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, even the name makes no sense

page: 1
2

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 7 2007 @ 09:33 AM
link   
i was pondering the name "intelligent design" and i have come to the conclusion that even that name is poppycock.

itelligent design implies some sort of designer and it must have been an intelligent one

said designer could HYPOTHETICALLY only extend their influence to life on earth, possibly aliens with the capabilities to design life OR it could be an omnipotent deity OR it could be a semipotent deity OR...

see, this is where the theory breaks down, the designer isn't identified as anything more than "intelligent"




posted on Mar, 7 2007 @ 09:42 AM
link   
LoL, Man you sure have an axe to grind dont you?
I guess everybody needs a purpose.
Maybe you can convince some fools that there is no God, but to me it is quite apparent that there must have been a designer, and he must have been very intelligent to make everything fit together so perfectly.
Your 'theory' that everything just 'is' and the pieces fit together so well because they 'evolved' together is preposterous.
YOur 'mountains' of evidence amount to little more than a few dusty old bones.


QUESTION: How many frogs do evolutionists have to kiss before one turns into a prince?
ANSWER: Only one, then wait a few million years!



posted on Mar, 7 2007 @ 10:19 AM
link   
Well some do say it begs the question, so you're not alone. Many, of those "some" however, aren't familiar with any source material wrt ID so the confusion, wrt an ID perspective, is understandable. How about a dictionary or how about any of these?[/url]

Personally I like telic design (tending toward an end or outcome) as it's more concise imo. Alas nobody called me when they picked the name so I guess we're stuck with it. :shrug:

As good a place to start as any

From designinference.com by W. Dembski
The idea that an intrinsic intelligence or teleology inheres in and is expressed through nature has a long history and is embraced by many religious traditions. The main difficulty with this idea since Darwin’s day, however, has been to discover a conceptually powerful formulation of design that can fruitfully advance science. What has kept design outside the scientific mainstream since the rise of Darwinism has been the lack of precise methods for distinguishing intelligently caused objects from unintelligently caused ones.




Now for my .02 and I do expect change back mister:

Couldn't you combine most of your threads into just a few (ie, why Jesus didn't exist, why the Bible is hooey, why atheists are smarter than theists, why I hate ID/creationism [I wont make ya seperate 'em
]) or, perhaps, combine them all into one rant over in that forum in BTS.


Just go ahead and get it all out of system... we'll all feel better.


~jus' a thought.




Originally posted by 11Bravo
LoL, Man you sure have an axe to grind dont you?


That things just a nub now.



posted on Mar, 7 2007 @ 03:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by 11Bravo
LoL, Man you sure have an axe to grind dont you?
I guess everybody needs a purpose.


spreading reason seems like a good purpose
though i don't have an axe to grind...


Maybe you can convince some fools that there is no God,


thank you for insuiating that some of the greatest thinkers of the last 200 years are fools. i'm sure einstein would appreciate that title.



but to me it is quite apparent that there must have been a designer, and he must have been very intelligent to make everything fit together so perfectly.


by that logic all clouds are designed intelligently because i see things in them.



Your 'theory' that everything just 'is' and the pieces fit together so well because they 'evolved' together is preposterous.
YOur 'mountains' of evidence amount to little more than a few dusty old bones.


well, the above statements show a general lack of knowledge towards evolutionary theory. especially that whole "few dusty old bones" argument. you know, we do have evidence of transitions between 1 form of life and another.



QUESTION: How many frogs do evolutionists have to kiss before one turns into a prince?
ANSWER: Only one, then wait a few million years!


that's the type of ignorance that makes me what to slam my head against my keyboard.

and Rren, if i were to combine all of my threads into a single compendium, it wouldn't fit into that forum. i'd have to write a whole book. too bad dawkins beat me to it.



posted on Mar, 7 2007 @ 03:37 PM
link   

and Rren, if i were to combine all of my threads into a single compendium, it wouldn't fit into that forum. i'd have to write a whole book.



Take your time bro. I'm just a fan.




too bad dawkins beat me to it.



Did you read the reviews of Dawkins' TGD by fellow atheists? Other than evangelical [read: hyper] atheists he's been getting it from all sides.

Orr:

www.nybooks.com...
Despite my admiration for much of Dawkins's work, I'm afraid that I'm among those scientists who must part company with him here. Indeed, The God Delusion seems to me badly flawed. Though I once labeled Dawkins a professional atheist, I'm forced, after reading his new book, to conclude he's actually more an amateur. I don't pretend to know whether there's more to the world than meets the eye and, for all I know, Dawkins's general conclusion is right. But his book makes a far from convincing case.


Dennet comes to Dawkins' defense here and Orr's reply to Dennet follows.

Not a fan of pseudo-theology via zoologists myself, but that's just me.

~sorry for the off topic blah,
Rren



posted on Mar, 7 2007 @ 09:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by madnessinmysoul

thank you for insuiating that some of the greatest thinkers of the last 200 years are fools. i'm sure einstein would appreciate that title.


OH....you mean the same Einstein that said....


My religion consists of a humble admiration of the illimitable superior spirit who reveals himself in the slight details we are able to perceive with our frail and feeble mind.


or the same Einstein that said...

God does not care about our mathematical difficulties. He integrates empirically.


or maybe it was the same Einstein that said...

God is subtle but he is not malicious.


So was Einstein a fool or did he believe in God? You seem intent on the belief that it is all random chance. You seem to think that given the right mix of elements and chemicals and compounds and POOF you have life. Then life will 'evolve' through its own mechanisms in order to better adapt to its surroundings. YOu seem to think that through random chance species can change into different species.
I wonder what Einstein said about that.....


I am convinced that He (God) does not play dice.


OH, well I guess Mr. Einstein doesnt think random chance plays much of a part in the order of things.
Does Mr. Einstein have anything else to say?


I want to know God's thoughts; the rest are details.


I guess that about sums it up.
The fact that you try to side yourself with people like Albert Einstein when you dont even know his stance confirms to me that you dont do your homework.


by that logic all clouds are designed intelligently because i see things in them


YOu are truely a fool if you think there is any sort of comparison between seeing 'things in the clouds' and noticing Gods creation as the beautiful masterpiece which it is. Mr. Einstein had a quote for this too....

There are two ways to live your life - one is as though nothing is a miracle, the other is as though everything is a miracle.

Good luck on your journey Madness, I know I used to be an evolutionist and it wasnt easy overcoming my prejudices. Keep an open mind and as a wise man once said, believe none of what you hear and half of what you see.



posted on Mar, 7 2007 @ 11:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by madnessinmysoul

said designer could HYPOTHETICALLY only extend their influence to life on earth, possibly aliens with the capabilities to design life OR it could be an omnipotent deity OR it could be a semipotent deity OR...

see, this is where the theory breaks down, the designer isn't identified as anything more than "intelligent"


Not really. If you argue that humans were made by aliens, then you would have to find a way to explain where the aliens came from, as their life forms would obviously be highly ordered biological systems as well.

At some point, you have to figure out how order comes from disorder - a paradox in itself.



posted on Mar, 7 2007 @ 11:27 PM
link   
I'll just point out that while Einstein was a brilliant man, in his later days he was working on theories that turned out to be incorrect.

As many folks know, with the "God doesn't play Dice" quote he turned out to be probably wrong. Quantum Physics does have an indeterminate nature.
God does play dice.

Even smart men, (and dumber ones like myself), aren't always right.



posted on Mar, 7 2007 @ 11:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by emjoi
I'll just point out that while Einstein was a brilliant man, in his later days he was working on theories that turned out to be incorrect.


Many say he wasted his last 'days' because he was too stubborn to accept QM. He thought physics would and should be able to explain everything (macro and micro).



As many folks know, with the "God doesn't play Dice" quote he turned out to be probably wrong. Quantum Physics does have an indeterminate nature.
God does play dice.


Actually as Bohr replied to that quote of Einstein's more appropriately "quit telling God what to do"


PS maddnessinmysoul,
Einstein was a deist not an atheist.

[edit on 7-3-2007 by Rren]



posted on Mar, 8 2007 @ 02:55 PM
link   
I must admit I have to agree with Madness here in that ID only proposes an intelligent designer, nowhere is this designer affirmed as a god or deity.


Originally posted by 11Bravo
Maybe you can convince some fools that there is no God, but to me it is quite apparent that there must have been a designer, and he must have been very intelligent to make everything fit together so perfectly.

As I was saying - Just because you have the apparent notion that this designer is god doesn't actually make it true, having faith is no basis for truth.


Your 'theory' that everything just 'is' and the pieces fit together so well because they 'evolved' together is preposterous.
Why ?? Because it goes against your faith??

YOur 'mountains' of evidence amount to little more than a few dusty old bones.
At least there is some evidence for evolution!!!!

While looking through one of the links Rren posted I came across a strange sentence about designed and undesigned objects - now forgive my ignorance but how can you have an undesigned object???



G



posted on Mar, 8 2007 @ 04:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by Rren
PS maddnessinmysoul,
Einstein was a deist not an atheist.

[edit on 7-3-2007 by Rren]


no, einstein was a PANtheist. which is basically a sexed up version of atheism. he said himself that he believes in the god of spinoza, a naturalistic god... yes, it's an obvious oxymoron.

11Bravo, you're taking all of those einstein quotes out of context and not realizing that some people speak in METAPHOR.



posted on Mar, 8 2007 @ 10:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by madnessinmysoul


no, einstein was a PANtheist. which is basically a sexed up version of atheism. he said himself that he believes in the god of spinoza, a naturalistic god... yes, it's an obvious oxymoron.


"sexed up atheism" You're killing me man...


All quotes from wikipedia:



Pantheism (Greek: πάν ( 'pan' ) = all and θεός ( 'theos' ) = God) literally means "God is All" and "All is God". It is the view that everything is of an all-encompassing immanent God; or that the universe, or nature, and God are equivalent. More detailed definitions tend to emphasize the idea that natural law, existence, and the universe (the sum total of all that is, was, and shall be) is represented or personified in the theological principle of 'God'.



Deism is a religious philosophy and movement that became prominent in England, France, and the United States in the 17th and 18th centuries. Deists typically reject supernatural events (prophecy, miracles) and divine revelation prominent in organized religion, along with holy books and revealed religions that assert the existence of such things. Instead, deists hold that religious beliefs must be founded on human reason and observed features of the natural world, and that these sources reveal the existence of one God or supreme being.



Atheism is the disbelief[1] in the existence of any deities.[2] It is contrasted with theism, the belief in a God or gods. Atheism is commonly defined as the positive belief that deities do not exist, or as the deliberate rejection of theism.[3][4][5] However, others—including most atheistic philosophers and groups—define atheism as the simple absence of belief in deities[6][7][8] (cf. nontheism), thereby designating many agnostics, and people who have never heard of gods, such as newborn children, as atheists as well.[9][10]


Are you suggesting that atheism is closer to pantheism than deism is? Interesting interpretation, I doubt you'd find much support for that position from theologians or philosophers.

If you need more info: Einstein on atheism In other words he was no fan. Same can be said for theism of course.

If you want to describe him as a 'sexed-up agnostic' you could probably get away with it... but an atheist?

What were we talking about again?

Regards,
~sexed-up Rren



posted on Mar, 14 2007 @ 07:53 AM
link   

Originally posted by 11Bravo
LoL, Man you sure have an axe to grind dont you?
I guess everybody needs a purpose.
Maybe you can convince some fools that there is no God, but to me it is quite apparent that there must have been a designer, and he must have been very intelligent to make everything fit together so perfectly.
Your 'theory' that everything just 'is' and the pieces fit together so well because they 'evolved' together is preposterous.
YOur 'mountains' of evidence amount to little more than a few dusty old bones.


QUESTION: How many frogs do evolutionists have to kiss before one turns into a prince?
ANSWER: Only one, then wait a few million years



well if there just a few dusty bones it means their there and there real, i agree with certain things, a designer ? 99% sure there was one. things fiting toghter perfectly ? on this hell planet ? not a chance.

- Mureder
- Rape
- Phedofiles

i could really go on all day saying bad things about this world, if you want to know perfection make a model of this planet and then make another one, the diference is with the other one, do every thing diferently.



posted on Mar, 14 2007 @ 04:20 PM
link   
rren, atheism is the lack of a supernatural god. pantheism is the belief in prescence of a natural god, whether it be the fundamental laws of our universe, energy, or the universe itself

deism is the belief in... well, a supernatural god that built the universe and moved on.

pantheism, specifically spinoza's pantheism (that which einstein loved), can work with atheism. if i see a deity as a natural being, then it is no longer religious, it is scientific.



posted on Mar, 19 2007 @ 10:06 PM
link   
intelagent design is an oxymoron... thats all i have to say



new topics

top topics



 
2

log in

join