Intelligent Design is not creationism

Quote from armoured saint:

Jesus H your insane LOL

privileged position in the scheme of things ?

More...

No. I would say that my willingness to listen to truth put me in a unique position...temporarily. The only difference between you and me are decisions. I was in hell. I found the way out. That's all. I say "temporarily" because all will eventually make the same kinds of decisions I made. We are all equal. We were equally insane. We are equally sane in reality. This world is insane to reality, and reality is insane to this world. So they cannot coexist. Choose one, please.

Jesus

[edit] The sounds are not a 'threat' of some future punishment. Some groups are using them this way, in my name. Rather, the sounds represent the state of mind which preexists the making of this world as a 'solution'. If it's anywhere, it's in the past. The good news is it does not get worse than this. But it does not get better without a new decision-making process. That's where I come in. The advice I gave 'saves' if it is heeded. But you save yourself.
 
Quote from armoured saint:

uhhh, what are the choices again please :confused:
More...

I'm looking at your alias. So I'll answer this way...

The choice is between defenselessness, or defenses.

The world is a defense against the truth.
The feelings that give rise to the world have no basis in reality.
They are not true. The world serves to defend against the feelings, and also to defend the feelings from the truth.


Sickness is a defense against the truth.
The truth is you cannot be hurt.
Sickness 'proves' you can be hurt.
But only the truth is true.

The truth is you are safe.
But you do not feel secure while you believe you need defenses.
Everything you defend against, you have made yourself.
Drop defenses and you will find yourself both safe and secure.

This requires you look at the world a new way. You must see it as it is...and see through it. For all the hullabaloo on this thread, most of it is an ingenious way of not looking at the world. But you must look at is square on if you wish to let it go. If you want to keep it, you will look at it every which way but the way it is. People spend their time defending the reality of this world when it would be just as easy to see the unreality of it, and let it go.

Heaven is here, now. Drop the defenses and the world will fade away, literally, from your sight. You are seeing images in your mind...a mirage. Drop defenses and heaven will rise to meet your sight.

The choice is between gratitude and ingratitude, desire or apathy, faith or faithlessness, truth or illusion, heaven or hell, forgiveness or grievances. The choice comes down to this: Who are you? Are you the Son of God, or are you something else? If you are the Son, you can't be hurt, can't die, can't change, can't lose, can't snooze. If not, anything can "happen" to you, whatever you are. Are you a saint, or are you a sinner? You cannot be both.

Can the Son be separated from the Father and his laws?
You believed he could be. The world is the effect of that. As the song goes, "We are all just visitors here, of our own device".

The choice is for separation or unity. Which is true, and which is false? Which you believe is your choice. Whatever you believe or choose does not change reality. It stands true forever. Whether you recognize it or not is your choice. To "recognize" is to remember again what was before hell intervened upon your awareness.

The choice is between defense or surrender to the truth.
The truth is deep within you, located on the other side of the sounds of hell.
Look at what you are afraid of that you may see that it is not true.
Then you may return to the truth, from whence you came.

Jesus
 
Quote from armoured saint:

Jesus H your insane LOL

privileged position in the scheme of things ?

we occupy a privileged position on this planet, maybe. any other assertion is arrogance

"pending evidence to the contrary" we should consider ourselves damn lucky monkeys :D
More...

My argument is based on considerations of possibilities, yours on assertions.

Enlighten us. How did you come to this state of certainty?

And why is it impossible that "damn lucky monkeys" hold a priviledged position in the scheme of things?
 
Quote from yip1997:

How do you prove that it is more probable than the alternative of God?

Lt 1/x -> 0 and Lt 1/y -> 0

There is no way to compare 1/x and 1/y until you know the relationship between x and y.

Do you know a function regarding the probability of existence of God? No!

It is impossible for us to understand infinity (at the current time). We understand mathematically the concept of approaching infinity but not infinity. I have never seen any scientific method of comparing infinity.

We can compare 1/x and 1/(2x) with x -> infinity because the two objects being compared has a well-known relationship.
More...
Proof that a self replicating molecule could arise by random chance is simple. The necessary base chemicals are found within the physical universe -- those materials have a proven chemical affinity for binding together. There is no physical barrier preventing the formation of a simple self replicator, except that the odds against it is very high. But, it is not impossible, because it lies within the selection set of all physical possibilities within this universe. Thus a non-zero probability, albeit vanishingly small, can be assigned.

The creator, on the other hand is considered a limitless entity, by definition. Such an organism has a selection set of infinity, because it cannot be measured by any physical means. Thus no probability can be assigned, because the denominator of the selection set is limitless, which drives the probability of the one creator's existence to zero.

The relationship between the two functions is irrelevant. The appearance of life by random chance does not depend on the existence of the creator, nor does the existence of the creator depend on the appearance of life.
 
"There is no physical barrier preventing the formation of a simple self replicator, except that the odds against it is very high."

The odds are incalculable, which make them neither high nor low.

The fictional character Mr. Spock would probably say "insufficient data to calculate the probability." I think that actually was something Mr. Spock said in one of the Star Trek episodes when Captain Kirk was asking what the odds of some situation were.

First, to say that a self replicating molecule to any degree of probability just "randomly" appeared, then began to randomly replicate on its own, by its own random energy, without any direction and plan...would require ruling out any other physical, non physical and/or any other logically possible explanation.

There is no physical known explanation for how/why a non replicating molecule would suddenly and magically begin replicating...none. More "random magic" thinking at work here...

Is it logically possible that:

1. A creator who created the universe initiated the molecule to replicate at the exact time it began to replicate.

2. A creator who created the universe programmed the molecule to replicate an an undetermined time in the future, in other words it was a planned event but not planned to occur at a specific time or space.

3. An alien from another planet in the Universe seeded the first self replicating molecule.

4. The self replicating molecule is a naturally recurring phenomena that happens according to the rules of an eternal physical universe according to all the laws of nature.

There are many, many more possibilities, none of which including your own can be ruled out to determine any probability factor.

Probability is based on a known factor, and a self replicating molecule having initiated all of life is a complete unknown. You have to know something first to say "probably not that."

Even if scientists could engineer some type of molecule, there is no evidence that there was a first replicating molecule occurring naturally, or accidentally, or as a result of seeding the planet, or as a consequence of an external Creator.

Pure speculation is one thing, assigning a probability to that speculation on the foundation of ignorance is not science, not even decent science fiction.

Flat out, there is insufficient data to reach any probability.

Logically possible, of course, but probable?

The word probable doesn't even apply....

Any attempt at assignment of a probability factor is pure speculation.

Quote from kjkent1:

Proof that a self replicating molecule could arise by random chance is simple. The necessary base chemicals are found within the physical universe -- those materials have a proven chemical affinity for binding together. There is no physical barrier preventing the formation of a simple self replicator, except that the odds against it is very high. But, it is not impossible, because it lies within the selection set of all physical possibilities within this universe. Thus a non-zero probability, albeit vanishingly small, can be assigned.

The creator, on the other hand is considered a limitless entity, by definition. Such an organism has a selection set of infinity, because it cannot be measured by any physical means. Thus no probability can be assigned, because the denominator of the selection set is limitless, which drives the probability of the one creator's existence to zero.

The relationship between the two functions is irrelevant. The appearance of life by random chance does not depend on the existence of the creator, nor does the existence of the creator depend on the appearance of life.
More...
 
Quote from ZZZzzzzzzz:

"There is no physical barrier preventing the formation of a simple self replicator, except that the odds against it is very high."

The odds are incalculable, which make them neither high nor low.

The fictional character Mr. Spock would probably say "insufficient data to calculate the probability." I think that actually was something Mr. Spock said in one of the Star Trek episodes when Captain Kirk was asking what the odds of some situation were.

First, to say that a self replicating molecule to any degree of probability just "randomly" appeared, then began to randomly replicate on its own, by its own random energy, without any direction and plan...would require ruling out any other physical, non physical and/or any other logically possible explanation.

There is no physical known explanation for how/why a non replicating molecule would suddenly and magically begin replicating...none. More "random magic" thinking at work here...

Is it logically possible that:

1. A creator who created the universe initiated the molecule to replicate at the exact time it began to replicate.

2. A creator who created the universe programmed the molecule to replicate an an undetermined time in the future, in other words it was a planned event but not planned to occur at a specific time or space.

3. An alien from another planet in the Universe seeded the first self replicating molecule.

4. The self replicating molecule is a naturally recurring phenomena that happens according to the rules of an eternal physical universe according to all the laws of nature.

There are many, many more possibilities, none of which including your own can be ruled out to determine any probability factor.

Probability is based on a known factor, and a self replicating molecule having initiated all of life is a complete unknown. You have to know something first to say "probably not that."

Even if scientists could engineer some type of molecule, there is no evidence that there was a first replicating molecule occurring naturally, or accidentally, or as a result of seeding the planet, or as a consequence of an external Creator.

Pure speculation is one thing, assigning a probability to that speculation on the foundation of ignorance is not science, not even decent science fiction.

Flat out, there is insufficient data to reach any probability.

Logically possible, of course, but probable?

The word probable doesn't even apply....

Any attempt at assignment of a probability factor is pure speculation.
More...
Rather humorous of you to use this argument. Willaim Dembski, one of the leaders of the ID movement, aserts his ability to calculate the low probability of the accidental appearance of a self-replicating molecule, as one of the lynchpins of the argument favoring intelligent design.

Now, here you are claiming that the odds of accidental life forming can't be calculated. Well, it most certainly can, and scientists on both sides of the debate routinely do so.

Examples: http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/richard_carrier/addendaB.html
 
Another link to a site replete with "scientific" opinions only...devoid of fact or evidence that relates to the issue at hand...or one that shows any method whatsoever of what would represent falsification of said opinions and calculations would be.

When will people lean to think critically and stop confusion opinions of scientists as some representation of science?

Someone presents their calculation based on incompleteness of fact and evidence and then you post a link to it as a defense of your previous claims?

Brilliant. Oh yeah, brilliant.

From your own link:

"There is still the same, single, fundamental problem with all these statistical calculations, one that I mention in my review of Foster: no one knows what the first life was."

No one knows what the first life was, so the odds are incalculable of what caused the first life.

As Mr. Spock would say:

"Insufficient data."

By the by, I don't pay attention to Dembski or any other leader or follower of any movement, ID or non ID.



Quote from kjkent1:

Rather humorous of you to use this argument. Willaim Dembski, one of the leaders of the ID movement, aserts his ability to calculate the low probability of the accidental appearance of a self-replicating molecule, as one of the lynchpins of the argument favoring intelligent design.

Now, here you are claiming that the odds of accidental life forming can't be calculated. Well, it most certainly can, and scientists on both sides of the debate routinely do so.

Examples: http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/richard_carrier/addendaB.html
More...
 
Quote from ZZZzzzzzzz:

Another link to a site replete with "scientific" opinions only...devoid of fact or evidence that relates to the issue at hand...or one that shows any method whatsoever of what would represent falsification of said opinions and calculations would be.

When will people lean to think critically and stop confusion opinions of scientists as some representation of science?

Someone presents their calculation based on incompleteness of fact and evidence and then you post a link to it as a defense of your previous claims?

Brilliant. Oh yeah, brilliant.

From your own link:

"There is still the same, single, fundamental problem with all these statistical calculations, one that I mention in my review of Foster: no one knows what the first life was."

No one knows what the first life was, so the odds are incalculable of what caused the first life.

As Mr. Spock would say:

"Insufficient data."

By the by, I don't pay attention to Dembski or any other leader or follower of any movement, ID or non ID.
More...
I agree -- no one knows what the first life was. Carrier's point is that the first life was almost certainly much simpler than the biology currently existing, and therefore that the odds of it arising by accident are much GREATER than calculated by the various persona referred to in his article.

My comments give the benefit of the doubt to the most conservative estimate of accidental life possible.

But, it doesn't matter, because the key word is POSSIBLE. Accidental development of life is possible, and therefore a probability can be assigned.

Whereas the creator, being the set of infinitity, cannot be assigned a probability.

I don't really expect you to understand. But, it's nice that you bothered to read the cited article. That's actually a fairly dramatic step forward for you. People besides yourself actually have knowledge to impart.

Welcome to the real world.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top