power doesn't mean that there wasn't one initially.

Originally posted by Produkt
All these estimate's are based upon current scientific knowledge, and if you haven't noticed, the age and size get's pushed more and more.

It is good that some in the scientific community strive to improve upon their understanding and don't stay with antiquated ideas, don't you think?

You should try that sometime.

Originally posted by Produkt
No one, not even the scientist's studying it, know's the exact condition's nor interaction's that lead to life, our lack of knowing these thing's in no way whatsoever allow's one to 'logically' conclude that some form of intelligence had a helping hand.

THAT is an example of FLAWED LOGIC and BAD SUPPOSITION.

The likelihood of matter - much less consciousness - springing into being through pure chance in a void of space, WITHOUT an Intelligent Designer of some kind, is astronomically small