Intelligent Designer? Not yet.

page: 7
14
<< 4  5  6    8  9 >>

log in

join

posted on Dec, 15 2012 @ 09:43 AM
link   


By definition, natural means "not man made", so that wouldn't work.
reply to post by Barcs
 



Who's definition,

a man made one?





Would not the very definition of natural,

because it was man made,

be unnatural?







Man is natural,



Everything he uses comes from nature.








But what the intelligent human mind creates is not natural ?





If the human mind is natural, then what it produces, would be natural as well.


But


If what is produced by human intelligence is not natural,



Then is human intelligence natural?


What produced it?


If what human intelligence produces, is not natural,

Then what produced human intelligence?



Would it be natural?


Or not natural?









edit on 15-12-2012 by dusty1 because: (no reason given)
edit on 15-12-2012 by dusty1 because: (no reason given)




posted on Dec, 15 2012 @ 10:09 AM
link   

Originally posted by dusty1
reply to post by Barcs
 





Except when you take naturally occurring phenomena and claim it has an inventor or designer when there's no evidence whatsoever to suggest it was designed


What would you accept as evidence of a designer?


That is a great question. I would accept a designer if I witnessed two identical events that produced totally different outcomes. If I were to create a computer game I could have bombs going off where one blows up a building while another bomb infests the city with mice. I am the designer so I can do this.

In this reality, if I saw two mountains side by side, with one held firmly in place by gravity and the other one floating 50 feet off the ground, this would be evidence of a designer.

However, if every event produces the exact same outcome then we must conclude that everything is formed naturally. Of course we could say that the designer made everything to conform to the laws of the universe, but this would remove any and all evidence of the designer and leave us only with nature. We can't prove a designer. We can't prove a perfect designer, and by his own design we can only prove what is natural.



posted on Dec, 15 2012 @ 10:44 AM
link   
Here is something interesting, the Stiles family who pass on 'lobster claw' hands to their offspring. If this was a biological advantage it would continue on, but I doubt lobster claws are better than normal evolutionarily honed hands of which most of us have.
Mutations like this can pass on, sometimes evolution can take a jump, and if it's a benefit to survival that trait is passed on.
phreeque.tripod.com...



posted on Dec, 15 2012 @ 11:17 AM
link   

Originally posted by vasaga
I give up. When people are sheeping out, logic doesn't work.


In order to follow logic, you need true proven statements, not what ifs. ID is hypothetical. It may be true, but as of now, there is no scientific evidence for it. That was my point from the beginning. You are claiming you already know the truth when none of us actually do. You tried to defend your belief but there was nothing that reflected any type of science that applies to physical reality.



posted on Dec, 15 2012 @ 11:23 AM
link   

Originally posted by jiggerj

Originally posted by dusty1
reply to post by Barcs
 





Except when you take naturally occurring phenomena and claim it has an inventor or designer when there's no evidence whatsoever to suggest it was designed


What would you accept as evidence of a designer?


That is a great question. I would accept a designer if I witnessed two identical events that produced totally different outcomes. If I were to create a computer game I could have bombs going off where one blows up a building while another bomb infests the city with mice. I am the designer so I can do this.

In this reality, if I saw two mountains side by side, with one held firmly in place by gravity and the other one floating 50 feet off the ground, this would be evidence of a designer.

However, if every event produces the exact same outcome then we must conclude that everything is formed naturally. Of course we could say that the designer made everything to conform to the laws of the universe, but this would remove any and all evidence of the designer and leave us only with nature. We can't prove a designer. We can't prove a perfect designer, and by his own design we can only prove what is natural.

I actually don't understand this... If two identical events produced different outcomes, would that not be a sign of randomness and chaos instead of a designer, while the same thing happening over and over would be a sign of structure?


Originally posted by Barcs

Originally posted by vasaga
I give up. When people are sheeping out, logic doesn't work.


In order to follow logic, you need true proven statements, not what ifs. ID is hypothetical. It may be true, but as of now, there is no scientific evidence for it. That was my point from the beginning. You are claiming you already know the truth when none of us actually do. You tried to defend your belief but there was nothing that reflected any type of science that applies to physical reality.
How was I claiming I know the truth when I've presented three possible situations regarding intelligence? Logic works with premises. If the premises are true and the argument is sound, the conclusion must be true. I have not seen you argue against any of my premises. All you've done is say "you have no evidence herp derp". And if I didn't present any science, what is Robert Lanza?

You never listen. All you do is repeat and pretend you are addressing what someone said, while you never do.
edit on 15-12-2012 by vasaga because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 15 2012 @ 12:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by vasaga

Originally posted by flyingfish

Originally posted by squiz

Originally posted by vasaga
I give up. When people are sheeping out, logic doesn't work.


Agreed, there is nothing about science here, only egos and world views. And of course scientism and religion bashing.



Agreed, there is nothing but sciency talk and that's the problem. ID has no interest in answering questions, no interest in collecting real data. ID is a political movement with a political goal.The goal is simply to confuse the public sufficiently to allow Christian Fundamentalism to hijack education.
Google the wedge strategy to see their aims. Google
edit on 14-12-2012 by flyingfish because: (no reason given)
Explain to me how something like biocentrism is christian fundamentalism.


Biocentricm is not directly linked to christian fundamentalisim, but it does add confusion to the argument.
We are looking for the mechanism, the proof of ID.
Biocentricm does not explain ID because there is no proof of it. Whether the universe exists when no one is looking is Philosophy, not science.



posted on Dec, 15 2012 @ 12:38 PM
link   
reply to post by flyingfish
 


Questioning is the nature of philosophy. So what you're fundamentally saying is that we shouldn't question what science is proposing, because it causes confusion?

The following is not directed to you specifically flyingfish, but just in general.

Let me leave some science taboos here.. And anyone who says science does not have any taboos doesn't know history. There are countless of examples.







edit on 15-12-2012 by vasaga because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 15 2012 @ 12:54 PM
link   
reply to post by vasaga
 





I actually don't understand this... If two identical events produced different outcomes, would that not be a sign of randomness and chaos instead of a designer, while the same thing happening over and over would be a sign of structure?


Not really. If repeated events produce the same results then they are bound by the mindless laws of nature. These laws are unbreakable and unwavering. If the same events produce different results then it can be said that a mind might be behind it, manipulating outcomes for reasons we would probably never understand.



posted on Dec, 15 2012 @ 01:12 PM
link   
reply to post by jiggerj
 





In this reality, if I saw two mountains side by side, with one held firmly in place by gravity and the other one floating 50 feet off the ground, this would be evidence of a designer.


So you are looking for a miracle.






Of course we could say that the designer made everything to conform to the laws of the universe, but this would remove any and all evidence of the designer and leave us only with nature.


Or the designer made the laws of the universe in order to shape it.





We can't prove a perfect designer, and by his own design we can only prove what is natural.



Proof or evidence?


Atheism has taken this






And sealed it into this





Atheists are allowed to use the physical universe as evidence of their belief system.



Why?

Because they can explain how the basic mechanisms work.






Those that see evidence of design, however, are not allowed to use the designs of the universe as evidence of a Designer?






Sometimes you have to learn to think outside the box......
edit on 15-12-2012 by dusty1 because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 15 2012 @ 01:13 PM
link   
reply to post by jiggerj
 


Not just because of a mind behind it, but because we are not aware of every variable involved in such situations. A small adjustment on the motion or direction can result in a completely different outcome.



posted on Dec, 15 2012 @ 01:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by jiggerj
reply to post by vasaga
 





I actually don't understand this... If two identical events produced different outcomes, would that not be a sign of randomness and chaos instead of a designer, while the same thing happening over and over would be a sign of structure?


Not really. If repeated events produce the same results then they are bound by the mindless laws of nature. These laws are unbreakable and unwavering.
How do you know they are mindless in the first place?


Originally posted by jiggerj
If the same events produce different results then it can be said that a mind might be behind it, manipulating outcomes for reasons we would probably never understand.
So, an example would be, if we drop a cup of coffee, one time it falls down and the other time it falls up? And that would be a mind changing the laws..?



posted on Dec, 15 2012 @ 01:23 PM
link   
reply to post by vasaga
 





Questioning is the nature of philosophy. So what you're fundamentally saying is that we shouldn't question what science is proposing, because it causes confusion?


No...

Science is one thing philosophy is another.
No one can refute philosophy. Neither can one confirm it. It is purely philosophical and has no emperical evidence supporting it or opposing it.



posted on Dec, 15 2012 @ 01:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by flyingfish
No...

Science is one thing philosophy is another.
No one can refute philosophy. Neither can one confirm it. It is purely philosophical and has no emperical evidence supporting it or opposing it.
Of course. That's because philosophy precedes mathematics and science. You can't refute philosophy because to do it you'd have to use it. The scientific method was also created through philosophy.

I never understand why people say that science and philosophy are two different things. To come up with a hypothesis, you NEED to philosophize. To come up with the experiments that would validate your hypothesis you NEED to philosophize. To come up with the conclusion you NEED philosophize. Science is nothing more than a branch of philosophy and is using philosophical methods all the time.

Also, I find it weird that you say one can't confirm it. Philosophy and logic are deeply intertwined. Logic has been derived from the natural world through testing, and it has rules, just like physical laws have rules, and philosophy uses these rules to draw conclusions. So to say that philosophy has no empirical evidence is not really true. There's a reason we have fallacies. We take the methods for granted, and I'll repeat again, as long as the premises are true, and the argument is valid, the conclusion must be true.

Maybe I need to ask you this instead. What is your definition of philosophy, since it is according to you separate from science?



posted on Dec, 15 2012 @ 03:33 PM
link   
reply to post by dusty1
 





Sometimes you have to learn to think outside the box......


Thinking outside the box in no way implies jumping to conclusions. Even if weird mushrooms in the woods lined up to write 'HELLO' ; even if fire flamed in the form of racing horses; even if an oak tree gave birth to a human baby, these things don't lead to a god. They are evidence of something weird going on. They are evidence of a break in the natural order of things that we don't understand, but there is no evidence that points directly to a specific person, place, thing, or a god.



posted on Dec, 15 2012 @ 08:18 PM
link   
reply to post by jiggerj
 


They do, however, imply an intelligence, an intent. Not just a random flux, but a hand that knows what it's doing. If this intelligence is not a higher power, what would you call it? Nature cannot break without an intelligence forcing it to do so. Nature maintains itself. Miracles, should they be proven to be true miracles, are the redirection of nature in a way that should not be possible. Only actual intent can do this. What would you call it?

You say it does not point to a god. What else has the intent and the power to bend nature in such a way? Mind you, I do not defend the concept of a god. I myself support the idea of a principle, a principle that takes chaos and reorders it to create life and growth. But your statement does beg such a question.



posted on Dec, 15 2012 @ 10:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by AfterInfinity
reply to post by jiggerj
 


They do, however, imply an intelligence, an intent. Not just a random flux, but a hand that knows what it's doing.


Or a hand that DOESN'T know exactly what it's doing.
Intelligent, but not god-like. We test stuff all the time. How do we know that this universe isn't just some kid's school assignment in another dimension?



posted on Dec, 15 2012 @ 11:05 PM
link   
reply to post by jiggerj
 

Any analysis of evolution on earth in regards to this notion of the possibility of intelligent design must also begin with the possibility for intelligent design in the creation and formation of the unique earth-moon-sun relationship.

Earth Moon Sun Relationship by Superintelligent Design


Originally posted by homeslice
superintelligent design huh?


Absolutely, yes.

Here's but the most brief of introductions regarding the Earth Moon Sun relationship as of intelligent design origin, and no the strong anthropic principal doesn't render the data meaningless.


Eclipse

Squaring the Circle with the Earth and Moon (Coincidence?)


Solstice and Perihelion

Bear in mind that the moon places the earth on a perfect tilt and in perfect equillibrium balancing in favor of life and that without it's influence, the appearance of liquid water over 90% of the planet would be all but impossible and neither would the earth retains its seasonable annual relationship with the sun ie: the cycle of life on earth.


There's a LOT more to it than this which points a rather sturdy finger at intelligent design, which would make for a thread of its own but this is a start anyway.



posted on Dec, 15 2012 @ 11:10 PM
link   
reply to post by jiggerj
 


edit on 12/15/2012 by jiggerj because: No idea how this got here



posted on Dec, 15 2012 @ 11:11 PM
link   
Ie: in the early years of the formation of life on earth the moon was much closer to the earth resulting in much much more powerful tidal forces resulting in increased tectonic activity and a flow of saltwater deep inland, which would create pools of water wherein various DNA configurations could be dissolved and recombined in new ways.

Now, now that we stand here as ten fingered bipedal self aware sentient observers, it just so happens that the moon has moved to a point where it's circumference perfectly eclipses that of the sun, a phenomenon only notable or significant to an observer from earth...

thinks that make ya go hmmmm....



posted on Dec, 15 2012 @ 11:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by NewAgeMan

There's a LOT more to it than this which points a rather sturdy finger at intelligent design, which would make for a thread of its own but this is a start anyway.


All I'm saying is we need to stop pointing that finger at intelligent design until all scientific studies have concluded that something couldn't have happened naturally. If there is an Intelligent Designer, he/she/it will wait until WE have exhausted all avenues of logic.





new topics
top topics
 
14
<< 4  5  6    8  9 >>

log in

join