Does anyone else get the feeling that we are dealing with one person faking a discussion by using multiple aliases?
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
Intelligent Design is not creationism
- Thread starter Teleologist
- Start date
Does anyone else get the feeling that we are dealing with one person faking a discussion by using multiple aliases?
TraderNik wrote:
You are obviously confused. The issue isn't about proving or disproving ID. Someone here claimed that there was no evidence of ID in the natural world. I'm just trying to determine how seriously I should take their claim. Is it coming from someone that knows what evidence for ID looks like and having looked for it came up empty? Or is the "no evidence" claim coming from someone that has no idea what evidence for ID looks like and therefore wouldn't recognize it if it was right in front of their face? If it's the latter then they have no business claiming there is no evidence for ID. All they can logically claim is that since they don't know what evidence for ID looks like they haven't found any. That's different from claiming there is no evidence of ID.
...claiming that it is up to us to say how we would go about proving or disproving ID (a bizarre idea if there ever was one.
You are obviously confused. The issue isn't about proving or disproving ID. Someone here claimed that there was no evidence of ID in the natural world. I'm just trying to determine how seriously I should take their claim. Is it coming from someone that knows what evidence for ID looks like and having looked for it came up empty? Or is the "no evidence" claim coming from someone that has no idea what evidence for ID looks like and therefore wouldn't recognize it if it was right in front of their face? If it's the latter then they have no business claiming there is no evidence for ID. All they can logically claim is that since they don't know what evidence for ID looks like they haven't found any. That's different from claiming there is no evidence of ID.
Quote from Teleologist:
someone that has no idea what evidence for ID looks like and therefore wouldn't recognize it if it was right in front of their face...
I don't know - isn't it something about a goat with 17 eyes and the heavens opening up and a bunch of angels coming down and fire and brimstone?
One of you recently said something like 'It is obvious that objects in the natural world are designed'. I think it was you posting as Z. There is a small problem, though.
PROOF
I ask for the 39th time. Can someone, anyone on the ID side provide ONE SHRED of proof for ID?
At this point I don't care if it turns out to be spurious. I just want you guys to TRY to provide one scrap of evidence for this 'scientifically provable' theory you are touting like carnival hucksters
Step right up!!!
TraderNik wrote:
First of all, I never claimed ID was a theory. Second, where is the evidence of a non-teleological origin of life? Where is the evidence that only non-teleological mechanisms were behind all major evolutionary transitions?
I just want you guys to TRY to provide one scrap of evidence for this 'scientifically provable' theory you are touting like carnival hucksters.
First of all, I never claimed ID was a theory. Second, where is the evidence of a non-teleological origin of life? Where is the evidence that only non-teleological mechanisms were behind all major evolutionary transitions?
then may i refer you to this text? http://elitetrader.com/vb/showthread.php?s=&threadid=81267Quote from Teleologist:
First of all, I never claimed ID was a theory.
wrong fight again... evolutionists starting from Darwin way back are turning every stone to find an instance of demonstrably causal mutation should there be one... that wld "falsify" evolution and force a rethink, partial or total, depending... which is not by itself a problem... thats how we've moved from flat earth initial approximation to general relativity and quantum mechanics... but all such paradigm shifts require proper scientific inquiry, modelization and PROOF...otherwise i can assure you that there is no dearth of "alternative explanations and half-baked theories" aroundSecond, where is the evidence of a non-teleological origin of life? Where is the evidence that only non-teleological mechanisms were behind all major evolutionary transitions?
on the other hand, i am not aware of that many religions other than part of hard-core christianity and its hard-core islamic offspring, that have a problem with evolution theory as it is... how about a rethink?
If I were not worried about offending anyone, I'd say that I wish "intelligent design" and god-religions both would just go away so we can get real and move on...ugh.
Quote from traderNik:
PROOF
Very funny! Here we have the Designer demanding PROOF of a Designer... from other aspects of the Designer!
You have allowed yourself - as God - to formulate shapes of experience merely to experience it. And this is just another experience...another NEUTRAL experience.
Every tear you have cried, every loss that you have felt is yet only God choosing to have the experience. You have remained eternally free in each moment to choose again. And indeed, you will choose again without end. For there is not a "time" that God will cease to be. For if God could cease to be, then God is not God, for there would need to be a field of energy in which non-being could exist.
You seem to exist in just such a field...a field in which PERCEPTION rules. Only in such a field could it even seem possible that a Designer could not exist. You are free to perceive just what you choose. In your perfect freedom, you may choose to remain wholly insane. And so what?
All things that can be experienced must finally be allowed to flow without obstruction within your mind. The reality of all that you are remains utterly changeless and pure. There can be no greater joy than to arrive in each moment with nothing to be acquired, nothing to be accomplished, and nothing to be resisted. When resistance has been released, through the simple choice to release it, you will discover and know that all along, in reality, there has only been God.
Remember that your suffering has come only from the illusion that you are a separate body-mind subject to the ravages of time, the insecurities of the world, surely to become a victim of death. The whole time, in reality, you are the power by which you chose that belief!
There is no difference between God and you. How then does a God live? Any way he wants to! You can be as a gnat shouting at the universe...or you can be that universe.
It is no longer a question of what went wrong. It's not a question of "What went wrong that I am a gnat shouting at the universe?". As God, there is but one question you dwell in always:
What do I want?
Right now, you want PROOF! Excellent! Then you shall have it...unless you want PROOF there is NO Designer...in which case you will have that instead.
I chose to look upon the body-mind and live only in the question, "What do I want?" One thing I chose was to demonstrate the unreality of death.
What will you choose to demostrate? Aha! You will demonstrate that you are a gnat shouting at the universe! Excellent! It takes the power of God to PERCIEVE that. It is no less honorable than my contribution.
All depression stems from resistance, the obstruction of the flow of awareness, the attempt to limit the unlimited. Here then is another experience that you can desire. Is that what you desire?
Jesus
It would be really great if everyone could agree on the definition of the term "intelligent design," before arguing about it.
Some possible definitions for "design:"
1. Absence of chance/absolute determinism.
2. Combination of chance and determinism, weighted in favor of chance.
3. Combination of chance and determinism, weighted in favor of determinism.
4. Absence of determinism.
Now define "intelligent:"
1. Purposeful.
2. Knowing.
3. Logical.
4. Aware.
Now define "chance:"
1. Absence of determinism.
2. Absence of causality.
3. Absence of logic.
4. Something from nothing.
Now define "determinism:"
1. Absence of chance.
2. Absolute causality.
3. Absolutel logic.
4. Absence of nothing.
That's 256 different possible definitions, so far. And, I haven't even included any theological possibilities yet. Hard to successfully resolve anything about a subject with so many possible definitions.
Some possible definitions for "design:"
1. Absence of chance/absolute determinism.
2. Combination of chance and determinism, weighted in favor of chance.
3. Combination of chance and determinism, weighted in favor of determinism.
4. Absence of determinism.
Now define "intelligent:"
1. Purposeful.
2. Knowing.
3. Logical.
4. Aware.
Now define "chance:"
1. Absence of determinism.
2. Absence of causality.
3. Absence of logic.
4. Something from nothing.
Now define "determinism:"
1. Absence of chance.
2. Absolute causality.
3. Absolutel logic.
4. Absence of nothing.
That's 256 different possible definitions, so far. And, I haven't even included any theological possibilities yet. Hard to successfully resolve anything about a subject with so many possible definitions.