In support of Intelligent Design

originally posted by: AlienView
And then the main problem with "The Theory of Evolution" - It is meaningless

Maybe the real problem is that you insist on attaching meaning to something because of your own insecurities. In Anthropology for example, we study HOW the genus Homo and it's precursors have changed overtime. We don't need to attach meaning. That's the domain of philosophers.

No reason is given for why biological life exists on the Planet Earth when most of what we know about the universe and physics and the operation of the universe shows no requirement for biological life, sex or Evolution.

Again, you're the one who takes umbrage with not having an easily digested raison d'etre. It's not what science does, it doesn't give meaning. It examines how things occur and mathematically models why certain phenomenon do what they do. There's a big difference though between understanding why an object falls at a calculable rate and attributing a reason for the existence of life. And you really should get a library card or maybe take some 101 level classes at a local community college because you're conflating biological sciences with Physics and making claims about what the role of Physics is here and you don't seem to quite understand the things you're typing.

By itself Evolution is a process of unintelligent design - it is occurring, if it is occurring for no reason - And yes that fits into the paradigm of those who want meaninglessness as the root of existence.

What a crock of fecal pudding that is. There is no agenda driven paradigm for those of us who study various aspects of evolution, no impetus to maintain status quo by attributing meaninglessness to our very existence. And again, attribution of meaning is what Philosophy is for. In science we study the mechanisms of change and chart it over time. The evidence is the only thing we are concerned with and your personal quest for meaning is completely irrelevant to scientific inquiry. We don't deal with philosophical concepts. We deal in facts that can be independantly reproduced and verified. If that's too much for you to handle, perhaps a competent psychologist is necessary for you to discuss your place in the universe. Because you're making statements that stem in narcissism and aren't quite true.

Survival of the fittest you say? - Fittest for what? - So they can end up on an internet forum and repeat the same senseless
arguments over and over again for no purpose whatsoever !

Survival of the fittest is nothing more than an anachronism that the quasi religious trot out to demonstrate how little they know about the actual science they are railing against. While Darwin postulated on SotF, it didn't survive into the Modern Synthesis which has been around for roughly 75 years now. But hey... If showing your level of willful ignorance is how you feel your argument is best Presented then by all means, carry on.

So maybe we should change this debate to the theory on Unintelligent Design - The theory that no intelligence backs existence ! - The theory that stupidity and meaninglessness is at the root of all that exists

Yes, if that is what you want to prove you are making a believer out of me

Modern Evolutionary Stnthesis, no matter how loudly You protest, has nothing to do with nearly every complaint you have lodged. It's pretty sad sitting here and watching people embarrass themselves by pushing an agenda of their own while complaining about another agenda that exists nowhere outside Of Their own mind. Keep up the good work.

a reply to: peter vlar

peter vlar wrote:

What a crock of fecal pudding that is. There is no agenda driven paradigm for those of us who study various aspects of evolution, no impetus to maintain status quo by attributing meaninglessness to our very existence. And again, attribution of meaning is what Philosophy is for. In science we study the mechanisms of change and chart it over time. The evidence is the only thing we are concerned with and your personal quest for meaning is completely irrelevant to scientific inquiry. We don't deal with philosophical concepts. We deal in facts that can be independantly reproduced and verified. If that's too much for you to handle, perhaps a competent psychologist is necessary for you to discuss your place in the universe. Because you're making statements that stem in narcissism and aren't quite true.

Now let us analyze who is really dishing out the fecal pudding as you call it - something that you are apparently full of.

This post "In support of Intelligent Design" was listed in the "origins and creationism" section - NOT IN THE SCIENCE SECTION.

And the fact that your limited intelligence is not capable of understanding even the meaning of the word philosophy, let
alone capable of grasping philosophical concepts shows your mental deficiency - but as you would say even in evolution there are a lot mistakes before there is progress - but then again what is progress? - You have no idea do you? - After all science does not really define progress - so why bother? Evolution fails again.

And why do you bother? - Who is the one who is really insecure? - Who is the one that fears meaning the most? - You are the
one who fears meaning the most because you have none! - You are the one who needs the psychologist - You are the one who
keeps spouting out the same BS over and over again, theories everyone is aware of, in your attempt to maintain your insecure need for a meaningless paradigm of existence - Afraid that Evolution has already bypassed you and made yon
an anachronism.


"In 1996, mere months before his death, the great Carl Sagan — cosmic sage, voracious reader, hopeless romantic — explored the relationship between the scientific and the spiritual in The Demon-Haunted World: Science as a Candle in the Dark (public library). He writes:

"“Spirit” comes from the Latin word “to breathe.” What we breathe is air, which is certainly matter, however thin. Despite usage to the contrary, there is no necessary implication in the word “spiritual” that we are talking of anything other than matter (including the matter of which the brain is made), or anything outside the realm of science. On occasion, I will feel free to use the word. Science is not only compatible with spirituality; it is a profound source of spirituality. When we recognize our place in an immensity of light years and in the passage of ages, when we grasp the intricacy, beauty and subtlety of life, then that soaring feeling, that sense of elation and humility combined, is surely spiritual. So are our emotions in the presence of great art or music or literature, or of acts of exemplary selfless courage such as those of Mohandas Gandhi or Martin Luther King Jr. The notion that science and spirituality are somehow mutually exclusive does a disservice to both".

"Nearly two decades after The Demon-Haunted World, Sagan’s son, Dorion, made a similar and similarly eloquent case for why science and philosophy need each other."

Quote source:
www.brainpickings.org...

Carl Edward Sagan (/ˈseɪɡən/; November 9, 1934 – December 20, 1996) was an American astronomer, cosmologist, astrophysicist, astrobiologist, author, science popularizer, and science communicator in astronomy and other natural sciences. He is best known for his contributions to the scientific research of extraterrestrial life, including experimental demonstration of the production of amino acids from basic chemicals by radiation. Sagan assembled the first physical messages sent into space: the Pioneer plaque and the Voyager Golden Record, universal messages that could potentially be understood by any extraterrestrial intelligence that might find them. Sagan argued the now accepted hypothesis that the high surface temperatures of Venus can be attributed to and calculated using the greenhouse effect.[2]

en.wikipedia.org...




“Imagination is more important than knowledge. For knowledge is limited to all we now know and understand, while imagination embraces the entire world, and all there ever will be to know and understand.”
― Albert Einstein

"Every one who is seriously involved in the pursuit of science becomes convinced that a spirit is manifest in the laws of the Universe-a spirit vastly superior to that of man, and one in the face of which we with our modest powers must feel humble.

The scientists’ religious feeling takes the form of a rapturous amazement at the harmony of natural law, which reveals an intelligence of such superiority that, compared with it, all the systematic thinking and acting of human beings is an utterly insignificant reflection."

– Albert Einstein


"It is clear that science too rests on a faith; there is no science ‘without presuppositions"

- Friedrich Nietzsche

originally posted by: AlienView
This post "In support of Intelligent Design" was listed in the "origins and creationism" section - NOT IN THE SCIENCE SECTION.

I know you didn't answer the OP however did you read it?
I was asking for real explanations to things about our origins which may not fit into the theories we have.

Peter Vlar was one of the very few who actually answered my questions, trying to say that his scientific opinions have no merit in the discussion is completely incorrect.

If anything putting up a bunch of quotes of well known atheists to show that spirituality and science can work together is misleading. '___' is probably one of the most obvious cases that science can used to create a sense of spirituality. (I guess I can't mention certain chemicals)

Derren Brown was able to convince an atheist to see god. He of course explained it away as a trick and the atheist returned to rational thought.

The sense of spirituality we have can be examined and explained with science.
I'm not sure anyone is disputing that.

I will agree that at this stage in Human's so-called evolution Intelligent Design is not relevant for most - It surpasses the comprehension and awareness of a species that likes to consider itself as intelligent.

Intelligence is a relative concept - If even some of the UFOs appearing to move as if guided by intelligence are actually
controlled by an intelligent species Human's ask why do they not make direct contact - The answer is these beings do not
consider man to be an intelligent species - they are correct - Man's stupidity far outweighs his intelligent and his Intelligence
lacking any meaningful design is very questionable

I will give two more quotes and then unsubscribe from this post as I'm tired of feeding intelligence into an empty void
or as a contributor to this apparently 'red-flag' topic more appealing to troll like answers than intelligence and generating
what a myopic poster called ' fecal pudding' - I will let him continue to wade in it - I will not



“Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity; and I'm not sure about the universe.”
― Albert Einstein


“When you stare into the abyss the abyss stares back at you.”
― Friedrich Nietzsche

a reply to: logicsoda
I see you really do have a reading and understanding problem. Sorry but I am not here to make you believe anything, in fact your believe is irrelevant. What I said and to all your questions was answered on my other posts in this thread. If your to blind to it and to understand what I said, and I admit I could have made it clearer, but that is pointless as you may have a handicap.

But I suppose I will take a few minutes to try again even though your quite obviously annoying and obtuse on purpose.

I was addressing your claim that there is somehow more proof for intelligent design than for random change in asking you for proof, which you provided none.

This whole world is proof of that. What is it my fault your ignorance blinds you to your stupidity and proof of that. Take five minutes look at everything including what you said, and it will become clear that its all just improptu nonesense balanced on some haphazardus crap.

No. I quote what you said and addressed it accordingly. You said that there was more proof for haphazard design than for intelligent design, so I was asking you for the proof that you are describing--the proof of haphazard design. The proof that you said those things is in your own posts.

Read my above post, like I said, look at the world and if you do not see the half assed haphazard in all that or even in the minute details. Then you were born yesterday, a fool, or just wasting my time for some reason.

Um, not at all. I was addressing the points that you were making about there being "proof" for design, whether it be haphazard or no.

Again this whole world sits on a haphazardus design, I mean the countless comings and goings of its civilizations of various humans is more then proff enuph for that. In fact all the things you use and even will use from daily life to everything is all based on designs haphazardus or not, the prof is litterally around you.

What are you some sort of religious? Or is science your religion?

Elaborate on what you mean, please.

I could. But I choose not to. But again, its quite obvious that perfections are a myth.

I'm not entirely sure as to whether or not I agree with you on "anywhere else", but so far as we understand perfection in nature... it doesn't seem that it exists, no.

Duh! But again, its obvious.

How is it highly likely AT ALL? We have no evidence of other species elsewhere in the universe... so please explain.

You dont. But again, your opinion and believes are irrelevant. However I do and have a much broader scope on that then you, and I said there is no evidence of it anywere in the universe, in fact there is no evidence of it here on earth.

But that may be the problem, were doing to broad out here. Were looking at the ocean when when talking to frogs in a pond. Now here is a question, were on your world in everyday life or in anything you know is there something which just spontaneously happens and is not brought up or derived from something else? In anything from plans to make a sandwich to DNA to everything else around you speaks of some sort of intelligent design, but more so, it speaks of haphazardus half assed design.

You said that we were all created in "his image", so I was asking if children born with chronic illnesses, etc... were part of his image (the creator/intelligence/whatever you referring to as being "he").

You do have a reading issue. I answer that pages back. The answer is YES. Children with chronic illness, etc, were part of his or it or she or whatever image that is on a higher plane or above this plane of existence. As above and so below right?

You may be religious or something but you have a hard time grasping such a simple concept. If so then maybe you assume that even the GODs or GOD will have any say in the matter. I seriously doubt that. After all they contended against humans stupidity in vain did they not? It is not in there power to be above misery. Some even revel in it in fact.

How are you pretty sure about that?

I have my rhymes and reasons. I am pretty dam sure of that. That whole quote "in his image" from the bible or even "as above and so below" Well its sort of a mistranslation, think of a fractal image, it may be something on a higher level but it still mirrors the sum of its parts as a whole.

So ya dude who is not good at grasping words on a screen. Those two phrases do not quite mean what you think it may mean, but even that to is represented on a whole. Because

You're making an awful lot of assumptions.

Your the one asking why do all these terrible things exist if there is some sort of design. I am merely saying that the fact that it exisists if proof that yes there may be a design, and in that design your pain and misery in fact all of humanities pain and misery is of no consequence to anything that would be on a higher level.

Does the hammer worry about what the nail is thinking. Do cooks worry about the eggs there breaking when there making a cake? You are the one making a ton of assumptions when you seek proof for something which there really in this world right here and now there is no proof of, when humans breed dogs for hunting or guarding in ages past, did they worry about the ones that had a bit of a gimp or were a bit unsuited for there purposes, or how about domesticated pigs and chickens, or any other animal?

You see that whole as above and so below can be used inverse to show you how things are on a higher plane, all you have to do is look around at your world, and apply that to the higher realms, because it would be mirrored there, in some form or fashion after all the overall image is the same as in one begets the other like the father like the son, or mother and daughter. In a fractal picture after all the smallest detail is shown and again mirrored on the highest detail as well.

Do not make me write words again on this thread, I think this is the 3rd time I responded to your posts, and 3 is 2 times to much, next time maybe you should think a little about it yourself before you make others write explanations for you. It is quite annoying...MMM! K!

originally posted by: logicsoda

originally posted by: Raggedyman

originally posted by: logicsoda

originally posted by: charlyv
You cannot counter-point a religious based statement with a science based statement. It is like saying "Red is my favorite color, what is yours?" and the reply is "8".

Not really. If the religious-based statement is a fact claim then it of course can be countered with a scientific response.

Religious person: "Women were made from the rib of a man as it is said in the Holy Bible."
Scientific person: "False. The process of how 'women' were created is much more complex than that. Here's what science shows thus far...."

Scientific person "false. The process of how...science shows thus far.....what

You left it blank, nothing, why
It's because that is all you have got, nothing, as stupid as a rib sounds it's more than nothing, the nothing science has got, nothing at all

Update the ats library with, evolution has no evidence, still

The evidence for evolution is overwhelming...

The so-called "evidence" used to sell/market/promote evolutionary philosophies is overwhelmingly deceptive. I have difficulty ignoring or staying ignorant about these deceptions that look very clearly deliberate to me after investigating the details such as the ones I pointed out in my last comment in this thread.

A comment I have gotten no response to (regarding the issues I raised, not more attacks on my character telling me and others here everything I'm doing wrong according to the one 'replying' or anyone I'm pointing towards that is saying something that people here don't want to acknowledge, think about or discuss in any kind of rational manner without the blatant demonstration of being a victim of propaganda from philosophical naturalists or Roman Catholics like Kenneth Miller and his fusion story; that clique). Even after being asked to use my own words; implying the video wasn't good enough to respond to cause I didn't use my own words. But seeing that I never got a response either when I did use my own words, my suspicions that the complaints about me using a video were just meant to facilitate in dismissal, keep people at the surface of things and never get to the bottem of the matter, the details. Cause they show their stories to be false and deliberately keeping people from either hearing or thinking about the details I mentioned (keeping them ignorant and in the dark).

ATS is so extremely predictable. An interesting comment is extremely rare. Just the same 'on the surface-argumentation' routine over and over by conditioned and indoctrinated (by the system of things and the spirit of the world) people. Almost always on the surface of things with a superficial view.

This behaviour is conditioned and further encouraged so that people can not gain any understanding.

Relationship to Knowledge and Wisdom. Understanding must be based on knowledge, and it works with knowledge, though it is itself more than mere knowledge. The extent and worth of one’s understanding is measurably affected by the quantity and quality of one’s knowledge. Knowledge is acquaintance with facts,...
The “understanding heart is one that searches for knowledge”; it is not satisfied with a mere superficial view but seeks to get the full picture. (Pr 15:14) Knowledge must become ‘pleasant to one’s very soul’ if discernment is to safeguard one from perversion and deception.—Pr 2:10, 11; 18:15; see KNOWLEDGE.

Oh, the one who started this thread and opened up the topic of the chromosome #2 fusion story never talked about that topic either anymore. I guess suddenly it wasn't that interesting anymore for anyone here as soon as these types of details come to the surface of the discussion. Of course, the OP never implied anything unlike others regarding me having to use my own words first (wasting time on things that won't be responded to in any rational manner anyway, anyone who wants to really know more about the topic before making assumptions as to who and whose stories to trust as being factual/true/correct, could have already watched the videos, or the specific video in question about Kenneth Miller's e-mail correspondence with Dr. Tomkins; mind you, the facts/realities discussed are not devalued or made of less importance because I mentioned the term "e-mail correspondence"; it also doesn't matter who is mentioning them, they remain the same and the logical issues they cause for Kenneth Miller's fusion myth remain; people can attack me or Dr. Tomkins as much as they like, they won't go away and they demonstrate the game Kenneth Miller and his clique and victims are playing; leaving out the facts and details that demonstrate that his myth is far from plausible, it's just nonsense backed up by arguments from ignorance and fantasy while intentionally keeping people in the dark and actively promoting ignorance, apathy and agnosticism* regarding these details and facts). * = actually the agnostic philosophy of vagueness (expressed by Pontius Pilatus' cynical question "What is Truth?", as if you can't figure out the facts/truths/certainties/realities of the matter anyway) comes into play here again.

I'm still diving into the 1st topic the OP raised. I'm not staying on the surface and hop to the next thing like a water skipper or pond skater.

I guess my biggest question would be (coming back to the OP), why should I ignore all these deliberate deceptions and behaviour of the victims of this deception matching up perfectly with what I've been taught about propaganda and what I've learned myself over the years about propaganda and marketing (of any kind of product, including evolutionary philosophies)? Why can't we discuss that for a change instead of just the illogical deceptive unreasonable deliberately twisting argumentation routine (including half-truths and keeping people in the dark regarding the remainder that's important to know or consider) that I have such issues with?

It's sort of one question or me thinking to myself out loud (the OP implied that that was sort of what he meant for us to do in this thread, not starting a debate).

Or to phrase it slightly differently (or focus on one specific case), why does Kenneth Miller not bring up any of the facts (and logical conclusions one can draw from them by induction) discussed in my comment at the top of page 6 in any of his presentations regarding his chromosome #2 fusion myth (false story); yet he does acknowledge some of them in private e-mail correspondence with Dr. Tomkins (and probably on other occasions as well if someone else would bring them up cause by now they are well established facts in the sciences, possibly making up excuses why they're not an issue for his myth when challenged with them, depending on who's bringing them up)?

This time the question is phrased rhetorical since I've already given plenty of clues as to why he might be doing that. But it's allright for anyone here to provide an alternative explanation and try to make it sound logical. That still won't change the facts though, and most likely also not my suspicions regarding a well trained Roman Catholic looking after his career, finances and lifetime investment in a partly based on mythology and philosophy degree+education, the part he made his career with and secured his finances and future with. Just trying to remind people who are in love with a particular argument and way of thinking when this topic comes up that there is no so-called "(science or scientific) conspiracy" needed for false information to be spread and accepted by the so-called "scientific community" (which is a bit of a vague concept to begin with, so I won't elaborate cause I'm drifting away from my question).