Intelligent Design is not creationism

[I am...]

Quote from vhehn:

in your world johnny stays ignorant forever.in the real world johnny is told what the latest evidence shows.
maybe johnny grows up and proves everyone wrong with some new theory. the key being if you back up the latest scientific conclusions with the evidence that allowed scientists to come to those conclusions johnny will have a basis to at least understand how they were arrived at and then be able to improve or refute those conclusions.

When a child goes through a shift of awareness, they come to a point in their maturation process, not by struggle, not by design, not by much processing, and not by any manner of strategies. The child merely, in an instant looks at the toys he has been playing with and simply transcends them The parents come home and the toy truck and put it away in the closet. The doll is put on the windowsill and a book is picked up instead. Who makes the change? Not anyone outside the child.

That book is the depth of your consciousness in which all things are already written. And that depth finds it's source in your heart. You enter it through forgiveness, through the process of relinquishing the world - not hating the world, not despising the world, but simply relinquishing it. You allow your time to serve you in the process of relinquishing what does not serve you any longer, and what only disturbs you peace.

Peace,

Jesus

 

[ZZZzzzzzzz]

Since I am not a creationist, who exactly are you referring to?

Now, now TK9.

You stoop to the "you are not credible because of the number of posts, blah, blah, blah."

That is pure ad hominem, and I would hope that you know it, other wise you would stay lost and moving in the fallacious circles of dogmatists.

Quote from Thunderdog:

Including the mind-numbing quackery of creationism disguised as "Intelligent Design?" So you would assign no more weight to a theory supported by a myriad of facts than you would to a flight of fancy?

Z, you are not very credible. You have more posts than anyone else here at ET and I have not once seen you admit to a mistake. Ever. Frankly, I don't trust people who are never wrong, particularly those who also need not consult any facts in arriving at their conclusions. You may think that you're clever, and equate your exchanges here to a chess master victoriously playing several opponents simultaneously. But make no mistake, that is not how it is coming across. You're not as smart as you think you are.

 

[ZZZzzzzzzz]

Since I am not a creationist, who exactly are you referring to?

Now, now TK9.

You stoop to the "you are not credible because of the number of posts, blah, blah, blah."

That is pure ad hominem, and I would hope that you know it, other wise you would stay lost and moving in the fallacious circles of dogmatists attempting to cover up the fact that their thinking is circular and without logical or factual foundation.

Quote from Thunderdog:

Including the mind-numbing quackery of creationism disguised as "Intelligent Design?" So you would assign no more weight to a theory supported by a myriad of facts than you would to a flight of fancy?

Z, you are not very credible. You have more posts than anyone else here at ET and I have not once seen you admit to a mistake. Ever. Frankly, I don't trust people who are never wrong, particularly those who also need not consult any facts in arriving at their conclusions. You may think that you're clever, and equate your exchanges here to a chess master victoriously playing several opponents simultaneously. But make no mistake, that is not how it is coming across. You're not as smart as you think you are.

 

[ZZZzzzzzzz]

Since I am not a creationist, who exactly are you referring to?

Now, now TK9.

You stoop to the "you are not credible because of the number of posts, blah, blah, blah."

That is pure ad hominem, and I would hope that you know it, other wise you would stay lost and moving in the fallacious circles of dogmatists attempting to cover up the fact that their thinking is circular and without logical or factual foundation.

Feel free to attack the argument, but as I am not putting credibility as the foundation of the argument, it can be presented by anyone.

If Miller was saying the exact things I am saying, you probably would think it was brilliant.

Classic, classic....non thinker response TK9.

Quote from Thunderdog:

Including the mind-numbing quackery of creationism disguised as "Intelligent Design?" So you would assign no more weight to a theory supported by a myriad of facts than you would to a flight of fancy?

Z, you are not very credible. You have more posts than anyone else here at ET and I have not once seen you admit to a mistake. Ever. Frankly, I don't trust people who are never wrong, particularly those who also need not consult any facts in arriving at their conclusions. You may think that you're clever, and equate your exchanges here to a chess master victoriously playing several opponents simultaneously. But make no mistake, that is not how it is coming across. You're not as smart as you think you are.

 

[I am...]

Quote from vhehn:

in your world johnny stays ignorant forever.in the real world johnny is told what the latest evidence shows.
maybe johnny grows up and proves everyone wrong with some new theory. the key being if you back up the latest scientific conclusions with the evidence that allowed scientists to come to those conclusions johnny will have a basis to at least understand how they were arrived at and then be able to improve or refute those conclusions.

When a child goes through a shift of awareness, they come to a point in their maturation process, not by struggle, not by design, not by much processing, and not by any manner of strategies. The child merely, in an instant looks at the toys he has been playing with and simply transcends them The parents come home and the toy truck and put it away in the closet. The doll is put on the windowsill and a book is picked up instead. Who makes the change? Not anyone outside the child.

That book is the depth of your consciousness in which all things are already written. And that depth finds it's source in your heart. You enter it through forgiveness, through the process of relinquishing the world - not hating the world, not despising the world, but simply relinquishing it. You allow your time to serve you in the process of relinquishing what does not serve you any longer, and what only disturbs you peace.

Seek forever and you will remain a seeker forever. In the end of all seeking, you must look into the mirror and decide to be the one who heals yourself. The only question a seeker of truth truly really need ask of him or her self is:

Would I know conflict or peace? Would I be right or happy?
Would I see the complete neutrality of events in this world as wisps of a dream being birthed and passing away?

Would I see myself whole and complete?
For as I look upon the world, I have judged myself.
And as I look upon myself, I judge the world.

This was the simple secret that I once "discovered" when I walked upon your planet. It was not about achieving some grand mystical state of consciousness. It was not about acquiring great powers that could attract the attention of thousands. It was not even about being able to manifest, although these powers may indeed often express themselves through the mind as it awakens.

It is about accepting the Truth that is true always, and being determined to allow that Truth to be the foundation from which you enjoin each and every moment of your experience.

Peace,

Jesus

 

[I am...]

Quote from ZZZzzzzzzz:

Since I am not a creationist, who exactly are you referring to?

Since you are a creator, ceaselessly creating, who exactly are you referring to?

Jesus

 

[james_bond_3rd]

Quote from ZZZzzzzzzz:

A cryptographer working for the CIA comes across some message intercepted from one terrorist to another.

He exclaims:

"I can find absolutely no pattern in this coding."

Does he conclude then that the message is the product of random ignorant chance, simply because he cannot find a pattern, or think of a way to discover a pattern? Does just throw away the message, and conclude that since he can't find a pattern, then no pattern exists?

Or does he assume that there is a pattern, but that he hasn't recognized it yet? Does he then begin to think outside of the box, and approach the problem from angles not generally applied?

Now, does science observe biological organisms going about their business, and conclude there is no pattern that they can find, and therefore conclude with scientific certainty that all the doings of biological organisms are simply random chance ignorant, unplanned, unrelated happenings?

He does if he is a poor scientist. If he is a real hack, he takes his failure to find pattern, erects an entire philosophy of natural science on the basis of his failure, and attracts people of like mind to his thinking...

A true scientist would conclude that there is no pattern or design that he can observe but that he can't rule it out either. He would not build a theory based on his failure to find a pattern. He would stick with what he knows, not what he doesn't know.

He stays objective and agnostic and continues his research...

By the way, it is you, not I that are talking about God.

I am talking about design vs. non design as being the foundation of life as we know it.

The more you talk, the more you expose your ignorance.

Although it is nearly impossible to decode a modern encription using a classical computer (quantum computer is a different matter), it is very easy to show that there are patterns in an encripted message (by a scientist, not a layman, of course).

Likewise, although it is very hard to know every detail of biological functions, any deviation from pure randomness can be detected.

You're confusing detecting a pattern with decoding. These are two different things.

 

[Thunderdog]

Quote from ZZZzzzzzzz:

You stoop to the "you are not credible because of the number of posts, blah, blah, blah."

That is pure ad hominem...

Obviously, you are suffering from an acute case of context deficiency. I hope it clears up soon.

I did not write that you lacked credibility because of your large number of posts. If you read my previous post again (or perhaps for the first time), then you will see that I wrote that you lack credibility because, for all of the many posts you have written, you have never admitted to making a single mistake in any one of them. Do you see how that works?

 

[kjkent1]

Quote from ZZZzzzzzzz:

A cryptographer working for the CIA comes across some message intercepted from one terrorist to another.

He exclaims:

"I can find absolutely no pattern in this coding."

Does he conclude then that the message is the product of random ignorant chance, simply because he cannot find a pattern, or think of a way to discover a pattern?

Or does he assume that there is a pattern, but that he hasn't recognized it yet?

Now, does science observe biological organisms going about their business, and conclude there is no pattern that hey can find, and therefore conclude that all the doings of biological organisms are simply random chance ignorant, unplanned, unrelated happenings?

He does if he is a poor scientist. If he is a real hack, he takes his failure to find pattern, erects an entire philosophy of natural science on the basis of his failure...

A true scientist would neither conclude that there is no pattern or design that he can observe but that he can't rule it out either.

He stays objective and agnostic and continues his research...

By the way, it is you, not I that are talking about God.

I am talking about design vs. non design as being the foundation of life as we know it.

A "true" scientist will say that there is a limit to our present ability to measure the uncertainty of evolutionary change. However, within the limits of our present ability to measure that change, we have determined no pattern. Furthermore, we have demonstrated, via a simple algorithm, that information gain is possible, without the introduction of any external influence other than what we currently measure as uncertainty.

Give all of the above, we currently conclude that evolutionary change occurs under suitable conditions, without the introduction of any certain influence (design).

Is it conceivable that an external influence exists? Yes, but it is presently scientifically unmeasurable, THEREFORE, until it can be measured, no external influence exists within the realm of scientific investigation.

The analogy to the above is that the number PI cannot be measured with certainty. No matter how refined the measurement becomes, no pattern of decimal accuracy has yet appeared.

So, the scientist states that PI cannot be scientifically measured with perfect accuracy, but for all conceivable practical purposes, PI is measurable within whatever limits reasonably required.

What the scientist does NOT DO, is say: "Because we cannot yet measure PI with absolute certainty, we will refrain from stating or teaching that circles exist, because it remains merely a theory."

This is exactly what you're doing, Z. You are saying because we can't exclude the possibility of a pattern in evolution with absolute certainty, that we can't teach evolution as a fact -- instead it must remain a science fiction.

In your world, circles apparently cannot exist until the pattern behind PI is absolutely excluded -- and evolution does not exist, for the same reason.

 

[I am...]

Quote from kjkent1:


Is it conceivable that an external influence exists? Yes, but it is presently scientifically unmeasurable, THEREFORE, until it can be measured, no external influence exists within the realm of scientific investigation.

No such "external" influence will be found, for it is all happening on the "inside". There is nowhere to look but within.

Jesus