Creationism/Intelligent Design: PROVE IT!

Originally posted by Romantic_Rebel
reply to post by Michael Cecil

 

Because I'm curious and I have the right to know what you believe.

Huhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh?

You have the right to know what I believe?

Hell. I don't even know what I believe. I am not a "barrel of memory", after all (as Nietzsche said).

In any case, you can't be serious here.

Or do you work for Obama and Homeland Security and the CIA?

Michael

reply to post by VreemdeVlieendeVoorwep


I can respect that! I'm no where near perfect and no one else is. Just religion seems implausible to me because the lack of evidence to support a person's believe and the similarities to other religious beliefs.

Because I'm curious and I have the right to know what you believe.

reply to post by Romantic_Rebel



You have a right to know what someone believes??

Sorry I cannot understand that. Maybe the rights in your country and mine are different.

I think it is down to choice, whether the other person wants you to know what he or she believes or not.

VVv

reply to post by Michael Cecil


Yes I do work for a privet organization. Maybe I should be more respectful here. If you're unsure of you're beliefs then why do you claim to have faith. Faith should be sure of what you believe. Like a person trying to hit a target.
Check it out!
Go over this video and tell me what you think of the video.

reply to post by Romantic_Rebel


Let me make it clear. I am not religious at all. I do not like the "church system". The idea is to find spirituality in yourself. You don't have to follow a set "religion" to believe anything. You do need to however believe in your spirit.

Look RomanticRebel, I find it entertaining to discuss these topics with you. Just please understand I am not trying to convert you to any religion. Like i said earlier, trying to force anyones believe system on another is wrong.

I also asked you earlier, What exactly is atheism about? Is it a religion or purely a believe system?


Thank you

VvV

reply to post by VreemdeVlieendeVoorwep


Then I have more respect for you now. I have to respect what you believe in life and I'm glad you're not trying to make me believe it. Atheism is not a religion at all! Since religion revolves around a person who believes in a Deity.
Here's a great article explaining why I'm an Atheist and what are my views.
What do Atheist believe

This is a copy and paste from a previous post I made on the same topic!

After watching science documentaries even though we don't fully understand and know exactly how a planet is formed...

My opinion is:

A planet is formed as part of a reaction between gas clouds and dust colliding. As matter in the cloud falls towards the centre it begins to spin. The basic laws of motion cause this spinning. Objects in space do not speed up, or slow down unless their speed is changed by something else.

After the planet is formed and due to all the colliding and what have you a chemical reaction from the gas and other various particles create a freak occurrence creating life in the form of bacteria and single cell organisms and over time these cells mutate because of the atmosphere, sun etc...

The fact that a "Man" created a single cell organism should sway any religious and creationism topic!

Artificial Life

If you are of the second worldview, and you are presented with lots of evidence that there is no god, you will assume that there isn't, even if you previously thought there was. This also means that the second group is open to the possibility that they are wrong in this belief as well. A non-dogmatic atheist will leave room for the possibility that they are wrong, if the evidence is strong enough.

reply to post by Romantic_Rebel



Okay, I just read the link. I found the quoted text rather interesting. Please correct me if i am wrong.

Let's speculate for a moment:

Let's say somebody had to meet you in person, and perform a miracle (no tricks, no slight of hand) a proper miracle right in front of you. You see it with your own eyes, and realise what has happened. Would that provide enough proof for you to maybe consider there is a God?

Or would you believe the person performing the miracle is indeed the one to get the regcognition?

Vvv

reply to post by VreemdeVlieendeVoorwep


Well I doubt it would because of a God figure. I mean if you got super powers. How would you get them? Does it necessary mean God gave you the powers? No! So I would believe the powers came from the person and then be skeptical as to why he required these powers and then continue to dig for evidence as why he got these powers.

Just imagine if the Mars rover had sent back images of multitudinous defunct machines half buried in the Martian sand.

Would you consider this as evidence that intelligent life had once existed on Mars?

Or would you think the machines had just evolved there by themselves with no need for any intelligent input?

reply to post by Michael Cecil

You are labouring under a misapprehension, I fear. Scientific dualism is not metaphysical dualism. The latter implies a disjunct between mind and matter, treating the two as separate substances. Scientific dualism is different; it is merely the duality of observer and observed. Both are, or can be, of the same substance. Indeed, in quantum mechanics an 'observer' is simply any event trigger: it need not be human, conscious or even alive. Scientists are well aware that the universe existed and developed for aeons without anyone necessarily being alive to observe it.

One of the strictest rules in science is that theorizing about that which cannot be experimentally falsified is a futile exercise. Consciousness used to be a no-go area for scientific research because the material bases of consciousness could not be discerned; there were no ways to prove anything about consciousness. Neuroimaging has changed all that now; we can watch brains at work creating consciousness, and we see that it has a material basis after all. Mind does not create matter; it is the other way round.

Your suggestion that unconscious cerebral processes lie outside the ambit of science is also false. There is no discernible difference between ordinary (ie unconscious) cerebral operations and those that give rise to consciousness--it's all electrochemical activity.

It is possible I have misunderstood you; it would help if you strove for simplicitly and clarity in your next post, rather than for that pontifical tone. A clearly stated argument would impress me a lot more than all the big words and intellectual references. I believe it would similarly impress others.

Looking forward to your reply, I remain

yours, etc.,

Scamandrius

reply to post by Michael Cecil

The definition of "fact" is relative to the frame of reference in terms of consciousness.

So you are denying that a common, objective reality exists.

In doing so, you deny the denial. So why should we believe you?

reply to post by Michael Cecil

I am in the train station. Every time you drop the ball I see motion along the "y" axis AND motion along the "x" axis.

I see something that you do not see.

I see something that you cannot see.

That is not any criticism; neither is it any condemnation.

It is merely a statement of fact.

Yes, but what of it?

The absolute, undeniable fact is that the ball is in motion relative to a frame of reference. That is absolute reality.

A simple Lorentz transformation allows an observer in one frame of reference to 'see' what the observer in another frame sees. So what's the big deal?

Originally posted by Romantic_Rebel
reply to post by Michael Cecil
If you're unsure of you're beliefs then why do you claim to have faith.

Hmmmmm...

Do you want to quote me where I ever said that I had faith?

Beliefs are, by their very nature, uncertain.

A "certain belief" is, to me at least, a contradiction.

Knowledge is certain but belief is uncertain

I sure can't remember saying such a thing. But, then again, I am at the age where memory does not always remember.

Michael

Originally posted by Astyanax
reply to post by Michael Cecil

 

You are labouring under a misapprehension, I fear. Scientific dualism is not metaphysical dualism. The latter implies a disjunct between mind and matter, treating the two as separate substances. Scientific dualism is different; it is merely the duality of observer and observed.

Understood.

The metaphysical duality is the basis and the foundation of thought; hence, the basis and foundation of all scientific dualisms.

One of the strictest rules in science is that theorizing about that which cannot be experimentally falsified is a futile exercise.

This, of course, is in accordance with the rules of the paradigm established by the consciousness of the 'thinker'.

That is not necessarily the only frame of reference in terms of consciousness.

Consciousness used to be a no-go area for scientific research because the material bases of consciousness could not be discerned; there were no ways to prove anything about consciousness. Neuroimaging has changed all that now; we can watch brains at work creating consciousness, and we see that it has a material basis after all.

Nonsense.

This is merely another assertion concocted by the 'thinker' in order to preserve its own frame of reference in terms of consciousness.

You cannot "watch" brains "at work creating consciousness".

What you can see are nothing more than neurological correlates of consciousness.

In other words, the entire concept of causation is based upon the assumption that time goes only in one direction. That is, the reversal of time is the annihilation of causation. This is a very fundamental threat to the consciousness of the 'thinker' itself, as clearly demonstrated in the opening passages of the Second Meditation of Descartes.

(And, to my understanding, the consciousness of the "self" is created by the 'movement' of self-reflection; something which, I suggest, it is absolutely impossible to select out of all of the myriads of electrical signals produced by the brain at any one instant.)

In any case, whether you classify certain aspects of consciousness as being either "conscious" or 'unconscious', any observation or electro-chemical etc. elements does not establish, in any way, causation. Causation is an intellectual construct which is projected upon sensations and perceptions of the space-time reality. It collapses if there is no such thing as time.

Mind does not create matter; it is the other way round.

I do not acknowledge the existence of any 'mind'. To me, it has the same status as the "ether" of classical physics. It is an assumption for which there is no observable evidence.

In any case, the statement is, once again, in accordance with the paradigm of the consciousness of the 'thinker'; that is, time going only in one direction.

Your suggestion that unconscious cerebral processes lie outside the ambit of science is also false. There is no discernible difference between ordinary (ie unconscious) cerebral operations and those that give rise to consciousness--it's all electrochemical activity.

Not even wrong.

Scientific experiments are based upon reproducibility. That which cannot be reproduced or verified by other investigators is considered to have no significance.

Archetypal dreams, which provide information to an individual alone, cannot be either reproduced or verified to anyone other than the individual who receives those dreams. The same goes for memories of previous lives and the Revelations of the monotheistic religions. They can neither be repeated nor externally verified; and, yet, they are the source of information about reality.

A clearly stated argument would impress me a lot more than all the big words and intellectual references. I believe it would similarly impress others.

Well, it certainly is not my intention to impress you or anyone else.

I am merely sharing my observations.

Michael

Originally posted by Astyanax
reply to post by Michael Cecil

 

I am in the train station. Every time you drop the ball I see motion along the "y" axis AND motion along the "x" axis.

I see something that you do not see.

I see something that you cannot see.

That is not any criticism; neither is it any condemnation.

It is merely a statement of fact.

Yes, but what of it?

The absolute, undeniable fact is that the ball is in motion relative to a frame of reference. That is absolute reality.

A simple Lorentz transformation allows an observer in one frame of reference to 'see' what the observer in another frame sees. So what's the big deal?

What the big deal is is that 'people on the train' have accused 'people in the train station' of being delusional and paranoid, claiming to be God, "in league with Satan", heretics, witches, etc. etc.

'People on the train' have said that what the 'people in the train station' see is not any observation at all, but merely a belief. They have become intensely offended at merely the claim that anyone can know more about the path of the ball than they do. And, in extreme situations, they even delude themselves that they have disembarked from the train, that they are in the train station, and that they see the path of the dropped ball as a line perpendicular to the floor of the train.

Even worse, historically, 'people in the train station' have been massacred by the tens of thousands because they see something that the 'people on the train' are incapable of seeing.

Michael

reply to post by madnessinmysoul


Evolution doesn't disprove intelligent design.
Prove what?, Prove that s**t happens?
Evolutionists have already proven that much already, the next step is finding out why beyond a reasonable doubt.

That is to say, verification that intelligent design plays no role. Unfortunately for the human race I think they are probably a little too much of an ego tripping buffoon to make any progress beyond the no consequences ideology that so many evolutionist adhere too.. Why? because for them it isn't the idea of intelligent design it is the annoyance of a god figure which pisses them off.

Ok then, take God out of it and just assume that it is possible that life could have been seeded and designed by a superior species one that is formed in a way that has not been discovered yet.
But that probably wouldn't go well with the evolutionist who likes to arrogantly claim we are the only creatures in the universe, an arrogance that is just as fanatical as the bible thumper screaming about redemption on a soap box.
Whats the difference? One soap box is just paid for by an educational foundation.
BIG DEAL>>>
FYI people, A seared conscience is a seared conscience no matter what you choose to believe. Creationist, evolutionist or that a large purple anus is where we all sprang from. If one is proven right it changes nothing whatsoever over all. So stop trying so damn hard. LMFAO..

Uhhg... After leaving thread I decided to clarify my position a little better.

1. I wasn't trying to cut anyone be the evolutionist or I.D. or creationist.

2. I am merely stating a fact, Which is that no matter what is proven nothing will change one way or the other because there is not enough information to verify such a finding as of yet.

3. That if such evidence was found it would still be up for debate whether or not it it was natural, intelligently designed or poofed, because one may not fully understand the method by which things were set in motion beyond the obvious.

4. That even if evolution was proven 100% accurate in 100% of every mind, a large percentage would still believe there side of the argument, same goes for creationist and Intel designers.

5. What difference does it make one way or the other and why do the choices of one have to effect another? There is no intelligent "debating" in this area because there is nothing to debate.

6. Because all evolution and current science have shown is that POOP happens, which uhh yeah is kind of obvious and I'm thankful that science broke it down in such a technical way. Beyond that science just shows how things can be set in motion, that's great. Kind of like when my 6 year old shows me the crappy picture she had been drawing. "Yehey! that's great honey your so good." Well I coddle scientists just the same.

Evolutionist = Oops S**t happens. A lot of time means a lot of accidents and sometimes…*SHWIING!*

Intelligent design = Oops Some S**t happened. Possibly could have been from an alien or some derivative thereof we don’t know, a lot of time could mean a well organized plan.

Creationist = WOW S**t Happened and God did it!

Alien ; Adjective, ey lee un.
1. Not contained in or deriving from the essential nature of something.

Noun
1. Anyone who does not belong in the environment in which they are found.
2. A form of life assumed to exist outside the Earth or its atmosphere
God = Not of or from earth and or originating beyond or outside earth by definition makes God an alien.
So …………….Creationist = An Alien created life on earth and we call that alien God.


No one is really wrong here I'm afraid.

Originally posted by snowen20
Evolutionist = Oops S**t happens. A lot of time means a lot of accidents and sometimes…*SHWIING!*

Intelligent design = Oops Some S**t happened. Possibly could have been from an alien or some derivative thereof we don’t know, a lot of time could mean a well organized plan.

Creationist = WOW S**t Happened and God did it!

Alien ; Adjective, ey lee un.
1. Not contained in or deriving from the essential nature of something.

Noun
1. Anyone who does not belong in the environment in which they are found.
2. A form of life assumed to exist outside the Earth or its atmosphere
God = Not of or from earth and or originating beyond or outside earth by definition makes God an alien.
So …………….Creationist = An Alien created life on earth and we call that alien God.


No one is really wrong here I'm afraid.

Or else they are all wrong.

That consciousness was Created by God which has a specific Memory of having been Created by God.

Any consciousness which does not have a specific Memory of having been Created by God, was, for that reason, not Created by God; but was, instead, self-created: the consciousness of the "self" being self-created through the 'movement' of self-reflection; the consciousness of the 'thinker' creating itself through the postulation of the thought and thoughts of the 'thinker'.

Michael